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 mmurray


1. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179766 by mmurray on May 13, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Long term storage of waste is a big big problem that needs to be solved before we plunge headlong into a situation that could be around for centuries.


Definitely and some serious conservation of energy. If we need to take the risk of nuclear to avoid going back to the dark ages so be it but doing it just so we can continue to light up our cities at night with advertising seems pretty foolish.

These figures for energy demand in 2050 and the like. Are they based on present population trends and the assumption we will all have first world living standards in 2050 ? That is never going to happen. At some point we have to get the population under control.

Michael

2. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179718 by mmurray on May 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Surely this bit


The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.


should read

"The mind has the the ability to seem to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real."

Michael

3. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179343 by mmurray on May 13, 2008 at 6:25 am

Well the praying seems to work and we have discovered that God like Chavez as the lowest petrol in the world is 17 US cents a US gallon in Carracas.

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

Michael

4. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179247 by mmurray on May 13, 2008 at 1:05 am

Apparently Jesus does an awesome wheel alignment as well

http://www.americaslastdays.com/?page=tirewear-rea


Hello brethren. About a couple months ago, our truck was having strange wear on its tires. A Christian friend, who was a tire expert, concluded that there was a problem with the front-end of the vehicle. So we scheduled an appointment for the Toyota auto shop. After listening to David's testimonies from his Wilderness DVD as well as other UBM testimonies, we decided to command the truck to be healed in the Name of Jesus. Well, soon after this prayer, the Lord reminded me about the appointment I had already made. So, our works needed to follow our faith. I called and cancelled the appointment. We considered it a done deal. Well, yesterday, our friend who originally looked at the tires said that the wear was now gone AND in fact there was smooth wear distribution on the tires. The Lord fixed the front-end perfectly! Our friend was praising the Lord too! What an awesome God we have!!!



Michael

5. Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear

Comment #179224 by mmurray on May 12, 2008 at 10:57 pm

While this is good PR it would not make any difference to the existence of Gods if he had believed unless he had either new evidence or a new argument. Relativity isn't true because Einstein believed it, it is true because of Einstein's arguments in its favour and experimental confirmation.

While on great physicists and religion Wikiquote has some nice Feynman quotes:

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

"The remark which I read somewhere, that science is all right as long as it doesn't attack religion, was the clue I needed to understand the problem. As long as it doesn't attack religion it need not be paid attention to and nobody has to learn anything. So it can be cut off from society except for its applications, and thus be isolated. And then we have this terrible struggle to try to explain things to people who have no reason to want to know. But if they want to defend their own point of view, they will have to learn what yours is a little bit. So I suggest, maybe correctly and perhaps wrongly, that we are too polite."

"It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil" which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama."


Michael

6. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178777 by mmurray on May 12, 2008 at 3:04 am

is like listening to people argue over Lord of the rings, Harry Potter or the lion the witch and the wardrobe.


Harry Potter of course. How could you even doubt it ?

Michael

7. I Am Evolution

Comment #178768 by mmurray on May 12, 2008 at 2:42 am

Given the countless examples of scientists being correct when they say something is a fact (I'm thinking engineering, medical advances, etc.), I think it is rather reasonable to expect the masses to trust the word of scientists. By all means, check it out independently, but trsuting scientists, especially when there is no tentative semantics or throngs of critics and doubters involved, is surely not irrational?


aussieatheist_111 -- assuming you are an aussie check out some of the things people are saying about the recent showing of Richard Dawkin's two-part series on new-age therapies and other mumbo-jumbo. Some are sensible but for other people trusting scientists is not on. They would much rather concentrate on the few examples of scientist being wrong!

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/MessageList.aspx?b=81&t=1&te=False

Michael

8. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178748 by mmurray on May 12, 2008 at 2:03 am

If you want to see what the UN Human Rights Commission was up to have a look at this thread

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2416,Vote-on-freedom-of-expression-marks-the-end-of-Universal-Human-Rights,International-Humanist-and-Ethical-Union

The main points in the resolution are here.

This is one of the highlights

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;



Michael

9. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178703 by mmurray on May 12, 2008 at 12:15 am

Unfortunately, their tribal code comes from their religion.


