Comments by Storeo

Comment #156866 by Storeo on April 8, 2008 at 10:45 am

Richard I have to say I admire your patience in dealing with this, how shall I say, 'interesting' audience.

Comment #156779 by Storeo on April 8, 2008 at 8:49 am

From the Times article;

"Jesus will put a stop to this ungodly experiment." Thomas Jones, London, UK.

lulz, o rly Thomas?

3. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153340 by Storeo on April 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Con·demnation [of belief X]
a.

1. Pronouncing [belief X] to be wrong, guilty, worthless, or forfeited; adjudged or sentenced to punishment, destruction, or confiscation.

Sounds (to me) a bit stronger than positing belief X to be a myth.

4. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #149886 by Storeo on March 26, 2008 at 10:16 am

Happy Birthday Richard, x

5. Atheists claim censorship by billboard company

Comment #146231 by Storeo on March 18, 2008 at 7:49 pm

I agree completely.

A private company doesn't (and shouldn't for that matter) have any obligations here.

6. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #145603 by Storeo on March 17, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Regarding the more educated you are would entail more probability of you not espousing a belief in a creator, I'm aware this is the case. I believe its something like 93% of Scientists belonging to the national academy of scienes share such convictions (or lack thereof). Would anyone know where i can get a citation for this statistic?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

7. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144358 by Storeo on March 15, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Just ordered my copy, can't wait to get stuck in. Thanks Richard.

8. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #141578 by Storeo on March 10, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Great video, thanks for uploading!

9. Fleabytes

Comment #140809 by Storeo on March 8, 2008 at 4:35 pm

I am most proud of this submission, though it garnered only a pathetic fraction of the responses that Paula's masterpiece has gotten:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2125,Fish-out-of-water-Your-Inner-Fish,Neil-Shubin
Ste5e

Yeh, thats was a great article, the book is pretty awesome too.

10. Fleabytes

Comment #140641 by Storeo on March 8, 2008 at 7:42 am

What? No new evidence to support the belief in god?

This was entirely unexpected...

11. Fleabytes

Comment #139680 by Storeo on March 6, 2008 at 11:43 am

I have always wondered where it comes from. I suspect it may often be due to an insecurity of males in society with their maleness, so to maintain their confidence, they oppress women and men who seem to represent femininity; but this is just amateur psychology from me.

I think the group-psychological modules that are built into our cognitive software serve as a pretty good explanation.

I find the etymology of, and historical stigmas attacked to 'left-handedness' illustrate the same kind of thinking. Estimates put the proportion of left handed individuals at between 7-10% of the population. Now, the english word left, comes from the latin "sinister,-tra,-trum" which took on meanings of 'evil' and 'unlucky' in the classical latin era. In chinese, left means, 'out of accord' and 'improper'. In Norwegian left-handed, "keivhendt", comes from words meaning wrong handed or not straight handed.

In other ancient Semitic and Mesopotamian languages, the term "hand" was a symbol of power or custody. The left hand symbolized the power to shame society, and was used as a metaphor for misfortune, natural evil, or punishment from the gods.

Additionally, in French, Spanish, German, English and Dutch, 'right' is not only synonym for correctness, but also stands as a symbol for authority and justice.

Even dexterity shows the bias. It comes from the latin 'dexter' meaning 'right.' "Ambidexterity", since it keeps the Latin root "dexter", which means "right", it ends up conveying the idea of being "right-handed at both sides". This bias is also apparent in the lesser-known antonym "ambisinistrous", which means "clumsy on both sides" and derives from the Latin root "sinister", ie, left.

Not to mention the associations with withcraft et al.

Now, if something which impacts on the human experience as little as which hand you have a preference to using visciates our language and history as much as it does, you'd expect something similar (indeed more severe) to happen with sexual orientation. Indeed, sexuality is one of the most prevolent set of feelings with which we can identify collectively as a species. It is by far more intrinsic to our nature than which hand we choose to use. So, something like homosexuality (which occurs in between 1-5% of our population i believe) which deviates from the norm as much as it does is extremely likely, if not certain, to draw the kind of 'backlash' that it has (especially if it is being discussed in a pre-scientific context, with primates largely unaware of the science and evolutionary reasons for it).

