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

Comment #174456 by decius on May 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Bizarro, no one requires your presence here and you won't certainly dictate us what can be said with regard to your imaginary god. Do you find it boorish? Go and jerk off on a crucifix and leave us in peace.

2. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172724 by decius on April 30, 2008 at 1:59 am

@Steve Zara

I am with Jack Rawlinson on this, but I think I can understand what unsettles you about Pat Condell, correct me if I am wrong. You probably lean toward the left of the political spectrum -so do I- and your ideals of equality, tolerance and multiculturalism are challenged by some of Condell's rants on Islam, which, admittedly, sound creepily similar to certain right-wing rhetoric. Fortunately, this similarity is demonstrably superficial, as Condell doesn't originate his thoughts from a supremacist perspective. This is abundantly clear from his equally scorching attacks on his other targets, which are much closer home.

It is true that Condell has no second thoughts while he proceeds slaughtering the sacred cow of Political Correctness, removing its baroque contrivances from his verbiage. But since when directness and clarity are no longer virtues, and by whose decision?

Finally, multiculturalism is a great idea, but it cannot be left unbridled to the point of becoming a blank check issued to minority groups, allowing for primitive practices motivated only by preposterous metaphysics, thus undermining the far higher principle which states the equality of all citizens in front of the law.

(I shall leave it here and get ready for a major party, even though I had a few more points to make. See you all on Friday.)

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172079 by decius on April 29, 2008 at 8:02 am

karda,

if I had a direct line of communication with an omniscient being, I would ask it, not Steve. You aren't consistent and I begin to doubt that even your symptoms are real. :)

EDIT and I don't mean to offend Steve by implying that he isn't omniscient too.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172073 by decius on April 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

Glad that the fundies have left, apparently.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171872 by decius on April 29, 2008 at 1:00 am

Karda

Why would Jesus disrupt the law of physics and use supernatural powers to talk inside your head, but would not answer prayers of worthy people in distress, or save dying children, or heal them from horrible chronic diseases? Don't you think you are indulging in a very self-centered view of the world and an obscenely arrogant one?

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171609 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 3:58 pm

MPhil,

read this and see why you cannot be friends with some theists, respect them or have rational, amicable discussions with them.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20278737/jesus_made_me_puke/print

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171468 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 2:00 pm

believerb2,

Thanks for showing us that we are not smart, it was about time someone really clever, like a creationist, told us. Isn't it something man? OLD BEN TOTALLY OWNED DAWKINS, therefore evolution is wrong, therefore JEEEEEEESUS.

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171457 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Steve,

About the same occurred to me earlier: before I realised that DickDawkins was gay, I took offence for his homophobic remarks.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171316 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 12:29 pm

You can call it patriotism as long as you want, it still is dumb nationalism, a thing of the past, just like religion.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171248 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 11:48 am

Well, at least he is a honest dick.

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171246 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 11:46 am

Brilliant, carto :)

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171235 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 11:37 am

Come on, dick, why don't you just admit that you hate gays because they turn you on and that doesn't fit with the image that your church requires of you? They are freer than you and you can't stand it.
Come out now and you won't suffer any embarrassment later in life, when caught snorting meth with a male prostitute.

13. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #171207 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 11:15 am

Donald,

Thanks for the clarification, to which I think I agree completely. Also, English isn't my native tongue and I tend to garble my syntax, forgive me if I lacked clarity in my previous post. What I meant is that certain untestable speculations are scarcely scientific -such as those rooted in the supernatural- because of their inherent implausibility at the light of existing sound science. I suppose we slightly differ on the semantics of the term "compatible" or its application, as you cleverly pointed out.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171117 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 10:17 am

I don't think that flagging the clown will do any good, let him make a spectacle of himself. He is just representing his side at its normal standards.

15. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171105 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

Sorry, Karda, but by refusing to kill Steve, you would sin and be damned for eternity. Who are you to pick and choose and not follow in the footsteps of Abraham when he was ordered by the magic voice to sacrifice his son?

16. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171095 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 10:06 am

@DickDawkins

I must admit it, you really showed us. ATHEISM IS A RELIGION and not collecting stamps is a hobby. There, I SAD IT.

17. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171092 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 10:01 am

but I will not be persuaded by insinuations that I am schizophrenic.

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171075 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

Yes, Al. It's kind of daring, I know.

19. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171072 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 9:42 am

My theism comes from a set of experiences that I had a few years ago.

