1. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions

Comment #163114 by Bueller_007 on April 18, 2008 at 2:32 am

"The comments section on New Scientist are a bit depressing. So many idiots rushed in to defend their various gods as if articles in a Science Journal were an affront to their dignity."


This is what happens when the IDiots at Uncommon Descent link to an article.

I'd almost recommend going over there now to see some of the laughable comments. (Some people are even defending Biblical inerrancy.)

Of course, those of us with the faculty of reason are not able to comment on that blog because they screen all the posts. I believe my Uncommon Descent account was blocked merely for linking to http://expelledexposed.com/">Expelled.

2. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159395 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 5:06 am

re: Comment #159391 by Peacebeuponme


I'm not sure. What was the preceding paragraph of the book? What is the "in my case" referring to?

To me, that entire quote sounds like he's trying to say that her rape was for the "higher good" because:

"It gave me some new insights on love and forgiveness. And oh yeah, besides my daughter's permanent emotional scarring, she's tried to make the best of things too."

It's beyond my comprehension that an intelligent man could possibly think that rape could possibly be justified like this. Appalling.

Although I will say that if he really did, it's impressive that he found it within himself to forgive the person who assaulted his daughter.


Incidentally, for those wondering what Bill was talking about when he said that he "interviewed Francis Collins" (something I can find no record of online), after hearing this quote, I figure it was most likely an interview for Religulous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religulous

3. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159388 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 4:37 am

re: Comment #159385 by Peacebeuponme


As Hitchens has said, this is the maximum of solipsism. Notice how his daughter's rape is all about what God had planned FOR HIM. He only mentions its effect on his daughter as an afterthought.

Although I can sympathize with the man and his daughter for what they went through, this statement is simply repugnant.

4. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159358 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 2:41 am

>The Richard Dawkins interview made my night, especially his reaction when he found out Francis Collins really believes in "the talking snake".


Let's just clarify again. Francis Collins *does not* believe in the talking snake, at least not in any meaningful literal sense. He rejects creationism (including ID) in its entirety.

There's nothing wrong with having a laugh at the expense of the religious, but let's not assign beliefs to FC that he does not actually hold.

5. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159340 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 1:38 am

More Bill stupidity from last night, starting from 41 seconds in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6cyGA5p3aI


Sometimes he's really, really off-base.

6. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159335 by Bueller_007 on April 12, 2008 at 1:30 am

Philip1978, no worries. I can be a bit fussy, especially when I have a touch of free time on my hands, as I do now.


Cheers.

7. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159311 by Bueller_007 on April 11, 2008 at 11:46 pm

>Crazy old man, Collins really does go for the whole talking snake bollocks, the guy is both VERY intelligent and VERY bloody stupid at the same time! :)


I don't see anything in your link to support this claim. Collins is a critic of creationism (inc. intelligent design), so I don't see how he could possibly reconcile evolution with Adam and Eve in anything more than the symbolic sense.


This is his view on the matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioLogos

8. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159308 by Bueller_007 on April 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm

>I am going to have to say it again, Bill is going up in my estimations even more these days, I thought that was a good interview.


Well, to be sure, he's reasonable about many things, but did you hear his rant against prescription drugs?

He actually made me agree with Jonah f-ing Goldberg.

Skip to five minutes in. Now THIS is religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXv-TVo5UOY

9. The Atheist Next Door

Comment #157257 by Bueller_007 on April 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

The thing I disliked most was when the guy said he was an atheist because of the "certainty of science".

I think I understand what he meant, but I could easily see how that phrase would mislead the faithheads into thinking that atheism is about "faith in science".

Scientific claims are uncertain, and we admit it. They're always open to revision based on new evidence. That's what makes it superior to the "certain" claims of religion.

10. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150508 by Bueller_007 on March 27, 2008 at 3:19 am

Happy birthday, Richard.

11. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113973 by Bueller_007 on January 21, 2008 at 5:49 am

In response to this, I would like to quote something Richard said in an earlier post.


