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 lievemebe


1. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174978 by lievemebe on May 4, 2008 at 3:07 am

Did Neanderthals have a soul?

No, they were sold out by sapiens.

2. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174956 by lievemebe on May 4, 2008 at 12:01 am

Gosh. I must convert to religion right away.
.....er...er..which one?

Seriously, though, I would not return for a second childhood for this rubbish.

3. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174943 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 10:39 pm

ofir
The black squirrel introduced to the UK is more aggressive, eats insects and worms in addition to nuts and can interbreed with the grey. In this situation the losers are grey males that have limited options either in attack or retreat.

Similar invasion of the UK by Romans, Vikings and Normans was successful in the development of Homo britannicus, but was not a completely peaceful process.

However, I do concede that no evidence was presented for warfare between Neanderthals and Homo sp.

4. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174941 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 10:37 pm

moderndaythomas
I take your point that we need to start with evidence.

5. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174909 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 7:46 pm

But there is no sign of a clash between Saps and Neanderthal in the same way.

The interview could have made this more clear. Absence of evidence, while it doesn't prove anything, is an important part of exposition.

It's also important not to project such things with so many creation minded people mis-interpreting the suppositions of scientists these days.


I will say whatever needs to be said. My posts are not governed by the stupid machinations of creationists.

6. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174904 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Comment #174813 by MPhil
This is truly sinister. Apparently it is a move to entrench faith as the international currency of religion. This will enable irrationality, stupidity and deception to be more easily tradeable. Baby tossing and genital mutilation will be compared as demonstrative expressions of religious fervour using a new international faith language. It is all the more dangerous because the pope and other religious leaders are feeling threatened by reason and science.

7. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174895 by lievemebe on May 3, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Dr Stringer describes the demise of Neanderthal as resulting from being passively marginalised by the quicker responsiveness and greater adaptability of humans to climatic and environmental changes.

However, modern humans are extremely competitive and have a propensity for sophisticated modes of attack. I find it difficult to believe that humans did not actively war against Neanderthals and other species that would have been competing for resources in the refugia.

8. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174588 by lievemebe on May 2, 2008 at 8:57 pm

rian
I lost the tip of my finger in a wood planer, the tip was sucked off with the saw dust. My dermis also regrew with a dab of quaternary ammonium disinfectant and a band-aid.

Pixie dust eh. I wonder how it compares with saw dust. Surely a comparitive study of the effects of different kinds of dust on tissue regeneration is called for.

9. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174584 by lievemebe on May 2, 2008 at 8:15 pm

kjmastaw, surely you jest.

However, if Dawkins is wrong, he and all atheists will be shown to be fools for an eternity.

Could you please be more specific? What will the fools be doing? Where will they be? How will the theists interact with atheists?

10. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174204 by lievemebe on May 1, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Organisations such as Islam or Christianity that are based on unsubstantiated fundamentalist beliefs are wide open for criticism of the very direct kind.

I like Listening to Pat Cundell's biting satire. It is brash, refreshing and reminds me that the door of free speech is still open. If we cannot satirize each others beliefs we deny ouselves an important control on bad behaviour stemming from those beliefs.

11. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172044 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 7:19 am

The Sumerian, Egyptian and Assyrian cultures were advanced in architecture, economics and political science. There would have been a bevy of scientists active before this and before the bronze age authors of the bible.

The Old Testement repeatedly emphasises the Israelites as the chosen people. As far as the bible is concerned religious faith of other cultures was irrelevant to science or anything else.

12. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172028 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 6:58 am

Seeker of truth

What do we do with the scientists of old who claimed that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself?


What do we do with the scientists of old who began their search before the bible was written?

13. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172002 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 5:51 am

Verily
You construct a reasonable hypothetical on evidence in law. When science is politicised, similar bias can creep into what should be a strictly rational enterprise. However, an unshakeable tenet of science is that the truth will out sooner or later. The same applies in law, sometimes with intervening wrongful imrisonment or worse.