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171050 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 9:16 am

THATS NOT SCIENCE! Your so hypocritical it's unbelievable....your about as scientific as my pinky toe.

21. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170996 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 8:14 am

MPhil

You have my deepest sympathy.
I went through the same ordeal a couple of years ago with my grandmother, who was very similar in character to yours, from what I gather from your post, and to whom I was similarly attached. I think I fully appreciate your sorrow.

Incidentally, she was married to an officer of the Italian Resistance, my grandfather, executed by the fascists a few weeks before the end of the conflict, when the war was already abundantly lost for them.
Guess what, the clergy had a pivotal role in the arrest of some of the people who were executed with him.

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170962 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 7:27 am

Dr Benway

Not sure that that is all there is to it. An hypothesis could probably be thus made, perhaps indirectly: higher education generally results in less faith and educated people are less prone to crime. I am sure that it could be at least tested statistically, provided the inmates answered honestly.

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170954 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 7:17 am

Epeeist

Sigh, why is that people can't tell the difference between correlation and causality.

24. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170941 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 6:56 am

Donald,

We surely agree on theism and all that. However, I do not subscribe to the somewhat widespread notion stating that what is currently untestable is therefore compatible with science. That, to me, represents a leap of logic which could have had some merit back in the 18th century and no longer should, even with the added caveats of plausibility and credibility.

The concept of deity, according to nearly all flavours of deism, has a supernatural connotation and requires infinite complexity to work properly according to its own premises.
The example of the alien simulation, by contrast, is surely popular, since I heard a lot of people who should know better making it, but it is not pertinent because it doesn't postulate the supernatural, just a sort of keyed-up "hyper-nature"- for lack of a definition- that would encompass also our virtual universe. In that scenario there would still be no need to hypothesise extreme complexity springing out of nowhere and creating universes by magic.

A better example, in my opinion, would have been M Theory, which truly is compatible with science even though untestable. The crucial difference being that, contrary to deism, M theory at least has the math to stand on.

After two and a half centuries of hard-nosed investigation of the universe we have no reason to doubt the principle of parsimony, nor to suspect the laws of physics of not being homogeneous everywhere. I don't see a good reason why we should forget all that in order to accommodate deism. Oh yes, the pandering thing. No, thanks

25. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170901 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 6:10 am

el heffe

We are not responsible for you education or lack thereof. Sod off and come back when you know how to string 2 sentences together.

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170892 by decius on April 28, 2008 at 6:03 am

How is it that rates of depression, violent crimes, teenage pregnancies, and STI/STD's have risen dramatically since prayer was taken out of school? Richard Dawkins, you will bow to your Creator someday; that is a fact. I hope you face it before you die.
"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

27. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170342 by decius on April 27, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Donald,

the alleged compatibility of a deistic god with science is a pandering myth. It is, more likely, a blatant violation of the principle of parsimony and a terribly outdated view.

28. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170329 by decius on April 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Phil,

I was just agreeing with you differing with someone who said "Science may make belief in an intelligence reasonable." Perhaps my take that he referred to a deistic view was hallucinatory.

Edit Needless to say, deism was largely based on the design argument.

29. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170320 by decius on April 27, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Darwin has nothing to say on First Causes.

30. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170311 by decius on April 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm

the idea of worship is perverted

31. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170297 by decius on April 27, 2008 at 3:22 pm

But thats unreasonable.

32. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170285 by decius on April 27, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Sapolsky, for example, thinks that religion makes good ecstasy while science does not.

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170258 by decius on April 27, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Steve, do you mind a personal question? How did you end up coding software notwithstanding your preeminent scholarship in biology?

34. Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

Comment #168848 by decius on April 25, 2008 at 11:58 am

@arogop

I suspect that the examined organic material comes from a unique and extremely remarkable find occurred in 2005.

Here is a link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm

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

Comment #168140 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Come on, fellows, could you please stop feeding the troll? It's the most pointless exercise and makes you look stupid.

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

Comment #167638 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 8:23 am

A Flock of Dodos is a mountain of appeasing, self-loathing, intellectual manure.

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

Comment #167600 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 7:47 am

@Epinephrine

Of course, I was kidding.

May I ask you what you imply with your reference to people's backgrounds? If you think that it's a class or education-related issue, I have to disagree. Among others, I know a heart surgeon of upper-class extraction who cusses like a fishwife.

