Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Geoff


1. God seekers go public

Comment #179462 by Geoff on May 13, 2008 at 9:35 am

anna, I suggest you start your new drug regime with caffeine and alcohol.

Have an Irish coffee.

2. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179286 by Geoff on May 13, 2008 at 3:56 am

47. Comment #179233 by AllanW


It's waaaaaay past time;

Teratornis! Paging Teratornis! Your prescence is requested on a thread to do with oil prices! Teratornis! Oh! wherefore art thou, Teratornis?


Has he run out of gas?

3. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178951 by Geoff on May 12, 2008 at 9:45 am

193. Comment #178914 by irate_atheist

'argumentum ad mistakum'


"argumentum ad erratum"?

4. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178949 by Geoff on May 12, 2008 at 9:43 am

94. Comment #178693 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008


Popping briefly back to page 2...


Isn't that what the Jesuits used to say? Sounds like a very "rational" project! The premise of course is that atheism is the default "mechanism". Gradgrind would be proud of you. "Let's set up schools where children will be exposed to facts, pure and simple. We will have to careful of the reading material we admit onto the shelves! Encyclopedias and text-books with spadefuls of information. Fiction which depicts kids acceding to glory in sport and setting an example of achievement and supremacy. But at all costs we must keep them from reading the kind of fantasy that might encourage them to feel deep down that there might be more to existence than can be accounted for by the empirical sciences. No Lord of the Rings or anything of that ilk, unless it be heavily anotated by scholars who will be able to explain away any longings that such literature might awaken!


Not at all: quite the opposite in fact.

As long as they are taught to distinguish between fact and fiction.

I love LOTR, but I don't waste much time arguing that while Anduril, Lothlorien & Rivendell undoubtedly exist, the rings of power are metaphorical.

Your book is a poorly written collection of Bronze age myths, stories and superstitions, with less relevance to real life than Aesop's fables.

5. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #178253 by Geoff on May 11, 2008 at 3:07 am

The usual garbage.

If he cannot make the distinction between false religion and true Christianity, it is possible that this is the fault of the Christian church more than his fault...

...He doesn't even deign to consider the Christian God...



and "fulfilled prophecies"? WTF? That guy is a danger to himself and others.

Thanks for that Paula; you just wasted 10 minutes of my time with it!

;)

6. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #178044 by Geoff on May 10, 2008 at 10:38 am

I think something similar has already been proposed, but for Kent Hovind instead:

Hovind Factor = (X s i p) x (m 1)

where:

Belief in scripture - "X"
0 - No doctrinal belief required
1 - Metaphorical use of Biblical/Qu'ranic quotation
2 - Belief in scripture as the infallible word of God. Timeless, inerrant and absolute. (AiG/The flud etc.)

Scientific Illiteracy - "s"
0 - Full understanding of detailed, advanced scientific principles
1 - Overall grasp of principles with some understanding of specific area being discussed
2 - Vague understanding of general principle but with poor grasp of many details
3 - No understanding or knowledge of area being discussed
4 - Rejection of basic scientific facts/laws/robust theories and/or denial of any evidence that contradicts scripture
5 - Robert Byers (Extreme, moronic and puerile level of 4 above)

The idiocy scale - "i"
0 - no discernible stupidity
1 - slightly silly, but understandable
2 - foolish
3 - daft
4 - rather funny in a slightly worrying sort of way
5 - very funny in a very worrying way
6 - scary stuff
7 - very scary
8 - unlikely to be accepted by anyone with more than two functioning neurons
9 - Moronic. Stark-bollock-naked, off-the-wall, wing-nut
10 - Kirk Cameron or VenomFangX

Paradox - "p"
0 = Statement is logical and self-consistent
1 = Statement acknowledges slight flaw in internal logic but glosses over it with babble.
2 = Statement relies on an assumed divine intervention to explain self contradiction.
3 = Self contradiction invalidates statement completely, and is left unaddressed.

and

Mendacity - "m"
0 - Total honesty
1 - Statement maker knows they are telling enough of a porkie to try to mislead a generally credulous audience
2 - Statement maker knows they are lying enough to try to mislead an educated audience, or they are repeating a lie that they have previously been corrected on.
3 - Whopper! (including plagiarism)
4 - Complete, burn-in-Hell, perjury grade, super-lie - for example, one that is strategically designed to mislead authorities or the general public (e.g. as witnessed in the Dover trial and Expelled).