In science, correct evidence and interpretations are also overlooked for various reasons. As long as science is fostered by the community, the truth will eventually shake out. If science and reason are ignored or denegrated, we are in deep, deep trouble.

14. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #171997 by lievemebe on April 29, 2008 at 5:15 am

isenhand.
I think the agenda of RD.net is to replace religion and superstition with science and reason. I am an optimist. It will be successful.

15. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171830 by lievemebe on April 28, 2008 at 10:07 pm

Comment #171826 by Andrew Stich :Really? I'm surprised by the distinction that many people here make between animals "and" humans, or "There is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals," as if humans somehow didn't count.


I stand by my statement that there is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals, whether the animals are baboons, humans or stick insects. If you are unclear as to the meaning of antithesis, look it up.

I haven't met any atheists who believe in evolution. They examine the evidence and test the theory.

16. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171779 by lievemebe on April 28, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I also agree with Mitchell Gilks. There is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals. The antithesis requires that animals and humans evolved in fundamentally different ways. It is more likely that animals occupied different niches with varying requirements for imagination.
Religion took a hold in human development before science because it is an easier activity.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170788 by lievemebe on April 28, 2008 at 2:14 am

MelissaJoy,
You have circled around the problem of hell. There are several New Testament references that confirm hell as an unquenchable fire into which bad people are thrown. Either the bible tells lies or hell is a fiery furnace of punishment.

Now, I reject god so according to the bible I will, when I die, end up screaming in burning agony not for a day, week or year, but forever. That is eternity, no end, infinite. With this concept you are at one with Islam.

Why do Abrahamic religions insist that god created hell for the likes of myself?
Please explain to me what I have done that deserves such inordinately horrific punishment?
It is far too easy to discuss the goody fluffy stuff. I want to know what the New Testament hell is all about.

18. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170762 by lievemebe on April 28, 2008 at 1:00 am

Ben stein must be in this just for the money. No one could be so seriously stupid, could they?

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169818 by lievemebe on April 26, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Comment #169787 by melissajoy1234

Folks, I'm not worried about you being thrown into the "fiery lake". Hell is a very real place, and the worst part about Hell is that it is the complete absence of God,

I am genuinely curious: How can you say such a nasty horrible thing to another person? Can you imagine what it would feel like to be thrown into a fiery lake?
How can the complete absence of god be worse than a fiery lake? Many people can testify that absence of god is neither painful nor distressing in any way. In my experience absence of god is liberating and a source of pleasure and confidence. It is nothing like what I imagine a fiery lake would feel like.
It is useless trying to explain things that we understand, like a fiery lake, using things that you say we do not understand, like god. It is not an acceptable explanation.
I honestly do not think you have thought this through very well.

20. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169408 by lievemebe on April 26, 2008 at 2:41 am

riandouglas: Should I continue praying to the Lord for a resolution to this problem?

You haven't been praying, have you? - I tremble as I type. Desist from this or you will be captured by the holy spirit.
I suspect that the Israelites were under the spell of charismatic leaders, Oh I forgot, that is what both testaments of the bible are all about. We have seen such leaders in modern times use dubious ideology to cast their spell (Hitler with the master race, Mao with the little red book). Silly gastronomic restrictions are part of the spellbinding game, also used by many modern religions. I can remember when Catholics would burn in hell forever if they ate meat (not including fish) on Friday.
Public health may have been a reason for the biblical food stipulations. The chosen people could well have had problems with erysipelas from swine and food poisoning from shellfish. This rough knowledge would not only be a self promotion opportunity for the leadership, but as you intimate, a reason to regard other cultures, ignorant of public health, as vile.

Without the authority of the bible or the holy spirit, I commend you to the freedom and beauty of science. Go forth into a sinless world of theory based on evidence.

21. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169402 by lievemebe on April 26, 2008 at 1:47 am

Charlou
You refer to God as "it", yet it is an image of a man. What is the correct grammar for reference to a masculine image?

22. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169395 by lievemebe on April 26, 2008 at 1:08 am

Comment #169388 by riandouglas

Does turning water into urine count as a miracle? I mean, there are people who claim it has health benefits, so it's almost a healing miracle.
If so, I've been doing the miraculous for years.


You could have vastly increased your production of therapeutic urine by drinking a potent diuretic such as wine. This is why the water-to-wine miracle is potentially of enormous benefit - if only it could be replicated.

God, the inspiration behind the bible was only tricking, as she often does, in declaring that shelfish are unclean. She is reinforcing the fact that shellfish have shit in the head to put us off eating them. This has nothing to do with the potentially devastating effects of turning oceans into holy water.
surely that counts as a little miraculous?

The co-evolution of grapes and yeast is miraculous (for a creationist) and wonderous (for an atheist) but "a little miraculous" is a category mistake.

23. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169382 by lievemebe on April 25, 2008 at 11:44 pm

riandouglas

Why hasn't something been done.

For the last 2000 years most of the attention has centred on the conversion of water into wine rather than turning oceans into holy water. Who knows what undesirable effects holy sea water would have on the marine ecology. It is far too risky. As for miraculous winemaking, there has only been once instance of this and it was not accomplished with sea water. So far winemakers have only been able to tap into photosynthesis and fermentation using ordinary water.

24. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #169350 by lievemebe on April 25, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Comment #169343 by riandouglas

Does holy water ever become not holy again?

It stays holy. For example, if you dilute holy water indefinitely it morphs into a homeopathic miracle fluid.

25. Mount Vernon schools to hire investigator in Bible case

Comment #169311 by lievemebe on April 25, 2008 at 6:49 pm

I toyed with the idea that wierdo fundies should be treated differently from moderately religious people. I quickly dismissed that from my mind as I recall the words of Dawkins and others that all religious believers encourage anti-social and irrational behaviour.

26. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166331 by lievemebe on April 23, 2008 at 6:42 am

Winston says:

Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty.

Does Dennett believe or not? Furthermore, I understand what the truth is in a scientific context but what is the truth in quotation marks? Again, what is a kind of certainty?
Conforming with Quetzalcoatl's earlier comment, Winston is a tard confused.

27. Pope's Views on Science Invoke Spirited Debate

Comment #165716 by lievemebe on April 22, 2008 at 5:21 am

The Pope along with the Vatican have not learnt anything since Galileo. I am not talking about Ratzinger's lame and desperate apology for the 17th-century church.
Replace "Earth" with "human body" and you have the current version of Galileo's dilemma for contemporary Catholics. Now the human body is sacred, centre of the universe and untouchable. No contraception allowed, no AIDs control by condom, no embryonic research.
To say the Pope is 400 years out of date is such an understatement that it is beyond comedy. When I think of the current Pope I think of poor Galileo, but also of the countless people who have needlessly suffered from religious stupidity.

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

Comment #165668 by lievemebe on April 22, 2008 at 2:35 am

The atheist church concept leaves me shivering in apoplexy.
I would like to see more reason, science, creativity and art being sponsored by governments the world over as a matter of urgency. Curiously such cornerstones of education have no relevance to atheism. Atheism is not anything.

29. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165144 by lievemebe on April 21, 2008 at 5:55 am

Comment #165132 by Crystal
You expose a common difficulty when talking to Christians. A clue is that theists have an over-developed belief in things - a supernatural being or miracles or whatever. Atheists have a corresponding absence of belief, prefering instead to grapple with the wonder and beauty of the real world. Atheists are characterised by an appreciation of the importance of evidence in substantiating claims about our universe. Ask a theist about evidence and they usually change the subject.

30. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #165126 by lievemebe on April 21, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #165122 by clearmind

Creation requires logic and reason, and logic and reason verifies creation of God.

How can such an obvious circular fallacy contribute to intelligent discussion? And, what is this nonsense about circle of reason and logic surrounded by circle of faith?

31. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165117 by lievemebe on April 21, 2008 at 4:55 am

I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.

This is obvious from what he writes.

32. Fleabytes

Comment #163757 by lievemebe on April 19, 2008 at 1:56 am

Comment #163393 by Incredulous on April 18, 2008 at 9:37 am

Could it be that religious belief is really no different from any other belief?

There seems to be different kinds of belief. There are those that help us get through our daily lives (they fill in gaps where we are not in a position to check the evidence), and there are the ones that do not stack up to scientific scrutiny but are still maintained as true. The latter includes creationism and God. Theists are apparently incapable of understanding the beauty of scientific verification.

As Sam Harris suggests it may be we act on our true beliefs - in fact it is difficult for me to see that a belief actually exists unless there is a sequence of actions supporting it.

The phrase "true beliefs" suggests different kinds of belief, those that are verifiable and those that are not.
How many times have you heard atheists claim that they once believed in God, but after thinking about it, often after reading such works as Dawkin's TGD, they are staunch disbelievers. Sure, once the belief is scrutinised, it comes within the domain of criticism. Theists and athiests alike can be judged on their stance, but only after considering theist propositions.

As Dan Dennet said theists believe in belief. Atheists are rational. The theist stance is a wild card and can go in any direction. The rationalist is constrained by the workings of the real world.
Delusions can never work!

Agreed!

33. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163741 by lievemebe on April 19, 2008 at 12:23 am

Comment #163671 by ericv00

Nobody explores the best sci-fi option there is! Maybe WE will create the universe far in the future, when we have the technology to do so. We could go back in time to the first moment in time, and start the creation of the universe. Maybe complex things DID create the universe AND came late in its creation.

I like this crazy idea of being in a position of knowing how to manipulate the start of universes. Stem cell research is mundane by comparison, particularly in relation to ethical conundrums. We could leap ahead now and ask the really big ethical questions, essentially: To big bang or not to big bang. At least it would distract religious people from rigid notions of the sanctity of life.

34. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162916 by lievemebe on April 17, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Superb. Congratulations to all involved.
A wonderful example for the theory of effective rebuff.

35. Fleabytes

Comment #162655 by lievemebe on April 17, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comment #162591 by Styrer- on April 17

Our solipsism not only fuels irrationality as you describe but also limits our ability to make the most of those desirable cognitive faculties - critical thinking, empathy etc. - we all have.


I wonder what it would be like not to have beliefs, for example, that I am not going to die in the next week. The alternative would have me notifying relatives, arranging the funeral, updating the will and disrupting my life in general. Beliefs appear to be essential in keeping our lives in order and luckily much of it is done unconsciously. Beliefs of this nature are probably accumulated in the same way as knowledge.
Distorting and playing apon the belief system is a charachteristic of religion and other forms of supernaturalism. I think there is enough evidence to show that religion is learnt.
Once learnt, it does, as you say, limit cognitive faculties. If only someone had some convincing data to demonstrate this to a religious public.

36. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162467 by lievemebe on April 17, 2008 at 2:33 am

Comment #162452 by clearmind
No plane will eventuate from the junkyard.
The worms turned but did not evolve into humans.
Worms and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Both have the same genetic code, same energy metabolism, same cellular structure, same membrane transport systems and both are, right now, mutating.

37. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162048 by lievemebe on April 16, 2008 at 3:59 am

Comment #162039 by clearmind
Reading this makes me think of a tornado roaring through a junkyard and dumping tons of crap into your post.

38. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162018 by lievemebe on April 16, 2008 at 2:16 am

My advice to Anne Doyle is to quit the Catholic Church and become an atheist. Come to think of it, the Pope should do likewise and dispense with hypocracy at the same time. That would make him a great leader instead of a phoney moralist.

39. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162010 by lievemebe on April 16, 2008 at 2:03 am

It is difficult to see how the TEA expects anyone to be neutral on the subject of Intelligent Design. Balancing on an politically correct tightrope is not conducive to education. I feel for Texas teachers in such a dreadful situation.

40. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161186 by lievemebe on April 15, 2008 at 2:34 am

Comment #161151 by clearthinker

Has evolution moved from being science to being a philosophical/political position?

Evolution remains an accurate scientific theory. If anyone found credible evidence to refute evolution they would be in line for an instant Nobel prize. If anyone found evidence for a god-creator, I don't think there is a prize big enough for that. Philosophical/political positions have no relevance here.

41. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #161168 by lievemebe on April 15, 2008 at 1:54 am

Comment #160599 by Christopher Davis

But once again, I agree with you that where a natural reproductive barrier exists between animals we are justified in calling them separate species.

True, however speciation is a pragmatic word, used differently in various contexts. Speciation of bacteria, viruses, fungi is based on evidential characteristics that have no relevance to interbreeding.

42. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160394 by lievemebe on April 14, 2008 at 3:10 am

Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Religious organizations have financed many wonderful works of art. God is fictitious therefore had no part to play in this. Furthermore, what about artists within Dawkins' secular army? Don't they count? I consider Dr Dawkins himself to be an accomplished exponent of the communicative arts.

43. The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed

Comment #160387 by lievemebe on April 14, 2008 at 2:43 am

Comment #160210 by Mitchell Gilks

There is nothing to argue, no debate to take place, the best you can possibly do is recommend them some reading material, and point out, point by point, the flaws in their reasoning.



An alternative approach is to to tally the material benefits provided by religious sophistry (none that I can see) and those of science and reason (modern medicine, air travel, mobile communications, the list is endless). Ask religious sophists to give up the benefits of science. If this message is repeated often enough it may sink in to those who have difficulty with reason. Although this is a dumbed-down message it is far enough removed as not to denegrate science.

44. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159706 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Comment #159701 by Styrer
I would develop this further but it is my birthday and I am away to celebrate in earnest. Perhaps some other time.
signing off
lievemebe

45. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159699 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 10:11 pm

styrer
Thank you for your encouragement. However I have this awful vision of getting my balls out and kicking them around a field full of creationists and dying as a result. I know you mean me no harm - just my imagination running as rampant as the faith-heads.

46. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159696 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Paine
My apologies. I don't know what came over me. Perhaps I was thinking of the way rationalists converse amongst themselves rather than with a brick wall. A positive thing is that many religious people have elevated themselves to reason, maybe some diehard creationists can as well.

47. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159684 by lievemebe on April 12, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Hypothetically, there is a probability of 0.000000000001 that there is a god. Belief in god is similar to belief in that particular probability with neither evidence nor a credible method of estimation.

Paine,
Why does Francis Collins believe in bullshit in the first place? Surely it is better to explain evolution to creationists from a rational position, thereby re-inforcing the power of reason.

48. Did pre-big bang universe leave its mark on the sky?

Comment #158830 by lievemebe on April 11, 2008 at 5:11 am

Definitely cries out for evidence. I place a lot of credence in "ideas are a dime a dozen" as a reality check. Mind you, some ideas are better than others, some better than my simple math could handle.

49. 'Darwin chip' brings evolution into the classroom

Comment #158120 by lievemebe on April 10, 2008 at 5:08 am

The telling part of this demonstration is that less becomes more in tiny steps. Something that creationists find hard to deal with.

50. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156602 by lievemebe on April 8, 2008 at 2:48 am

The percentages for religious affiliation in australia for the 1901 census is Cath: 22.7, Angl: 39.7, other 33.7 No religion: 0.4%. For the 1966 census - Cath: 26.2, Angl: 33.5, other: 28.5 and no religion: 0.8%. There was a rapid rise in the no religion category in the 1970's.

In my experience of 60 years in Australia most aussies have little interest in religion. Aust. creationists going to the UK would have to be an ultra specific group of crazies.

More Pages: 1 2 | Next