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

Comment #167562 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

@Epinephrine

I really don't see a problem with people expressing themselves as they see fit.
Take IrateAtheist, for instance: he isn't mildly amusing, he is hilarious and his style is as legitimate as yours, even if it might put off a few prudes.

This issue is as old as internet and, by now, it should be clear to all that this medium justly allows for more liberty than real life where too many gags are already in place.

Another thing. Are you aware that by upholding your position you are in danger to sound like a concern troll? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Concern_troll

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

Comment #167524 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 6:14 am

@lol mahmood

Welcome.

It seems to me that you miss the difference between an ad hominem attack and a genuine insult. If rough language offends you, internet isn't really a good place for you to hang around.

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

Comment #167497 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 5:29 am

Steve,

you may want to consider that what is said on an IRC channel isn't saved in a public space for future consultation. Secondly, it may be less bothering to Josh the setting up of a restricted area -styled after the Alternate Comment Thread, which took him minutes to create- than having people leaving this site and going commenting elsewhere its content.

So, we may as well ask him and decide accordingly.

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

Comment #167483 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 5:13 am

@Roland

Good point, perhaps it nullifies what I said after in reply to Epeeist. Although the fact that visitors read the articles is no guarantee that they take time to follow the threads.

I think your idea for an atheist handbook is an excellent one, too. It should reduce the need for endless repetitions.

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

Comment #167478 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 5:04 am

@epeeist

I concede that point, but it really is a matter of priorities and time that could have been more advantageously employed in initiatives of wider impact and for the benefit of an audience larger than an anonymous and unquantifiable group of lurkers.

It's a bit like organizing your household around what your neighbours might see if they peep in vs. the benefit of the guests that you invite and choose, if you forgive the cheap analogy.

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

Comment #167469 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 4:50 am

Wasn't Skype limited to five interlocutors? And even if it weren't, any higher number of participants would be quite difficult to manage. Mind you, I would be honoured to have you all in my contact list, but Skype doesn't seem to constitute a valid alternative, particularly because it isn't integral part of where the discussion originates.

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

Comment #167462 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 4:31 am

I think we could ask Josh to consider setting up a restricted area, which seems to me the most sensible idea, since it doesn't involve diverting people elsewhere. It shouldn't be that difficult and we could pay him for the extra hours of work.

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

Comment #167459 by decius on April 24, 2008 at 4:22 am

@Steve Zara, Diacanu and all the others who have been taken for a ride by TheTruthID.

It is apparent that the IDiot is nothing more than a very young clueless troll. In his spontaneous outbursts he repeats the most ignorant creationist slogans and distortions, while insulting you, doubting your credential, accusing you of his own dishonest techniques like "picking and choosing a scientist and ignoring the others " (a preposterous accusation, since all he does is ignoring entirely any relevant science, if not for quote-mining from it.)

When challenged, he will simply cut and paste wholesale from creationist and scientific sites alike, without even understanding the content of his plagiarism, as the absurd "The antibiotic was still an antibiotic was it not?" post reveals. Yet somehow he has managed to deceive you into believing that he understands anything at all about biology.

Fine intellects such as yours are truly wasted on
this individual and those like him.

46. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163591 by decius on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Richard, just wait and see. They will quote-mine you from this article as well.
Here is an easy one: "Dawkins finally admits that the flagellar motor is irreducibly complex: <<..you might as well say flagellar motors were always there.>> "

47. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162839 by decius on April 17, 2008 at 2:36 pm

@Mesomodel

Very inspiring words and admirable straightforwardness, thank you.

What a contrast with the wishy-washy post-modern crap coming from other quarters.

48. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162689 by decius on April 17, 2008 at 8:54 am

Thanks, Luthien.

No, Black Wolf, it isn't a Larson.
Try Perscheid.

More to come.

49. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162550 by decius on April 17, 2008 at 4:04 am

"I guess that the $20 million plus the estate earns every year isn't enough for Yoko Ono," Mr. Boyce wrote Monday in the Huffington Post, referring to an income estimate printed by Forbes magazine. "Not only does she feel the need to license the song out, she probably held out for the highest bidder."

50. Ancient serpent shows its leg

Comment #159326 by decius on April 12, 2008 at 12:54 am

SteveN

Thanks for your lucid and informative comment.
If I may hazard a speculation, the specimen should be checked for the remains of a larynx, whose presence will confirm beyond reasonable doubts your hypothesis and strengthen further the validity of Creation Science.

Bless ya