Using this formula, a completely honest statement of scientific merit would score a Hovind Factor of zero.

The maximum Hovind Factor, HFmax, is a completely insane statement which contradicts all scientific evidence but adheres totally to religious doctrine and which the person making the claim knows to be untrue - while at the same time the statement also completely contradicts itself - would score (2 5 10 3) x (4 1) = 100.


EDIT: formula should have "plus" signs inside the brackets!)

7. Justice In The Brain: Equity And Efficiency Are Encoded Differently

Comment #178005 by Geoff on May 10, 2008 at 8:20 am

But there wasn't an option to ask god which option they should choose! How could they possibly make a moral judgement without their scripture to help them?

[/sarcasm]

Interesting study, though.

8. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #177945 by Geoff on May 10, 2008 at 3:04 am

The BBQ sounds good, but as evil atheists, shouldn't we be roasting babies and virgins instead?

I can probably find some babies to bring, but the virgins may be more elusive...

9. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176401 by Geoff on May 7, 2008 at 8:45 am

Seeker, I'd just like to make one last, probably futile, effort to address your profound misunderstanding of radiometric dating.

Different radioactive elements have different half-lives. You were provided a link to a table earlier showing a sample of some of them (there are many, many more).

Because they all have such different half-lives, they are all used to measure different age ranges.

As an analogy, think of measuring different distances. Imagine you are given a micrometer, a yardstick, a laser rangefinder and a telescope.

Which of those would you choose to measure the distance to Alpha Centauri, the thickness of a wire, the length of your desk and the height of a skyscraper?

The reason why 14C is not used for dating dinosaur fossils is the same reason you wouldn't use the micrometer to measure the height of the skyscraper.

EDIT: typo.

10. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176156 by Geoff on May 6, 2008 at 5:35 pm

11. Regulating Evolution: How Gene Switches Make Life

Comment #176151 by Geoff on May 6, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I don't see much new in this, unless I'm missing something (which wouldn't be the first time).

Cancer researchers, for example, have been studying this concept for years. It seems to me simply an extension of the "Hox" gene concept, which we've known about since the early 80's, and of Pax6 genes (responsible for eye development), known since the mid-90's.

12. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #176144 by Geoff on May 6, 2008 at 5:04 pm

"The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one"...he said.

But still they come.

13. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #176140 by Geoff on May 6, 2008 at 4:58 pm

He's exactly the right kind of guy to be up there "promoting the public understanding of science".

Popularising? Yeah, why not? He clearly knows his stuff, but can put it across in a way that not only attracts funding, but attracts people to science.

And he has my accent, which is another plus.

Well done Brian Cox.

14. The emerging moral psychology

Comment #175592 by Geoff on May 5, 2008 at 4:48 pm

8. Comment #175569 by Cartomancer

Lets do a little study to see whether philosophy or science can help people to lead more moral lives.

Find two identical deserted islands. Strand a group of scientifically illiterate philosophers on one of them with five works of ethical philosophy. Strand a group of philosophically illiterate scientists on the other with five works of cognitive psychology. Check back at regular intervals to observe the moral progress or decline. First island to achieve a perfectly harmonious, maximally happy and productive society wins.


Um. Not sure how long the philosophers would survive...meanwhile the scientists have built a boat and reached the mainland!

