Comments by Phoenix42

Comment #143319 by Phoenix42 on March 14, 2008 at 2:04 am

It's all about guilt.

Comment #130342 by Phoenix42 on February 20, 2008 at 11:12 am

Well done Paula. You deserve some kind of medal for working through all those fleas!

I'm sure they're just a way to take more money from Christians and allow them to claim that TGD has been refuted...

3. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125319 by Phoenix42 on February 11, 2008 at 8:21 am

Regarding those who like the sound of "Sir Richard"... Does the honour involve any pledge to God? Could be a tricky one. Maybe RD could get HRH to use (uncooked) spaghetti instead of a sword?

I thought it was only footballers, pop-stars and so on that get honours these days?

Personally, I would like Prof Dawkins to take a seat in the house of lords! Lord Dawkins has a nice ring to it.

Edit: Do it here! http://www.lordsappointments.gov.uk/

Would we need to bow? online? Is there an emoticon to do that? :-)

4. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125301 by Phoenix42 on February 11, 2008 at 8:03 am

I wonder if Professor Michael Behe will apply.

There ought to be some kind of 'scientific oath' you have to swear before you take up the post.

5. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125292 by Phoenix42 on February 11, 2008 at 7:49 am

On a different note.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7239409.stm

Rowan Williams has said that it's his duty to speak for other religions!

TRANSLATED: It's my duty to try and defend special religious privileges for others lest they try and take ours away...

(yep. I've emailed Josh.)

6. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125266 by Phoenix42 on February 11, 2008 at 6:43 am

Krauss in particular would, I am sure, be outstanding. He has recently become a regular columnist in the widely read New Scientist. He is not only a respected theoretical physicist, but can deal wonderfully with popularising science, as in his book "The Physics of Star Trek".

I agree with this totally but still have some reservations about it not being someone under in the biology spectrum. IMHO one of the many reasons Prof Dawkins (sorry, just can't do Richard - sorry!) is so successful is his academic credentials that let him attack nonsense such as ID. I see the battlegrounds of the next 5 years to be primarily in cloning, medicine etc. I'm sure the devout would be pleased to attack a physicist as not being qualified to engage in this stuff...

7. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125239 by Phoenix42 on February 11, 2008 at 5:36 am

Who are the next Penrose, Dawkins, Jones etc?

Are the popularisers still looked down on by their colleagues? Have we been through a golden period with such wonderful people?

Hope not. Science seems to be leaping away so fast from the public that perhaps we need someone from biology who can really communicate the future of medicine with things like stem-cell therapies, brain research and nanotechnology! We can't leave these vital areas to become dominated by the religious!

8. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125227 by Phoenix42 on February 11, 2008 at 5:14 am

What about Simon Singh or Stephen Pinker?

I just love this from Singh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Million_Bicycles#Controversy

9. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124348 by Phoenix42 on February 9, 2008 at 6:35 am

Probably a silly question but... (dont they all start like that!)

At the end of the supplement a geneticist is talking about the neutralistic view of natural selection 'holding sway'.

Is this compatible with the notion of selfish genes or are the two mutually exclusive?

I read it as more of a referral to mutations being a drip, drip into a population some of which may make it by being lucky and inoffensive.

10. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124129 by Phoenix42 on February 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I'm sick of the comments by Christians on all the discussions saying:

'Our law is based upon the Ten Commandments'

Umm, is it me or is this completely deluded? I don't remember much in law about coveting or having other gods etc. Our laws seem to be more influenced by Paine, Locke, Mill and the like.

Anyway, the ten commandments weren't that profound were they? It can't have been that people thought it was OK to steal and murder before Moses struggled down the hill with them?

11. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123917 by Phoenix42 on February 8, 2008 at 1:52 am

PGC:

I think you may be right but don't you think he has shot himself in the foot? If he said this because he thinks it will improve the standing of Bishops in the House of Lords, then he must be stupid!

I rekon he will ask for something. Maybe some religious legal committee or something?!

I'm with you though, a proper secular constitution is exactly what we need...

12. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123907 by Phoenix42 on February 8, 2008 at 1:25 am

Would it mean an exemption from the western human rights conventions and a sign up to the Cairo one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_of_Human_Rights)?