Do you have evidence that they didn't do honour killings before Mohammed came along ?

Michael

PS: Sorry Barry I missed your reply.

10. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178606 by mmurray on May 11, 2008 at 5:29 pm

If only we could get the women to fight back.


Well the mother has. It is kind of hard if the police are on the father's side.

Michael

11. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178595 by mmurray on May 11, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Appalling though this is it is not unique to Islam. In ancient greece (at least athens) women couldn't leave the house, lived in separate quarters etc. Hindu's used to do a good line in throwing widows onto their husbands funeral pyres and there are still lots of abandoned widows in India left to die in poverty even though they have children who could afford to look after them. I would have thought that this behaviour is part of Islam because it arose in societies that already did this kind of thing.

Jarrod Diamond gives a good argument that natural selection will favour this kind of appalling behaviour. The reasoning is, from memory, that because female ovulation is no longer obvious and children need a very long investment of time and energy from both father and mother to raise males are at risk of wasting a lot of time raising someone elses genes. That doesn't quite explain killing daughter's but it does favour draconian methods of controlling female sexuality. The world might be a different place if women's noses turned red when they were fertile.

The whole male honour bullshit thing is also not uncommon even on these boards. I recently read someone saying something along the lines of `if you called me that to my face you would have two black eyes'. As well as childish this seemed kind of rash when you don't have any idea how big the other guy is :-)

Michael

12. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178286 by mmurray on May 11, 2008 at 4:59 am

It seems that particularly in the UK everyone seems over concerned about things supposedly causing offense when there is really no offense there.


I don't disagree with this but I'm not convinced this decision is an example of that problem. BA in the article actually say it is not about offense. Maybe they are telling porkies but it seems plausible to me that they would want to be able to offer a choice to as many passengers as possible to avoid having to worry about running out of food. If lots of their passengers are not going to eat beef (for whatever reason) it makes sense to take beef off the menu.

Michael

13. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178182 by mmurray on May 10, 2008 at 6:02 pm


This did scare many away from British beef and like autism from the MMR vaccine it is completely illogical and unscientifically based because there is no human form of mod cow or foot and mouth disease nor is there even close to being a human form so please stop worrying.


Tell that to the local health department who haven't let me donate blood for years now after living in the UK from 1980-1983.

This article is a beat up. I would assume the main reason they want to be able to offer two choices that everybody will like is so they don't have to worry about one choice being used up.

While we are on the topic of Hinduism there was an article recently here about a lower caste woman who died after childbirth in India, outside the hospital, because the only doctor in the hospital who was willing to touch her was out.

http://www.medindia.net/news/Untouchable-Woman-Dies-After-Hospital-Refuse-to-Treat-Her-35871-1.htm

When your faith is a mismatch to reality disaster and suffering always follow eventually.

Michael

14. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177860 by mmurray on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.


Maybe he should talk to the Cardinal ?

I keep wondering why nobody ever writes a popular account of this wonderful, marvelous, subtle theology we have been hearing about ever since TGD came out ? Sure it's going to be tough for people like us to understand but people like Richard do a wonderful job of explaining science to the lay person. Surely someone can bring down theology to a level we can understand?

I can't decide if the reason they don't do this is because they really don't have anything to say or because they don't want to admit to the lay religious person that the theologians idea of God and Richard's are not that far apart.

Michael

15. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176292 by mmurray on May 7, 2008 at 6:16 am

I see they're also pushing Jesus' redemptive qualities on the London underground now... every time I get on the train, it's "JESUS SAVES!!!".


This must be the reason God invented indelible marker pens that write on any surface.

Back in the bad old days when cigarettes were advertised there was group here called ASH (= Action on Smoking and Health) who defaced cigarette advertising. They usually got lenient sentences from the judges. I guess if you deface a religious advertisement you run the risk of getting up in front of a religious judge.

Michael

16. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176290 by mmurray on May 7, 2008 at 6:11 am

We also have much less to fear from them if they are thousands of miles away.

Let us give them what they want. They want to be left alone.