15. Neanderthals were separate species, new study finds

Comment #175484 by Geoff on May 5, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Mitochondrial DNA studies have pretty much established that they were separate species to Homo sapiens.

16. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175466 by Geoff on May 5, 2008 at 1:23 pm

70. Comment #175459 by clearthinker


This is the best and most stimulating article I have read on this website. Congratulations to Sam Harris. The question is what can be done about it?



I think this idea is certainly a start:

The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it.


Having said that, the same should be applied to all religions. For too long they've had an effective immunity from criticism. As Richard says in TGD, criticism that would seem perfectly normal, acceptable and innocuous if it were aimed at, say, a film, a political party or a restaurant, suddenly becomes deeply offensive when aimed at any religion.

17. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175455 by Geoff on May 5, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Done all four.

I agree with most of the comments above, especially the one about "place of orgin" (rod? I forget). The one about the 3 sectors of the US Govt., for example, had to be a "don't know".

Frequent use of the word "many", too, which I often found unclear.

Interesting, though.

Carto: about those "blatantly obvious" questions; remember it's also aimed at theists. If they can believe the Genesis stories, surely they can believe that buildings in America are 4000 years old, or that Bill Gates uses a computer?

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175004 by Geoff on May 4, 2008 at 5:14 am

6127. Comment #174992 by epeeist

I have been musing on the state of Christianity in the UK. My thoughts, completely personal opinions with little evidence to back it up.

The CofE seems to be dying gradually. From what I can gather its regular members are getting older (http://www.whychurch.org.uk/age.php) and the number actually attending is getting smaller (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1529106/Migrants-fill-empty-pews-as-Britons-lose-faith.html)


I can certainly back that up with my own, admittedly anecdotal, experiences of my local churches (not all that far from your neck of the woods!).

"Traditional" churches, whether CofE or RC, in Wigan are virtually empty, but there is one (called "Today's Community Church") that is recruiting massively (and largely targeting the younger demographic). It's a "Happy-Clappy", Alpha Course type, and they have adverts on the sides of buses, billboard posters, their own "media bus", youth club activities; all that sort of stuff.

Mind you, I get the distinct impression that their retention rate isn't very good.

19. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174999 by Geoff on May 4, 2008 at 4:55 am

74. Comment #174724 by Dr Benway

We all need to do our part to keep drinking beer at this oasis.


typo fixed...

;)

20. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174562 by Geoff on May 2, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Some of us just go one pixie further.

21. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173986 by Geoff on May 1, 2008 at 12:08 pm

249. Comment #173722 by al-rawandi

They cannot be better than:

Richard Matheson's I am Legend
John Wynham's The Day of the Triffids

Those are too good, too good I say!


Two of my favourite books! The Omega Man was a good film, too, in contrast with the recent Will Smith effort, which wasn't!

22. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173630 by Geoff on May 1, 2008 at 2:09 am

Steve, I hope you reconsider, but if not, I shall miss you.

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173624 by Geoff on May 1, 2008 at 1:53 am

5887. Comment #173415 by DickDawkins

I'm not familiar with his body of work other than God Delusion, which in my opinion was a very poorly written book. Gave it a chance didn't get past the first few pages, maybe I should give it a second chance and try to read it.


Just caught up on last night's chit-chat, and I'm surprised nobody commented on the above.

24. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173254 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm

seeker_of_truth is the one needing the Calilassea dating service - I see no reason to suspect him of being another wooter clone.

In the meantime, here's quite a good resource:

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

25. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173122 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 11:49 am

And, back sort of 'on-topic' no-one seems to have commented on the delightful intermingling of the two types of "dating" under discussion.

Congrats al & anna! Live long and prosper!

26. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173120 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 11:46 am

Somewhat of a digression, but I just wanted to share this post by "alltruism" on the fora:

[Attenborough]

Watch now as the Calilasseia stalks its prey....moving quietly through the grassy plains of the Forum Index, crawling through the Topics index...yes...he's spotted the prey, who seems to have somehow become detached from his flock and is all alone, unfamiliar with the plains of reason that he has wondered into.