I think the stigma attached to homosexuality is pretty explainable in terms of evolutionary psychology.

12. Fleabytes

Comment #138192 by Storeo on March 4, 2008 at 3:41 am

see here

(and the entire page including some of its links)

I'm just about to leave for a Vector Spaces & Fourier Theory lecture, how strange.

13. Fleabytes

Comment #138190 by Storeo on March 4, 2008 at 3:35 am

NMcC;

Sorry to be intrusive, but didn't you leave a few days ago vowing to never post again?

14. Fleabytes

Comment #137866 by Storeo on March 3, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Do you know McGrath used to be an atheist?

15. Fleabytes

Comment #137636 by Storeo on March 3, 2008 at 9:29 am

Ah yes, but the similie is a metaphor for something else...

16. Fleabytes

Comment #137555 by Storeo on March 3, 2008 at 6:34 am

Its a good response, not surprised it got 'moderated'.

17. Fleabytes

Comment #137104 by Storeo on March 2, 2008 at 10:57 am

"Seems a little strange to talk about oneself in the third person."

Storeo certainly agrees with you Steve.

18. Fleabytes

Comment #136646 by Storeo on March 1, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Re Paula;

hahahhaha, this must be legitimate!!

19. Fleabytes

Comment #136639 by Storeo on March 1, 2008 at 2:06 pm

"I APOLOGISE FOR THE ASININE IDIOCY OF MY FAN CLUB "

lol, that cracked me up.

20. Fleabytes

Comment #136572 by Storeo on March 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Hello,

Lets suppose that the claim that Christians, on average, give more to charities than atheists is true. Would this say the slightest thing about the claim that Jesus was the son of God and accepting him as your master would give you a life of eternal bliss is true or not? Does it say the slightest thing about whether Christian claims are true or not?

21. Fleabytes

Comment #136260 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 3:24 pm

good stuff MPhil, they're definitely worth watching.

22. Fleabytes

Comment #136252 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 3:14 pm

MPhil,

Here's a great series of lectures on Brain Dynamics, Consciousness etc. Its mostly biology based but I think its really good stuff to have in tandem when reading the likes of Dennett, Churchland etc. I'd reccomend the talks by Christoph Koch & Gerald Edelmen especially,

edit: the link is being mysteriously faulty, here is Edelmans talk;

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=almaden edelman&sitesearch=

you can see all lectures by clicking on the right hand side menu.

23. Fleabytes

Comment #136109 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I think the 'raid' is the more likely explanation. Is this the 5th one now?

24. Fleabytes

Comment #136105 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Al,

It even has the poorly trained 'troops' on the frontline to further fit the analogy.

25. Fleabytes

Comment #136090 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm

So it starts again...

26. Fleabytes

Comment #135874 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 10:10 am

....I wouldnt advise breath-holding Paula.

27. Fleabytes

Comment #135861 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 9:56 am

Do you have any evidence or reasonable questions to ask Hello? any at all?

28. Fleabytes

Comment #135831 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 9:38 am

Im sorry but anecdotal evidence won't suffice Hello.

29. Fleabytes

Comment #135828 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 9:36 am

Well the bible does agree with you Steve so you're on good ground there, ;)

30. Fleabytes

Comment #135802 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 9:21 am

bingo!

31. Fleabytes

Comment #135789 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 9:13 am

"you cant prove gravity, but you accept it exists, you cant prove god, why dont you accept god exists"

I think thats where we assumed you were going...

32. Fleabytes

Comment #135777 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 9:08 am

"Where is your evidence for such a claim?"

Im pretty sure dinosaurs didnt worship any kind of celestial dictator (though I may be wrong)

33. Fleabytes

Comment #135722 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 8:31 am

Kairos, would you say that my belief that pink unicorns are currently dancing in the blue clouds of jupiter is rational because it 'makes sense' to me?

34. Fleabytes

Comment #135714 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 8:27 am

chill out and take a nap Al. I have other things to do. My life does not revolve around posting on this site."