I wish it were so but we are entangled with the the muslim world due to their oil, Israel and the large numbers of them already citizens of the west. The fact they are thousands of miles away is no help as 9/11 has amply demonstrated. They can get on planes with fake passports or they can find people with legitimate passports from non-islamic nations to do their bidding. Remember the good old days when terrorists used to swap around to avoid detection: the red brigade could do a job for the IRA in return for one back for them. Or they can just build missiles with the help of someone like North Korea. Or they can take over Pakistan which already has a good stockpile to nuclear missiles.

Michael

17. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176132 by mmurray on May 6, 2008 at 4:37 pm

I am more concerned about the work we need to do to build a strong open society here then caring about the stupid rules and ideas some people have in Saudi.


It could be argued that the people in Saudi are working hard (using the money we give them for oil) to undermine our open society.

Michael

18. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175815 by mmurray on May 6, 2008 at 5:26 am

In case anyone else is wondering who Moazzam Begg is I'll save you the google search

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

Michael

PS: If you go there you might like to look at the link at the top where the neutrality of the article is disputed.

19. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175796 by mmurray on May 6, 2008 at 3:50 am

I sent this article article in but it never appeared. This thread seems like a good place for it.

Michael

20. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175776 by mmurray on May 6, 2008 at 2:36 am

I think restricting voting to people who aren't stupid is a dangerous path to take. This is how it used to be. First only aristocracy had any kind of vote, then only gentlemen and then only men.

One of the dangers of going down the testing line is that if you don't want some group (eg black people) to vote you just have to deprive them of enough education that they fail the general knowledge test. Then you aren't being racist just sensible.

You should just educate people and put up with a bit of `noise' from the less well-educated. The principle that we all vote for our leaders is too important to throw aside. Personally I like the Australian system where you *have* to vote.

Michael

21. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175773 by mmurray on May 6, 2008 at 2:31 am

vinelectric

I still think one such event or even two is sufficient to justify him saying `infrequent'. The dictionary says

infrequent - not frequent; not occurring regularly or at short intervals

I think once satisfies that definition. I also don't see why signing up to that particular (important) announcement lets all 500 off the hook from commenting publically about muslim extremism ever again.

Michael

22. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175607 by mmurray on May 5, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Sam's favourite cliche and shameless lie! Remember this headline?


He said `infrequently' and you have given one example. One example doesn't disprove infrequently. One example disproves `never'. Where it the lie ?

Michael

23. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174886 by mmurray on May 3, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Does anyone know what is the standard of science education amongst teachers in the US? If that is low -- ie you have staff teaching science who don't understand it -- that will compound the problem because they won't be able to easily answer the students whose pastor's have sent them off to read AiG.

Michael

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174668 by mmurray on May 3, 2008 at 6:46 am

Romans 1:22

Claiming to be wise, they became foolish;

I think the lolcat version is better

They sed "Am smrt," but reeli r stoopid

Michael

25. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174611 by mmurray on May 3, 2008 at 12:04 am

"As for those women from whom you fear rebellion, "

You don't even have to get to the beating. If your relationship with your wife is such that you could even contemplate the idea that she might be going to rebel you have a lot of issues already.

Michael

26. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174540 by mmurray on May 2, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Does anyone know on what she bases the `true' Islam. I assume it is some kind of `moderate' Islam. I am no expert but everything I read suggests this is really difficult given what is written in the Koran. It is tough enough for a Christian but you can at least concentrate on the New Testament. All I have ever heard from moderate Muslims locally in the media is the `Islam is a religion of peace' line with a clear message that to suggest otherwise or to ask why is some kind of intolerance akin to racism.

Michael

27. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172888 by mmurray on April 30, 2008 at 6:40 am

Radiocarbon dating, Potassium-Argon dating - the difference is one of details not of principle. It's all scientific data analysis based on confirmed facts of physics and chemistry.



I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?


seeker_of_truth: Just in case you missed riandouglas's question can you explain what you mean here by `tens of thousands of years and the other billions'. Scientists usually notice errors which are five orders of magnitude.

Michael

28. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172840 by mmurray on April 30, 2008 at 6:02 am

why do so many educated and professional naturalists find themselves stretched in debate with those who hold to intelligent design?