Look - there he goes! See how the Calilasseia instantly incapacitates the prey - a moment of savagery..and then it's all over! The Calilasseia consumes its prey on the spot..look at the meticulous efficiency, leaving not a morsel for the other creatures of the plains of reason. They'll have to hope more prey find their way into the plains during the brief moments when the Calilasseia returns to its lair to sleep. Soon, all that remains of the prey is a few shattered bones, bleaching under the blazing sun of rational thought. Incredible!

[/Attenborough]

27. Fleabytes

Comment #173108 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 11:06 am

7719. Comment #173044 by Richard Morgan

Well, he can't mean me; I'm neither brilliant nor anguished.



7716. Comment #172744 by Philip1978

Jesus dies for original sin...


Don't you mean: "Jesus spent a weekend dead..."?

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173077 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 10:04 am

Frankus:

try this, if you can find it:

http://www.cotleighbrewery.com/viewspecial.php?&dx=1&ob=3&id=7

29. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173062 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 9:40 am

1750. Comment #172158 by TheTruthID

The Evolutionary based books I have read, in which I have on me are:

-What Evolution Is (Ernst Mayr)
-The Evolutionists (Richard Morris)
-At The Water's Edge (Carl Zimmer)
In addition to articles and papers.


Not a bad start. I've read the Mayr book, and found it quite well written, although (predictably, for this website!) I think he's wrong about selection operating at the level of the phenotype, rather than the gene. Phenotypes do not replicate: genes do.

It's worth reading RD's "The Selfish Gene" after that one, for a comparison of their arguments. See which convinces you.

I haven't read Morris's book, although I have read and enjoyed his "Time's arrows".

Zimmer's book is one I've been meaning to get round to for some time (it was recommended to me by a friend), but: "so many books, so little time"! I'd be interested in your views on it (and the others, of course).

30. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #173034 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 8:56 am

"Right turn, Clyde."

31. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173030 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 8:51 am

114. Comment #172951 by PLAYBALL

Never. Just guilty.

I thought the priest in their robes were creepy and they always had bad breath. I thought something really bad might happen to me because I never felt good at church, just creeped out.

I used to look at Jesus up there nailed to the cross and thought, "wow if that happened to him, what's going to happen to me?"


An excellent excuse to post this clip again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk

32. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172240 by Geoff on April 29, 2008 at 11:26 am

31. Comment #172207 by Jolly Bloger

Can I just say I'm a little confused and disappointed that there was no mention (at least no obvious announcement) of Richard's talk at UBC on this site?


Top left corner of this page:
"Upcoming events"


Edit: oops, sorry anna!

(note to self: read all posts before responding!)

33. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #172011 by Geoff on April 29, 2008 at 6:09 am

47. Comment #171528 by Sargeist

Tomorrow's Daily Mail headline:

"Monkeys stealing hard working fishermen's jobs"


More headlines:

Evidence that ape was responsible for Di's death?

Apes are typical "Pisces"?

Immigrant apes refuse to learn the etiquette of fishing?

Still no Government action to stop killer ape rampage?

34. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171986 by Geoff on April 29, 2008 at 4:20 am

Bonzai, you were looking for biomorphs earlier:

http://physics.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/

I've mentioned this book before (I think Steve has it, too):

"Nature's Numbers" by Ian Stewart
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Natures-Numbers-Discovering-Pattern-Universe/dp/0753805308

Covers a lot of what's been discussed recently including animal gaits (coupled oscillators) and Fibonacci numbers. Good read.

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171973 by Geoff on April 29, 2008 at 3:54 am

5572. Comment #171701 by MPhil on April 28, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Geoff,

about 7.000 Euros new (in Germany). Significantly more than 5.000 USD at the current rate of exchange - but still only about half to 2/3 of the price of anything comparable.