I still think he (RW) is not that stupid. He is trying to either stoke up some kind of explicit rejection of the whole idea to stop us sleepwalking in it *or* he will hit us with a lesser demand soon.

Is it a coincidence that the blasphemy laws are about to be removed and that the bishops are going to loose their seats in the house of lords? Maybe he is just throwing his toys out of the pram...

13. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123563 by Phoenix42 on February 7, 2008 at 10:58 am

I think he is being deliberately provocative here. He is either doing it:

a) To show us where we’re headed and get us to explicitly and visibly object

b) As a classic con trick... ask for something outrageous (Sharia law) and then ask for something smaller (e.g. new blasphemy law and exemptions from human rights laws for religious organisations)

c) He has gone completely bonkers and has decided to give up being a bish and audition for the part of Dumbledore in the next Harry Potter movie!

14. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123499 by Phoenix42 on February 7, 2008 at 9:15 am

irate_atheist:

'll take the beer, but bollocks to the parrot. I don't want one of those shitting down my back.

It'd be worth it though. You'd be able to, after many years study, become a Pastafarian Judge. Just think of the fun. Cases of blasphemy, cruelty to pasta etc. It'd be a hoot.

15. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123467 by Phoenix42 on February 7, 2008 at 8:19 am

Now, I wonder what he studied for his Doctorate?

Bet the end result was wordy, opaque and heavily obfuscated :-)

Anyway, what kind of a subject is theology anyway? Maybe we should start some kind of a Flying Spaghetti Monster university and award degrees. Instead of a mortar board, robe and scroll - you could dress in a pasta cloak, hold a bottle of beer and have a parrot on your shoulder...

16. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123461 by Phoenix42 on February 7, 2008 at 8:08 am

irate_athiest:

Update on the madness of Rowan Williams. The 'bish is being slated left right and centre for his comments here: http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4246

IMHO Dr Williams seems to have been invented to prove that intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing :-)

Edit: Unless he's really, really clever and this is a devil's advocate type of argument which is meant to make us all think and explicitly reject such a nonsense. Perhaps not though...

17. God the psycho

Comment #121907 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 10:21 am

There is also the matter that many religious people are so sensitive about their beliefs that the distinction between approaches is irrelevant. If they consider Dawkins strident there is no hope!

I know that my parents, who are evangelicals, frequently cite Prof Dawkins as being an 'Atheist Fundementallist'. I challenged them once and asked which book, tv appearance or lecture had given them that impression. Turns out they had never read, heard or seen him. It's just 'well known' - i.e. the preacher told them. I think that was around the point I asked that we not discuss their beliefs anymore!

18. God the psycho

Comment #121868 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 9:23 am

irate_athiest:

Well, I'm guessing he turned him down.

I can't believe I phrased it like that! If you didn't say it someone else would have :-)

19. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Comment #121865 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 9:17 am

Geoff:

Not necessarily. What about "neutral" mutations (such as, perhaps, the recent discovery of the ancestral "blue eye" mutation)?

Wasn't there speculation that blue eyes might have given a sexual attraction advantage?

Hope so, my eyes are blue :-)

20. God the psycho

Comment #121862 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 9:14 am

Steve: What did Peter Tatchell think of Ian McKellen's approach?

21. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121861 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 9:13 am

This country badly needs a secular constitution!

Maybe I just love conspiricy theories but would it be so strange if countries hostile to the West were deliberately, actively trying to encourage disharmony?

IMHO If we try and take an intersection of all the sets of peoples religious 'allowed behaviour' and then enshrine that in law we're going to be in a very dull country! If we have to then I want my special treatment as a Pastafarian. Anyone so much as looks at pasta the wrong way and it'll be out with the firelighters... :-)

22. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121852 by Phoenix42 on February 4, 2008 at 8:54 am

Great video. Well spotted Steve!

Personally, I'm a reductionist (Monist?!). As a computer specialist I've come across all kinds of emergent behaviour in systems many times less complicated than the brain. Yes, yes, I know the comparison is a bit of a weak analogy! I wonder whether the consciousness *could* also be explained by swarm intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence).
Did anyone understand why chemical signals are more powerful than electrical ones? Electrical signals could be modulated in a form to convey any message (as we all know). Is it that the cells were more likely to have evolved chemical pathways rather than any ‘modulate/demodulate’ functionality?

23. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120654 by Phoenix42 on February 2, 2008 at 8:17 am

PZ: I'd echo everyone else's comments of gratitude and praise for how you conducted the debate.

I wonder if it's worth plugging a 'beginners guide to evolution' books in these debates? I noticed that the opposition got plenty of mention of their book - bet it's a great read :-) Subtitled 'holes in the fossil record by someone who doesn't appear to know anything about the fossil record'.

There might be listeners out there with doubts (I know I had them when I was a Christian) who might pick up the Blind Watchmaker or similar and start to question their position if it were mentioned...

I wish the internet was around when I was 12 years old - it would have helped me escape the church much less painfully!

24. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120230 by Phoenix42 on February 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

I still wonder whether debating these people really helps! Here's a personal view:

My parents are Christians and they look at the occurance of debates such as this. They see there's a debate and assume, fairly naturally, that there's a genuine split between two groups of scientists. They don't care for the details, listening to the arguments etc. The argument from authority is all they need - the preacher says ID is correct and they see the debates as evidence that scientists are changing their world-view.

Edit: don't get me wrong. I'm very grateful to the various scientists who stop their research and teaching to refute this kind of nonsense. But, I wonder what the overall goal of engaging is!

25. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119247 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 12:26 pm

It's a shame that over the internet you can't see the glassy stare that usually accompanies some types of statement :-)

26. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119229 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 12:19 pm

When you speak to God - does he speak with an accent? I always thought that if there were a god he's got to speak with a Yorkshire accent.

27. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119218 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 12:07 pm

It's also funny how xtians usually argue with science by retreating to a pantheist position.

28. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119210 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 11:53 am

You don't like faith heads stomping on your sacred ground of science, do you?

I don't want to speak for Steve but I haven't really seen much of a scientific case made for god by any of the posters here. What stomping have you really done? Tried to talk about space and time but IMHO you haven't been able to develop your argument into anything relating to theism.

Maybe I missed something? If you've been trying really hard to make some profound point where science supports your beliefs then I'm sorry. I'll try and weed it out tomorrow! Need beer now.

29. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119199 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 11:42 am

...I have a real problem with the OT in general...

IMHO the NT is nastier. As Hitchens says - at least you can die to escape god's wrath in the OT. In the NT we're all guilty by birth. Doomed to horrific suffering unless we offer 'praise' to the god who will be torturing our friends and family. It's more subtle and more insidious...

I dunno if it's just me but even though the other arguments against theism are so strong the clincher for me is that it JUST SOUNDS MADE UP.

30. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119176 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 11:20 am

Kardashovel:

...complimented your appearance...

I hope you're not coveting :-)

31. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119163 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 11:12 am

Kardashovel:

Bye! Enjoy heaven. I'm sure you'll enjoy it all the more knowing so many are suffering because your god hides so effectively.

You never know though. Perhaps the Muslims are right :-)

Edit: If they are though please don't bore me with your physics if we're in next-door sulphur pits or whatever!

32. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119153 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:59 am

Maybe one day there'll be some kinda AI plugin for my browser to just filter people like that out!

Let's face it religious people seem to have some kind of neural version of this that prevents logic from penetrating...

33. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119147 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:54 am

al-rawandi: always the way!

steve: I'm sure the stretchy space-time was also the reason that the cosmic microwave background is at the microwave section of the spectrum. It was a good course - gave lots of interesting stuff and also explained why the big bang theory is so widely accepted nowdays... I wonder how many people would think the would was created in 6 days if they'd had a better science education?

34. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119127 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:38 am

Steve: the exact quote from my Open University coursebook is:

'According to the 'expanding space' explanantion (really the general relativistic explanation), the observed redshifts of distant galaxies are *not* the result of the doppler effect'.

Doesn't say why! I'll have to do the full course next Feb!

35. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119124 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:35 am

al-rawandi: Agreed. I'm giving up on this thread. I wonder whether it's a concerted 'clog up their forums with cr4p' attempt?

Maybe when you register for an account it could pop up with one of those 'anti-robot' questions like:

'please type the following: I deny the holy ghost' :-)

Ok, maybe that's a bit harsh... It just feels like so there's no reasoning with some people...

36. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119111 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:28 am

Maybe the upshot is that inflating spacetime is just a function of God waking up and straightening out his bedspread?

Or his majestic holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster flexing one of his noodly appendages from 11 dimensional M-space...

37. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119107 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:24 am

I was taught that general relativistic interpretation of Hubble's Law and the redshift interpreted by it was not due to any doppler effect. Rather, it is because of the expansion of space which affected the wavelength?

it was only an introductory astronomy course though...

Where are we going with this anyway? Are we about to recieve a big - "ergo the talking snake hypothesis - QED" ??

38. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119100 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:18 am

I was taught that general relativistic interpretation of Hubble's Law and the redshift interpreted by it was not due to any doppler effect. Rather, it is because of the expansion of space which affected the wavelength?

39. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119090 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 10:04 am

Steve: I think your interlocutor is more interested in obfuscation than real debate. Ok, that sentence sounds obfuscated itself. Sorry.

I don't know where you get the stamina to deal with all these people from. Are you sure you don't have a team of people working your account? :-)

Maybe the spam button should be used after a couple of posts that are wildly OT, or have a signal to noise ratio below a minimum level?

As far as I can see we're already far, far more tolerant than people would be on many xtian message boards.

40. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119051 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 9:31 am

al:

I have a little saying I shall post here.

I concur. Maybe Hell is going to be hot. Maybe there will be pokers and demons.

At least the conversation between inmates will be more respectful and interesting.

Oh, and I could never master sucking up and harp playing.

An eternity with these people would be Hell.

41. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119041 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 9:27 am

I think I'll change my avatar to an ugly hairy fat guy, then maybe they'll take me seriously.

Didn't work for Bernard Manning.

42. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119033 by Phoenix42 on January 31, 2008 at 9:24 am

Imagine for a moment that we athiests *were* all wrong, despite the total lack of evidence and strong arguments against the existence of god.

Imagine it's the Christian god.

Does that mean Heaven is going to be full of people like the trolls on here?

Hell doesn't sound nearly so bad now...

43. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116081 by Phoenix42 on January 25, 2008 at 1:10 pm

I'd not seen Conservapedia before. It certainly doesn't seem to be run as a wiki. It's scary! The 'article' on evolution is locked-down in case someone injects any truth into it!

I refuse to believe all christians are really so deluded that they think so much science is wrong. The people spending money and time trying to fight it are breaking the commandment 'Thou shalt not bear false witness...'. If there is a Hell they're going to have make room for a lot of preachers...

44. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114078 by Phoenix42 on January 21, 2008 at 10:24 am

I think Steve Zara's right. There's no evidence for the hetrosexuality of Jesus and his disciples.

I'm going to write to my MP and demand that in RE lessons at school they 'teach the controversy'. :-)

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

Comment #113696 by Phoenix42 on January 20, 2008 at 10:51 am

It's wierd how we've rejected the principle of hereditary power in just about every area of our society apart from this. I'm not sure how many people in the UK accept that someone is 'better' than them because of who their parents were! Perhaps we should run some kind of 'Monarch Idol' to choose a replacement monarch every 10 years or so. I'm sure the broadcasters would pay millions for the rights. As long as there were ballroom dancing elements of the contest....

46. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110585 by Phoenix42 on January 11, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Steve: Thanks. Always wanted to know that. Couldn't resist the opportunity to ask :-)

47. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110578 by Phoenix42 on January 11, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Steve: Sorry for being dumb and a little OT *but!* if everything is non-deterministic at a quantum level how come at the atomic/molecular level our 'simple' Newtonian mechanics work? Is it purely that we're seeing the mean of some kind of normal distribution for the particles?

48. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100753 by Phoenix42 on December 19, 2007 at 9:27 am

Christians, or at least a vocal component (minority?) of them, seem very put out by the thought of anyone other than them singing a carol. I guess this means the 6% or less that attend church regularly should be the only ones.

How does this square with the constant whining that Christmas is being relegated to a secular festival?

The answer is that celebrating Christmas, Winterval whatever you call it is a cultural thing full of non-christian symbololgy and ritual anyway.