Nice example of a `loaded question' . So when are you going to stop kicking your dog ?

Michael

29. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172759 by mmurray on April 30, 2008 at 4:00 am

What new argument for atheism is there? Everything we repeat has been repeated for centuries.


Every new scientific discovery that closes a gap a god might fit in is an argument for atheism.

Evolution has not been around for centuries.

Michael

30. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #172628 by mmurray on April 29, 2008 at 8:01 pm

I assume all three paragraphs constitute the press release ? In that case the blockquote should be removed. It is kind of confusing on the original site as well.

Michael

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

Comment #170740 by mmurray on April 27, 2008 at 11:38 pm


And if ID is a viable theory, why is my gullet behind my windpipe? That's only 'intelligent' in the same way as Vista is 'secure'. Joining the nasal and oral cavities seems to be a pretty big design flaw.


Yep and the testicles outside the body, eye-ball wired backwards, the lower back which isn't strong enough, female pelvis too small, auto-immune diseases, male urinary tract through the middle of the prostate gland and the old joke about the effluent outlet in the recreation area which, of course, isn't funny if you are a female with a urinary tract infection.

I think the simplest thing to say to ID is `balls'.

Michael

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

Comment #169760 by mmurray on April 26, 2008 at 5:43 pm


I'm no biblical scholar, but Leviticus seems pretty clear on gods view of 'men that lie with other men'. It bothers me more when christian apologists try to skirt around this issue and appear liberal.


Neither am I. But I think if you are going to use Leviticus as your moral guide you have to take all the other weird stuff in there as well. So make sure you aren't wearing more than one type of material today! I think the sensible approach to Leviticus is to realise it is a list of religious prohibitions typical of a society at that time in history and irrelevant to any attempt to construct morality for today's society except, perhaps, as an example of what not to do.

If you are interested in homosexuality in the bible there is a good wikipedia entry. I was surprised by how little it is mentioned in the bible given that it seems to be a complete obsession with some religious people.

Michael

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168327 by mmurray on April 25, 2008 at 2:54 am

How come when I click on Dave(TX) (on his comment 3991 on page 80) its says the user doesn't exist?

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=40087

Michael

34. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168314 by mmurray on April 25, 2008 at 2:14 am


Comment #168226 by mmurray on April 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm

So sorry, I meant to type DNA, not DNS. I should have checked for typos but I forgot that it would be an intellectual stretch for some on this board to realize what I meant to type.


And a stretch for some to spot a joke apparently.

Michael

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168226 by mmurray on April 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm

God reveals Himself in His creation in many ways, in the language of DNS, the complexity of the cell. In the physical laws, in the miracle of life, to name just a few.


Ah God's word secretly encoded in the Domain Name Servers of the internet. There is a movie script in the making. `The DNS Code'.

Michael

36. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166320 by mmurray on April 23, 2008 at 6:14 am


No one has popularised brain surgery yet


Ian McEwen's `Saturday' wasn't bad.


But it's the conclusions people come to as a result of the speculation that is where it becomes worthy of ridicule or being elitist about (as you did).


What worries me more is the people who throw up some obvious silly objection to a well established theory (eg why are there still apes) without seeming to be able to think `hang on surely someone thought of this before me and there must be an answer I could look up on wikipedia'. People like that come across to me as either just parroting their pastor or AiG or being really arrogant. I guess a more generous possibility is that they just don't understand science and think it's like a political argument where if you get in a couple of smart sound bites you win.

Michael

37. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166170 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 11:55 pm

How could natural selection create the first living cell? There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell, so the process had to be pure chance, a result of random atoms forming thousands of extremely complex molecules within a few micrometers of each other at the same time. It is statistically a highly improbable probable event, and it bears all the earmarks of design.


Actually this fleawoman is totally confused here. Advantage doesn't mean what she seems to think it means it means something like will the numbers of the new thing increase in the population. In that case it is clear that if some atoms get together in combinations that can cause new combinations to be made then they will increase. Then she wants to try on the the argument by statistics. This doesn't work either as you can imagine precursors to cells of small bits of virus or preons you don't have to shake up some sludge and hope whole cells are formed at random.