Youve posted repeatedly on this site, why can't just one of them contain even the slightest bit of evidence to support your religious convictions?

Forgive me, but would you think it unreasonable for me to assert that you have nothing tangible to put forward?

35. Fleabytes

Comment #135702 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 8:10 am

Do you have any actual evidence to add AD?

really, anything at all?

36. Fleabytes

Comment #135666 by Storeo on February 29, 2008 at 7:36 am

As Al-Rawandi has repeatedly said (god bless him)

Bring forward some evidence, its really that simple....

Is it really that unreasonable??

37. Fleabytes

Comment #134952 by Storeo on February 28, 2008 at 11:37 am

If someone justified their claims then remarks in response such as 'Fucktard' and the like would be uncalled for. This however, has not been the case, Robertson has been asked repeatedly to provide some tangible evidence to support his claims and has failed to do so.

How are we supposed to be saved from eternal fire if we are given nothing but snide remarks and side-steps to convince us of the credentials of his particular god.

38. Fleabytes

Comment #134918 by Storeo on February 28, 2008 at 10:24 am

Steve:

"What he seems to be desperate for is a self-promoting debate with Dawkins"

I think thats got it spot-on.

39. Fleabytes

Comment #134150 by Storeo on February 27, 2008 at 10:27 am

Yes, but you demonstrate that Steve via means of logical, rational, demonstratable argument, the same kind of argument that is considered an inferior medium [relative to faith] when it comes to understanding the universe (or so the 'believer' may posit).

edit: its tough to show logic, evidence etc are better than blind-faith via means of logical, evidentially based argument as the believer has already cited his/her preference before you speak is what I'm saying.

40. Fleabytes

Comment #134138 by Storeo on February 27, 2008 at 10:12 am

Dawkins has debated with McGragh previously, he was also pretty well dealt with by Hitchens. Unless the former 'atheist' has anything new to say I dont feel there would be much point.

Similarly for Robertson, he has demonstrated nothing to suggest that Dawkins needs to engage in a debate with him. If he can't put forth anything tangible enough on here why should Richard feel compelled to waste his time debating with him?

41. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133047 by Storeo on February 25, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Steve Zara:

I find it an interesting insight more than anything, especially given the amount of 5* reviews it has received on Amazon. It's difficult for me to grasp how anyone could read through his book and feel that his logic is sound, valid & cogent.

For example his chapter on Sam Harris, (after the first 4 pages of ad homs) consists thereafter of pedantic nit-pickings which arise from misunderstanding the context in which Sam uses them.

Even if all his pedantry was fully substantiated it would say nothing about existance of the God he champions.

I don't really think a Anti-NewAtheist book would need publishing if they had something new to say.

42. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133031 by Storeo on February 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Millefolia:

I guess their 'religious' affiliation changes on which theologian is telling the story

43. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133023 by Storeo on February 25, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Steve Zara;

I think I need a day's break from analysing it. You know how looking an optical illusion can affect your eyesight for a while? Well, Vox Day's book is a bit like that for the mind.

That's the same analogy I used to describe it to my friend earlier. Its a tough read isn't it?

44. Fleabytes

Comment #131531 by Storeo on February 22, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I love all this WeeFlea - RichardDawkins.net drama.

45. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #124165 by Storeo on February 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ&eurl

Full debate is up,

xx

46. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123052 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 12:12 pm

I love the dark and threatening music, its great.

47. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123050 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Thats one of the most hilarious things ive seen in a while.

So many straw-men its unbelievable.

48. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123047 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Day made this statement as he was answering a reply,

"There's loads of evidence of gods speaking to people,"

oh really?....

49. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123027 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 11:25 am

Thanks for the link. I am going to start on it now.

Ahhh, how I envy someone who hasn't yet been exposed to his writings.

50. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123019 by Storeo on February 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

Diacanu-

'humour' eh?

Epeeist-

Is this really symptomatic of modern theological thought?

Al-rawandi-

Don't buy it,

http://irrationalatheist.com/files/TheIrrationalAtheist.pdf