==
Comment #82960 by Richard Dawkins on October 28, 2007 at 11:06 am

...For the benefit of non-British readers, there are all sorts of things the queen nominally does. She dissolves parliament and calls a general election (but if she tried to do it without being told to by the Prime Minister of the day, all hell would break loose). And after an election, she appoints the Prime Minister (but if she appointed anybody other than the winner of the election, she would precipitate the mother of all constitutional crises). The queen is really a kind of animated rubber stamp. That is one of the problems with Prince Charles: he shows signs of having ideas above his station: of wanting to be more than a rubber stamp; wanting to impose his dopey homeopathic, spirits-whispering-in-the-trees ideas on the country. If he tries that on when he is king, it could (should) be the end of the monarchy. With a bit of luck, the Queen will live to 100 like her mother, so we might not have to face that problem. Long may she live!

Richard
==

12. Canadian fossil makes waves in Huckabee's presidential run

Comment #111881 by Bueller_007 on January 16, 2008 at 12:17 am

Why do these articles always forget to mention that Ron Paul is also a creationist?

13. The Group Delusion

Comment #111571 by Bueller_007 on January 15, 2008 at 2:52 am

I just want to thank Richard for making the "12 misunderstandings of kin selection" available on the internet.

I remember reading about this paper in either the 1989 version of The Selfish Gene or The Extended Phenotype (or both), but I couldn't find a copy of it.


Thanks again.

14. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108572 by Bueller_007 on January 7, 2008 at 9:09 am

List of known creationist candidates:

Sam Brownback (already dropped out)
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
Tom Tancredo (already dropped out)

15. A War On Science

Comment #105510 by Bueller_007 on December 31, 2007 at 7:22 pm

I've gotta say, that desk Dawkins is sitting at really freaks me out.

16. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103492 by Bueller_007 on December 25, 2007 at 8:44 pm

"What's the problem? Every single time we meet on the Senate floor, we open up the session with prayer -- whether it's given by a rabbi, or a priest, or a Buddhist or a minister," Lightford said.


Indeed. And look what happens when it's not a Christian giving the prayer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A

17. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100571 by Bueller_007 on December 18, 2007 at 11:31 pm

"Agreed. Diapers, baby powder and a pacifier would have been more appropriate, not to mention useful."

For the Christians who are whinging about it, you mean.

18. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95783 by Bueller_007 on December 9, 2007 at 7:40 am

Yeah, and they actually have the gall to invite Fuhrman on to discuss RACIAL PROFILING (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLQi5n2AToM) and Ollie North on to advocate ATTACKING IRAN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apniG9yKHZ4).


Simply disgraceful. How much more blatantly biased can a 'news' source be?

19. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95713 by Bueller_007 on December 9, 2007 at 3:00 am

"Ah, loofa Bill, what a piece of work.

Loofa Bill, and tried-to-rape-Bette-Midler-with-poppers Geraldo.

What a lovely network FoxNews is.
Bring the children in, push 'em up close to the screen. Give them miniature American flags to wave. Yipee."


You forgot two of the worst. Mark Fuhrman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman) and Ollie North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ollie_North) are regular contributors/commentators.

20. Bill O'Reilly Interviews Lori Lipman Brown

Comment #95602 by Bueller_007 on December 8, 2007 at 5:37 pm

"One thing I noticed was that she politely refused to allow him to steamroll her into a corner, just kept plodding merrily along with her point and wouldn't let him sidetrack her."

Partially to her credit, yes. But O'Reilly was actually surprisingly well-behaved in this video. (Relatively speaking.) If he had been on his "top form", she wouldn't have been able to get a word in edgewise.

21. Holy Nonsense

Comment #95262 by Bueller_007 on December 7, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Olbermann's take on it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tSEmw4324E


Perhaps someone can fix the typo in the title as well? Unless Hitchens has changed his name to Christohper...

22. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94620 by Bueller_007 on December 6, 2007 at 4:21 am

I'm torn. Who was the more idiotic The View host?

1) Flat-earth Sherri who--with the statement that "nothing predates Christians"--seems to be blissfully ignorant even of the existence of the Old Testament.

2) 9/11 conspiracy theorist Rosie O'Donnell.


Close call, but I'm going to have to go with Sherri on this one.

23. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90399 by Bueller_007 on November 25, 2007 at 2:30 am

I'm surprised Dawkins doesn't have a personal rule against posting Templeton-Prize-winner's tripe on his website.

24. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86346 by Bueller_007 on November 9, 2007 at 2:51 am

"And I swear, he has to know he's lying.
Whether he's lying for money or for Jesus, I dunno."

The guy's got nine kids.

I think he believed he was onto something at first, but now he's just in it to sell books to the credulous.


And I thought I'd post the little message his university has about him again, just because it's so much fun:

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of 'intelligent design.' While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

25. AAI 07

Comment #83074 by Bueller_007 on October 28, 2007 at 9:26 pm

"In all fairness, no, I don't have such proof.

I guess I am just sulking. I feel totally disenfranchised by the whole damn lot of them."


Understandable. I don't much care for any of them either. But there's no denying that as far as religion is concerned, any of the democrats would make a better choice than any of the republicans, Ron Paul included (or rather, "especially").

26. AAI 07

Comment #82944 by Bueller_007 on October 28, 2007 at 10:16 am

USA_Limey:

I'm not a citizen of the US, nor do I even live in a country that makes a habit of drinking coffee. So no, I didn't choke on my latte.

And unless you've got some proof to the contrary showing them to be atheists, I see nothing dishonest about the Dems making faith statements. You seem to be implying that either:

a) They're democrats, so there's no way they could actually be "people of faith".

or

b) All "people of faith" are fundamentalists, and since Clinton and the others clearly aren't fundamentalists, they can't be religious.

Obama is the one Dem I would agree who is over the top, either in his Christian faith or in his pandering. (Perhaps overcompensating for the fact that his father was an atheist, and the reports of him having attended a madrasa?)

As for Giuliani, I seem to recall him having a little shit-fit at Clinton in '99 when "The Holy Virgin Mary" came to town. He wanted the painting gone, and she criticized him, so he started screaming "anti-Catholic bigotry!" He's recently said that he'll put people "like Scalia and Roberts and Alito" in the Supreme Court. (Note to self: fellow Roman Catholic conservatives all.) And he has recently reversed his opinion on IDX on more-than-dubious grounds, seemingly in a little nod to the Christians.

27. AAI 07

Comment #82809 by Bueller_007 on October 27, 2007 at 7:00 pm

"Two wrongs don't make a right. Throwing someone else's bad behavior as rebuttal to a statement of valid claim regarding a particular situation, doesn't enrich the conversation, it attempts to distract & deflect responsibility."

The original claim was that the Democrats were pandering more to the religious than the Republicans. Now you're saying that I can't present evidence of Republican pandering as a counter to that claim?

28. AAI 07

Comment #82669 by Bueller_007 on October 27, 2007 at 7:20 am

"If anything they are pandering to the religious more, not less, than the Republicans."

What a ridiculous statement. The left have made some ridiculous faith claims, but McCain, Giuliani and Romney have sold out almost completely to the religious right. Huckabee was a Southern Baptist minister to begin with. Ron Paul, the "constitutionalist" has said that there is no constitutional or historic grounds on which to draw a rigid separation between church and state. Tancredo is an evangelical, and one of the three idiots who was proud to announce that he's anti-science (i.e., he doesn't believe in evolutionary theory).

I don't really know anything about Fred Thompson, but I'm sure he'd pander just as hard to the religious right if he weren't so goddamned lazy.

29. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81101 by Bueller_007 on October 24, 2007 at 5:34 am

Vid is online:
http://www.tkc.edu/debate/

30. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80101 by Bueller_007 on October 20, 2007 at 1:10 am

I guess that Dawkins isn't taking part in Hitch's boycott. There's a link to buy The God Delusion from Borders on the right column of this website.

31. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76917 by Bueller_007 on October 7, 2007 at 6:11 pm

I rather think Robert Wright a bit of a bell-end, but I might as well toss his anti-Gould contribution into the ring as well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2016/

"I argued, basically, that Gould is a fraud. He has convinced the public that he is not merely a great writer, but a great theorist of evolution. Yet, among top-flight evolutionary biologists, Gould is considered a pest--not just a lightweight, but an actively muddled man who has warped the public's understanding of Darwinism."

32. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75212 by Bueller_007 on October 2, 2007 at 4:01 am

Dawkins: I couldn't find my keys this morning, you bastard.

33. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74664 by Bueller_007 on September 29, 2007 at 10:16 pm

Comment #74655 by wonderist:
"And finally, if you don't like the way they do things, go do it yourself. The RRS will support you all the way, even if your way is not their way."


What a crock. Find my earlier post where they literally told someone to get fucked because he decided not to include RRS in his approach to dealing with the false DMCA claims put on YouTube by CSE Ministries.

34. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74452 by Bueller_007 on September 28, 2007 at 11:41 pm

This is the kind of "rational response" you can expect from the RRS. After a group called Extant Dodo had videos deleted from YouTube due to false DMCA claims and decided to take action against Eric Hovind, RRS felt wronged because they weren't given credit:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/those_who_accept_evolution_unite_today_important

"DODO... we're pissed. Start giving us credit if you're gonna cover this. We have strength in numbers, use it. Also, if you're making videos asking people to make sure that CSE doesn't get away with it... WHERE IS THE LAWSUIT WE HEARD YOU WONT FILE?" - Brian

"It's not hard, all you gotta do is put us in the fucking links on the side, asshole" - Kelly

"Where are you Extant Dodo, fucking sleeping? Way to fight for your fucking rights ass face." - Kelly

Now THAT is "atheist solidarity", right there... And apparently, someone who has been *directly affected* by the false DMCA claims does not have the right to disassociate himself/herself from the likes of these people and try to handle the problem his/her own way.

RRS are little more than petulant bullies.

35. Evolutionary Design

Comment #71215 by Bueller_007 on September 18, 2007 at 4:08 am

I *know* that the original quote was "All the computer can do is what nature can do, namely generate variations..."

And of course "What the computer can do is all that nature can do, namely generate variations..." is a quote that is all of my own.


The point was that in the first (original) sentence, "all" qualifies what the *computer* is capable of doing, NOT what nature is capable of doing.

In the second (made-up) sentence, the "all" qualifies what *nature* is capable of doing and limits it to what the computer does.

In your posts, you have interpreted the original sentence as having the meaning of the made-up sentence.

The speaker's use of English was correct.

36. Evolutionary Design

Comment #70950 by Bueller_007 on September 17, 2007 at 10:04 am

I assume you are incapable of understanding English. His sentence is referring to the limitations of the computer program, not the limitations of nature.

See how these sentences differ?

"All the computer can do is what nature can do, namely generate variations..."

"What the computer can do is all that nature can do, namely generate variations..."

37. A Table for One

Comment #70846 by Bueller_007 on September 17, 2007 at 4:17 am

Colbert is a Catholic in real life. He teaches Sunday school.

38. Evolutionary Design

Comment #70843 by Bueller_007 on September 17, 2007 at 4:13 am

He didn't say that that was *all* that nature could do.

39. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56997 by Bueller_007 on July 18, 2007 at 5:03 am

Please remove the phrase calling Lewis "anti-American" from the video summary.

Total BS. Just because someone criticizes American politics (or their religious beliefs) doesn't make him "anti-American", whatever that means. One would assume that this fact would be painfully obvious on a Richard Dawkins website.