Why do these think people think that with a few half baked misunderstandings they can over turn ideas that smart people have worked on for a long time? Are they serious or is it just a game? I'll bet they would have a fit if anyone did the same thing in their area of expertise whatever that might be.

Michael

PS: Doesn't anyone know how long there was from when some kind of reproducing cells could have existed to when they did exist ? I was looking it up on wikipedia and it wasn't clear.

38. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166161 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Hi Christopher

Wikipedia says a troll is

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

You are right that sleight of hand where the unseen designer becomes the christian god is the tricky bit that they all like to gloss over.

Michael

39. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166010 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Part of the problem seems to me to be people willing enough to proffer ideas - or 'any kind of argument in public' based on those ideas - which have inevitably been formed precisely because they think themselves excluded from participating in the cosmological and physics-based discourse which could stop their inane rantings.


I feel the same about flying 747's. Every time I get on one the secretive elist, cabal of pilots, aided by their stewards, steer me to a seat without controls. Why can't I fly the plane ? It's the same in hospitals -- I'm never allowed to have a go at the scalpel's. It's all a big conspiracy.

Seriously this isn't about elitism. If you don't have the right qualifications for the job you shouldn't do it. So if you want someone to comment when a differentiable manifold admits a spin structure I'm your man but if I'm at the controls when you get on a plane I would get off quickly.

Michael

EDIT: Oh bloody hell Steve has already posted this. Read the thread before posting. Read the thread before posting. Read the thread bef .... Sorry Steve.

40. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165684 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 3:30 am

Some good comments on the articles original site.

Michael

41. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165634 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 1:00 am

Which is why HUMANITY needs to be the center of a such institution.


Hi

I don't disagree with that but I am not sure what you are looking for besides government run organisations ? Or if you are sceptical of that private organisations contracted to do the same jobs. I don't think there is any need for some kind of secular church which was what I thought you were arguing for ?

By the way its not really relevant but I never thought of Malcolm X as non-violent. wikipedia gives this quote

"The time for you and me to allow ourselves to be brutalized nonviolently has passed. Be nonviolent only with those who are nonviolent to you. And when you can bring me a nonviolent racist, bring me a nonviolent segregationist, then I'll get nonviolent. But don't teach me to be nonviolent until you teach some of those crackers to be nonviolent."

Michael

42. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165617 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 10:43 pm

You see, since the beginning of humanity, religion fulfilled the important role to keep society together. This is a fact that anyone who spent some time with history and social sciences must admit.

It only keeps society together if everybody has the same religion. If not it is a very nasty way of keeping people at each other's throats. In any case the fact that something was popular since long ago is not a good reason to continue with it. Consider: infanticide, cannibilism, oppression of women, slavery, trepanning ...


Officially the religious institutions stands for:
1. Gathering and distribution of welfare to the needy
2. Taking care of the sick and the weak and welcome the outcasts
3. Fighting society problems like drugs and poverty
4. A community that keeps people together and fights segregation
5. Recognizing the stages of life (birth, confirmation, marriage, funeral)
6. Dealing with pain and sorrow after tragic events
7. A focus on people's feelings in an easy to understand language
8. A spokesperson for morals with focus on compassion, self-control, the value of helping others etc.


All these have better secular replacements already. Better because the people involved don't have silly ideas but are practical and want to get on with solving the problem.

1. There are secular organisations eg Smith Family in Australia. But really this should be a government job.

2. Universal health care and welfare.

3. What like the Catholic Churches homophobic approach to AIDS/HIV ?

4. Like in Northern Ireland I guess ?

5. http://www.civilcelebrants.com.au/

6. Professional trained councillors. Better than having to listen to tortured christian discussions about why God loves us but also lets shit happen.

7. See 6.

8. Like the Pope whose solution to AIDS/HIV and human overpopulation is that we all stop having sex. His clergyman have amply demonstrated what happens
when you thwart basic human drives like that. I'll swap him for Steve Zara or MPhil anyday.


Imagine everyone abandoned church tomorrow!



Most of us in Europe, UK, Australia, Canada etc have already abandoned church. Come on in the waters fine.