Apologies; I wasn't clear. I meant £5,000 (I'm a Brit!)

I used to have a lovely black & gold Norton Commando in my younger days.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171699 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 5:32 pm

Mike:

Far less expensive than anything in the ballpark


About 5 grand?

Falcon: I was interested in your comments about the US flag. Do you see a difference between a lack of respect for the flag, and a lack of respect for pictures of Mohammed?

About the rest of the pages I've just caught up with: what a strange period! Mind you, did anyone notice the difference between Dick's early posts and his more recent ones? Perhaps it's more apparent reading them all at once, as I did?

Carto: Love the new avatar!

37. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171547 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 2:52 pm

1623. Comment #171502 by jac12358:


This video is quite good as an easy explanation for those people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHkMHRDAOlA

All Nick Gisburne's are good: he's the guy who did the evolving clock.

38. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171523 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Ah, the absolute morality of religion; where would we be without it?

I'd say more, but really, only someone like Diacanu could properly do it justice.

39. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170984 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 8:04 am

1541. Comment #170667 by TheTruthID on April 27, 2008 at 10:02 pm


Regarding Dawkins eye lecture. Let's say there was a population of a certain type of pin-eyed creatures. In breeding, a speciman was born with a mutation in which the skin around it's eye protruded by 1%. Now, this one speciman would need to survive in order to reproduce. The mutation was so small that it really did not give much of an advantage over the other like specimans.


It's important to realise that even a very slight, almost unnoticeable, improvement can still be selected for. Imagine, say, in very dim light, there are two prey (or predator) animals, one that sees slightly better than the other. It's easy then to imagine that the better one will see a predator (or prey) slightly sooner than the other, and escape (or feed), at the expense of the other.


There would then be a period of time where the offspring, generations down the line, of this one speciman resulted in an identical mutation on the same exact gene resulting in a little bigger protrusion.


Amongst lots of other mutations elsewhere in the genome, yes, although it's misleading to think of one single gene in this case. I'll have to obversimplify a little here, but for example, it could be a gene that increases the number of rods or cones in the retina, or improves the lens, or the focussing ability of the muscles, or the size of the eye...lots of factors involved, including Pax "control genes" (gets complicated if we go into too much detail).


Over many years the result would be a population of specimans/creatures with a more complex and developed eye. The result of many exactly the same mutations on the same exact genes utilizing natural selection for a now fully involved eye for survival. Please clarify, correct or confirm.

Not the same exact genes, as I've shown above.

A more detailed explanation would run to pages and pages, but there are lots of websites you can find if you want a truly detailed description.

PZ Meyers has a good article, but it can be quite heavy going in places:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php

40. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170808 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 3:32 am

Wow, this has moved on overnight!

Haven't got long; posting from work!

Adam, thanks for your apology, unexpected, but very welcome.

I'll just pick on Brian, for now - more considered responses later tonight.

1455. Comment #170537 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm

For example, Mark Twain was a pseudonym of Samuel Clements I believe. :)


Your belief is not suppported by the evidence...

;)

41. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170393 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm

One more, then I'm off to bed, it's 2 am here!

1306. Comment #170367 by smellhound


Sorry, as I understand ID, or at least the kind that right now I will accept as a scientific theory



that's not even close to being a scientific theory, it's not even a hypothesis, it barely qualifies as a conjecture. look up those 3 terms as they're used in science.

is that something or someone must have intervened at the start in order get the process moving.


again, you need to understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has nothing to do with how life got started, which is (probably) more the province of chemistry.


Whether it was God or something else, I don't think can be explained at this point. I think of ID as more of a rejection of saying that Darwin is enough.


Precisely. All creationism (or ID if you prefer; they're exactly the same thing, just dressed up slightly differently) does is try (unsuccessfully) to poke holes in the ToE, without proposing anything remotely capable of replacing it.


Goodnight, all!

42. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170380 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:43 pm

1305. Comment #170366 by smellhound


Sorry, need to clarify. I am not blaming Darwin for eugenics. In fact, I am not blaming Darwin for anything. I bring up the idea of no source of morality, and ultimately no right and wrong from what one of the interviewees on Ben Stein's movie said.
To clarify about why eugenics is Darwinian. We all have the biologically programmed goal to survive and breed. We will be better able to survive and thrive as individuals in a society if we don't have to care for the weak and the sick. Maybe eugenics isn't even the right term, but there certainly is a darwinian justification for removing the weak from the herd so each individual in the herd doesnt have to waste its time caring for it.


No. If anything, that would be species selection, which has been shown to be false.
Bear in mind also that evolution was known about long before Darwin, as was artificial selection (in farming and agriculture, for example). Darwin showed that natural selection (ie with no human interference) would lead to changes in gene frequencies within a population, too.


The only rational argument I can think of supporting this is to gain the assurance that you will not be thinned from the herd. I am just wondering if that is the explanation for why it is a bad idea to do things like that if you abandon morality


No-one is abandoning morality; just the opposite. If that's your argument, you need to explain why many other animals demonstrate altruism, presumably without any imposed absolute morality.

43. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170364 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm

1301. Comment #170358 by smellhound


Ok, I'll admit that I am a supporter of ID. I also support at least some form of evolution because its pretty obvious. The reason I support ID in part is because I find no plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell, but I digress.


riandouglas and ThoughtsonCommonToad have covered your second point; I'd just like to ask this:

Even though, as already stated, it's abiogenesis, not evolution, what "plausible explanation for the creation of the first living cell" does ID propose (other than "goddidit" I mean)?

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170346 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 4:42 pm

4991. Comment #170340 by Corylus

...require extreme concentration and the use of gratuitous and constant profanity...


a bit like this site, then?

45. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170283 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Can someone explain this US understanding of "obsolete" to me?

To me, it mainly brings up ideas of thermionic valves or slide rules.

46. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170268 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm

343. Comment #170111 by Mitchell Gilks

monogami

...folding a single piece of paper?

(sorry)

47. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170103 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 11:33 am

4924. Comment #170065 by Quine

I wrote:

All the deities (envisioned by and in the image of the human mind) are mythical until demonstrated otherwise



First, please note that I did not use the word "proved" so please don't misquote it, second, I contend that these two statements are not the same:

(1) There are no gods.

(2) All deities are non-existent until demonstrated otherwise.

The first is a statement of asserted fact, supposedly from a position backed up by observational evidence. The second is a statement about what we recognize to exist. Russell's Teapot is all about why you can't justify (1) but get all you need from (2).

Religious power is about the power of myths when told often enough (and long winded enough) to lull people into forgetting that they are, after all, just myths.


Yes indeed, although why limit (2) just to "all deities"?

48. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170097 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 11:23 am

321. Comment #170053 by Dr Benway:
A slightly disappointing link; the url led me to expect something lolcat-related.

324. Comment #170059 by gr8hands:


The t-shirt is patently offensive. If it said "women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, not in the voting booth" or "women be submissive to your husband, not having a job outside the home" or "worship Satan, not jesus" -- I am certain those t-shirts would raise the ire of those around the community.


My brother wears one with
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
1 Timothy 2:12

...mainly to annoy his wife, who is a teacher.

49. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169973 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 7:36 am

I think I was handicapped from an early age by going to an all-boys school.

Just waiting for Paula or Anna to drop in and show where we're going wrong...

50. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #169971 by Geoff on April 27, 2008 at 7:25 am

Maybe they're just praying for more "yes" votes, instead of doing something constructive about it?

Incidentally, there was a tactical switch to "what is it?" votes part way through, just to get that above the "yes".

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/crash_this_poll.php#comments

Scroll down to around comment #400 to read the ongoing story...

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next