Comments by Acleron
1. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement
Comment #158094 by Acleron on April 10, 2008 at 4:15 am
It looks like Peter Irons is the XVIVO lawyer. The Expelled producers beter start cutting out the animation immediately because Irons just loves these cases.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/the_inevitable_has_occurred.php
Comment #128591 by Acleron on February 17, 2008 at 12:32 pm
"Comment #128255 by Fiziker on February 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm
The classic argumentum ad citrum fallacy, a subset of the ever so popular argumentum ad fructum."
And closely related to the argumentum ad rectum.
3. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'
Comment #121467 by Acleron on February 3, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Documents from Birmingham University reveal that some students would prefer to quit the course rather than expose their arms, and warn that it could leave trusts open to legal action
Wouldn't it leave them open to legal action if they avoidably killed a patient?
4. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'
Comment #113917 by Acleron on January 21, 2008 at 2:09 am
About the only constitutional reason for the UK monarchy is the right of the head of state to dismiss the government. As this will never happen, there is no further reason for this institution to survive. It would be an appropriate time to elect either a second house with teeth or a president.
Comment #113906 by Acleron on January 21, 2008 at 1:35 am
He makes a good case for banning all faith schools.
6. It is possible to be moral without God
Comment #104943 by Acleron on December 30, 2007 at 5:13 am
RD draws on facts to provide an argument for innate morality. This is infinitely more convincing than the bishop who can only provide an analogy in music.
And while the bishop has brought up the subject, who's morality? There are no absolute and unchanging standards of morality. Just a kit which we evolve and hone as we mature as a society. Our morality suits the social environment we occupy. The religious have a real problem with this. Do they accept the morality in the bible, 'an eye for an eye' etc. or the later philosophy of 'turn the other cheek'. There is such conflicting advice in the bible, that they have to cherry pick. So is their brand of morality from god? Not really, it's just whatever list they think is correct at the time.
7. New journal to target education in evolution
Comment #103815 by Acleron on December 26, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Comment #103770 by CruciFiction on December 26, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Ron Paul was an OB/GYN. Good thing, otherwise, with the mindset of a creationist he'd probably believe in storkism too.
Who says he doesn't :(
8. How to refute Creationist with only a bucket of feces
Comment #103811 by Acleron on December 26, 2007 at 11:52 pm
This is quite old. I believe it was discussed in RD's The Devil's Chaplain. Briefly RD was being interviewed in his own house by a film crew when this question cropped up. RD immediately realised that this was an id/creationist crew and the pause was as he considered throwing them out. He eventually agreed to answer the question but, of course, that's left out. The incident was fully discussed in http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98367 at the Randi Forums.
9. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?
Comment #98713 by Acleron on December 14, 2007 at 5:35 am
According to religious leaders, no-one has the right to question religion.
To allow questions would undermine their authority. A blind belief, without questioning, is what they demand. It's the only way they can cling on to power.
10. Laugh at Sudan
Comment #96908 by Acleron on December 11, 2007 at 4:44 am
"in all their full three dimensional bollick brained stupidity"
Priceless. Condell for Prime Minister.
11. Atheists' sign sparks controversy
Comment #96448 by Acleron on December 10, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Riley " I'm trying to imagine how I would react if a group of Bible thumpers sponsored a sign that read: "Imagine no atheism" and on it was a picture of Stalin and his army.
I would take it to be at a minimum a political attack against me and I might even take it as a personal threat."
They didn't!
If you perceive a threat, even if it hasn't happened, try contemplating the other point of view, it might be illuminating to you.
The point of these equal-opportunity holiday display areas is to unite a community regardless of belief or culture; the point is not to give people of different political view-points an opportunity to throw crap at each other.
The Connecticut Valley Atheists are being spiteful. In this case, in this forum, they should limit their message to something positive or else they should not participate in the holiday display area.
12. Springer opera court fight fails
Comment #94473 by Acleron on December 5, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Christian group has lost its High Court battle to prosecute the BBC's director general over the screening of Jerry Springer - The Opera in 2005.
Thank god for that.
13. Interview with Christopher Hitchens
Comment #93745 by Acleron on December 4, 2007 at 5:25 am
Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.
ADH: reasoned and rational debate is always welcome but it can be cutting. Religious figures tend to take offence too easily, hopefully you are made of sterner stuff. There is obviously disagreement between religion and atheism. But you don't find atheists screaming for blood if their views are contradicted, the reverse is often not true. Look at the case of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan.
Comment #93235 by Acleron on December 2, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Linker appears to equate illiberalism with modern atheism throughout this piece. From this it logically follows that the goal of a secular society is illiberal. As the premise is bullshit so is the conclusion. Perhaps Linker should now enrol in the Center for Critical Thinking, but then that may illiberally infringe on his beliefs.
15. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says
Comment #93043 by Acleron on December 2, 2007 at 3:45 am
Hi Russell, I hadn't any ulterior motive in inquiring why Ms Comer resigned.
I can think of at least one extra reason, in that she considers that publicising the events is easier outside the box without the constraints that employment by TEA would carry. I just think it is important we should know as much as possible.
16. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says
Comment #92863 by Acleron on December 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm
As reported in the blogospere, this is a great injustice and a real problem for children in Texas. However, I would like to know why she resigned because as Flagellant says, in cases like this it's usually better to be sacked.
17. Same Flea, Different Name?
Comment #86099 by Acleron on November 8, 2007 at 6:21 am
uses reason and evidence to defend such things as miracles
One of the significant events on my journey to atheism was a English Lang and Lit teacher at school trying to scientifically prove the miracles. The one I remember best was the parting of the Red Sea which he ascribed to a wind blowing across it. At the age of fourteen I pointed out that such a wind would have caused considerable difficulties to the people trying to cross. His response was along the lines of 'god moves in mysterious ways'. We were much too polite (and afraid) to laugh at this but many of us couldn't take him seriously again.
Must get a copy of this for another good laugh.
18. What the New Atheists Don't See
Comment #85198 by Acleron on November 5, 2007 at 9:23 am
Read as far as
"combined with adolescent shrillness and intolerance" and my shrillness and intolerance cut in and refused to let me go any further.
19. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family
Comment #82623 by Acleron on October 27, 2007 at 2:52 am
'Atheist fundamentalists'???
A fundamentalist has a blind unswerving belief that cannot be changed in the face of evidence contrary to their faith. How can that label be applied to a rational thinking being such as an atheist? The level of quality in journalism is lowered yet again.
20. The Transcendental Argument for God
Comment #81436 by Acleron on October 24, 2007 at 5:58 pm
If atheism asserts anything, it is that the universe started as a random event. Darwin's theory of evolution shows that by selective pressure a variety phenotypes can occur from random variation. Homo sapiens' 'intelligence' presumably was selected for and made us the the most abundant medium sized mammal on the planet. Unfortunately there was no selective mechanism for rationality, so while some parts of the population can make use of their intelligence to achieve rationality a significant proportion can only achieve belief.
Comment #81058 by Acleron on October 24, 2007 at 1:46 am
Clear, compelling and very chilling. All respect to Eddie Tabash for his denounciation of the strategies of the religious right. The world's most powerful nation run by religious nuts is not a very attractive future.
22. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox
Comment #76686 by Acleron on October 6, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Comment by Stuart Paul Wood
"It is not good for obtaining information on events that one cannot repeat or observe. For instance history is not a science"
Well, perhaps history should be. It has evidence/data that can lead to theories and these theories can lead to predictions that other data found can either support the theories or destroy them. Pretty similar to the falsifiable aspect of scientific theories.
The same can be considered true of the Bible. If it leads to predictions that become true, it would support whatever premise it is promoting. Unfortunately, it has a very confusing mish-mash of statements that cannot be confirmed or in most cases denied. In this respect it is neither scientific or in IMHO historical. This allows people like Dr Lennox to cherry pick his way through this book.
As an aside from this post I thought it hysterically funny when Dr Lennox said that Zeus wasn't a real god.
23. Letters: Theology has no place in a university
Comment #75076 by Acleron on October 1, 2007 at 4:21 pm
stevencarrwork
I innocently tried your link. Yes you are correct, a clearer example of post modernistic theological crap would be hard to find.
24. Letters: Theology has no place in a university
Comment #74949 by Acleron on October 1, 2007 at 7:50 am
Durandal Please can you elucidate the difference between teaching a completely irrational system based on a belief derived from ancient writings (creationism/ID) and a completely irrational system based on a belief derived from ancient writings (theology).
25. Letters: Theology has no place in a university
Comment #74932 by Acleron on October 1, 2007 at 6:42 am
In this land, that's 95 per cent of the people: 95 per cent of people facing hell unless the message of the gospel is brought to them
This is good, only 5% left.
26. Keeping the faith at school
Comment #73205 by Acleron on September 24, 2007 at 12:53 pm
"We do say `Oh my gosh,'" she admits, "but we pronounce the `sh' really carefully so people know what we're saying."
Good, I see they do Hypocrisy 101.
27. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
Comment #73203 by Acleron on September 24, 2007 at 12:42 pm
All we have so far is that he was fired. The reasons for it are disputed. Let's not get too excited until there is some corroboration.
28. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)
Comment #73052 by Acleron on September 24, 2007 at 1:46 am
It is the reductionism of the argument that creates the confrontation
Therefore removing the reductionism and arguing on all points simultaneously will stop any confrontation? Oh Yeah! (attrib RD).
29. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism
Comment #72633 by Acleron on September 22, 2007 at 3:15 am
Devolved
No it isn't, but creation scientists do science just as well as evolutionary scientists (and that can be proven).
Creationists do not do science at all. If a scientist sees evidence that contradicts a theory that theory is discarded or amended. Creationists just discard the data. All the evidence supports the theory of evolution, no evidence contradicts it.
Comment #71204 by Acleron on September 18, 2007 at 3:20 am
RascoHeldall
The 2 + 2 = 5 teaching may be nearer than you want. The creationists will have you believe that 4.5 billion years = 6000 years.
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