Michael

43. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165609 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 9:09 pm


"Science and reason are important," says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. "But science and reason won't visit you in the hospital."


No friends and family visit you in the hospital. Science and reason are just there increase you chance of getting out alive.

What is it with the `humanist chaplain' tag? Why not just call him a counsellor and be done with it?

Michael

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

Comment #165607 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I am very disappointed that the jewish community is not directly answering to the this misinformation, anti-Semitism and revisionist history about the holocaust.


Good point. I was thinking the other day that the best way to squash this bit of nastiness would be some kind of open letter or something from a suitable collection of willing Jewish scholars or Rabbis or similar. Has anyone got any suitable contacts ?

Michael

45. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165146 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 5:59 am

I only just discovered that Answers in Genesis has a nice (long!) list of arguments not to use in favour of creationism. Maybe we should point some of our regulars at these

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

They include the old favourites: `why are there still apes', `evolution is just a theory' and `there are no transitional forms'. These are apparently no longer a good thing.

Michael

I love their banner motto: believing it. defending it. proclaiming it.

What about testing it. improving it. understanding it ...

46. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165115 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 4:51 am

F_A_F

If you want to remember how to do quotes click on the [Comment Posting Guidelines] just above the comment box you are typing in.

In short put your quote between

(blockquote) and (/blockquote)

BUT replace ( and ) by [ and ]

Michael

47. Gods and earthlings

Comment #165102 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 4:06 am

solar system, both of which are designed with specific calculations â€" tilting of the earth, the sun's perfect distance to the earth, earth's spinning around itself and around the sun to make us days and nights, do not need a designer? Or do not imply a designer?


And what's more if you divide the time it takes the earth to revolve into the time it takes for it to rotate around the sun you get 365.24219. A number like that can't have been an accident there must have been an intelligent designer.

By the way why did this intelligent designer make testicles hang outside the body at such risk of injury? I guess this proves God doesn't ride a bicycle ?

Michael

48. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #164984 by mmurray on April 20, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Surely his name is misspelt ?

L. Brent Bozo III

that's better.

Michael

PS: I don't think he is a rev but you can find out more at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Brent_Bozell_III

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164284 by mmurray on April 20, 2008 at 2:15 am

However, I would like to know why I appear to be most content when I have nothing better to do than stand at the window, mindlessly staring. I'd like you to assure me, if you can, that this is neither bone-idleness, nor a symptom of getting older, but instead something grander. Am I, in short, unwittingly ersatz-meditating?


Hi Keith,

Good to see Reggie's smiling face again :-)

My limited understanding is that if you are thinking less and sensing more then you are meditating. It seems basically impossible to stop thinking but you can lower the roar a bit and I am told a lot. You can also learn to let the thoughts go past without doing the judging and calculating and getting sucked into some long internal story with all kinds of emotions attached to it that we humans are so good at.

In my few failed attempts to finish Dan Dennetts `Understanding Consciousness' it seemed reasonable to me that his ideas of self being a construct formed when we try and model the world including ourselves are compatible with what some meditators such as Sam Harris describe as moments when the self dissolves. I have never got to that kind of cosmic stuff.

I figure that evolving the ability to think, like so many other aspects of our evolution, was an amazingly useful and wonderful thing but not without its disadvantages such as stress, obsessional thoughts etc. Kind of like standing upright which was great but you discover in old age that it is not that great for the lower back. My problem is that I forget to do my meditation nearly as much as I forget to do my lower back exercises!

Regards - Michael

50. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164249 by mmurray on April 19, 2008 at 8:48 pm

By the way, I wouldn't be bragging about your wife and the public indoctrination centers. Change agents like your wife are just pawns that have been put in the indoctrination centers to destroy children's beliefs and faith. They are as Lenin referred to them "useful idiots" that are just doing a job for their masters. The public indoctrination centers are there to destroy children and God will take care of those that have a part in destroying the faith of children


Thanks. I guess that answers my earlier question about what IDers think the scientists of the world are up to. You at least seem believe in some kind of massive conspiracy.

Kind of redefines `God Delusion'.

Michael

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Next