Comments by The Hogfather

Comment #286896 by The Hogfather on November 19, 2008 at 1:24 pm

More deluded nonsense from those Christian fanatics then!

Comment #286274 by The Hogfather on November 18, 2008 at 12:33 pm

NMcC:

"Hogfather: Well, if you try just a teensy bit harder, you might be able to see that that's because it's not really 'an argument'. It's merely an observation on the proposed eulogisation of Mr Darwin."

So in other words you are making a pointless observation rather than a pointless argument. Thanks for clearing that up then.

3. Religion

Comment #286242 by The Hogfather on November 18, 2008 at 11:45 am

Blasphemy, Blasphemy....please more blasphemy, my second favourite hobby. Wondeful stuff.

4. I am Darwin

Comment #286238 by The Hogfather on November 18, 2008 at 11:36 am

Well, unlike many of the previous posters I don't think it's all that bad an idea. After all, what harm can it do? It's presumably supposed to be a bit of a consciousness raiser and also a bit of fun rolled into one. Yes, saying "I am Darwin" may sound a bit weird but frankly who cares?

Having said all that, I'm not the type of person who is especially interested in posting videos on youtube (never done it and probably never will). But I strongly encourage youtube enthusiasts to have a go.

As for Comment #286198 by NMcC, I really can't see where your argument is going. Yes Darwin did take a long time to publish "The Origin" but again frankly who cares? The important thing is Darwin's legacy, not the specific details of his life and academic career! Evolution by natural selection is obviously the most important (though by no means the only) part of that legacy. It's the power of the idea that's relevant, not how long it took to come up with the idea or how long it took to publish. Likewise, with his wife's religious opinions and Darwin's own views on the subject.

5. Anti-religion agenda among social media users

Comment #280799 by The Hogfather on November 8, 2008 at 11:23 am

Just as religious people want to convert people to their perspective, atheist people want to convert people to their point of view," Winston said. "The irony here is that atheism is a form of religion. You're still in something."

Well, I don't know what the rest of you think about the idea of converting people to our perspective, but actually I don't think I do want to do that. What I definitely do want to do is to try to encourage people to think. Preferably, to think in a critical manner with an open mind and without the dogma that destroys our objectivity. I want people to open there eyes, without fear, and look at how amazing the real world actually is. We won't force people to believe in anything but we will damn well encourage them to think about the Universe they live in.

"Digg isn't exactly religion-friendly, so it naturally doesn't attract a very spiritual crowd."

Oh so we need to believe in the supernatural in order to be spiritual do we? What does that mean for those of us who neither need nor believe in the supernatural, but instead look to the natural for inspiration and explanation?

6. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #280789 by The Hogfather on November 8, 2008 at 11:00 am

It's very hard to make generalised statements on morality. Personally, I think a persons religion (if any) makes little difference to one's morality, and what little evidence we have on the subject seems to point to this conclusion. I think the point outlined in the article about the most positive effect of religion coming from the sense of community it can sometimes instill is probably right. A decent response to those who might bemoan Atheism for it's lack of community spirit might be to suggest that we prefer online communities!

My one concern regarding Religion and morality though is that some religious folk are so obsessed with it that they start to label everthing under the sun as immoral or indecent. Homosexuality, blasphamy, apostocy, Stem cell research, worshipping graven images, drawing little pictures of various (so-called)prophets.... and the list goes on, none of these things have got anything whatsoever to do with moral behaviour. We should be concerned about people who cannot tell the difference between these things and real immorality like murder or rape.

7. Liddy Dole's Un-American Ad

Comment #280780 by The Hogfather on November 8, 2008 at 10:37 am

39 Popeye

The scenero you raise is an interesting one. If there were no such thing as religion (yay!!!) then technically the baby would comply with Atheism as we currently define it. However, in this wonderful fictional world there would also be no need to use the word Atheism, hence the word itself wouldn't exist!!!
Maybe we should just say that the baby is incapable of making it's own mind up on the question and thus does not actively believe, then we can leave the word Atheism out of it altogether.

8. Liddy Dole's Un-American Ad

Comment #279757 by The Hogfather on November 6, 2008 at 11:04 am

Is a baby an Atheist- well (technically) probably yes, but I think it shows the inadequacy of the word "Atheist" rather than anything else. My point is that there really is a difference between somebody who doesn't know about a subject (or somebody who is incapable of knowing) and somebody who does understand, has looked at the evidence and then come to a decision based on said evidence. So maybe we shouldn't really use the word "Atheist" when talking about children. After all Atheism isn't a religion, it isn't a philosophy or a ideology, all it is is a conclusion.

9. Quentin Letts ranks Dawkins 30th on list of 'people who have wrecked Britain'

Comment #278240 by The Hogfather on November 4, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I'm pretty sure PZ Myers also covered this Quentin Letts thing a week or go on Pharyngula- but I may be mistaken.

Anyway, I wish people would stop making such subjective arguments and then try to make out that they are making some sort of important point. I mean "weaken our happiness" what the hell is that supposed to mean? Surely what weakens our happiness is different for different people. I would argue that my personal happiness has gone up since reading Dawkins' books and watching his presentations etc..... Conversely I would also argue that Creationists "weaken my happiness". But the point is that, whether or not something makes us happy has no bearing on the whether that very same thing is true or not. Also, what gives Letts the right to say that his idea of happiness supercedes mine in importance?

10. Texas university scientists criticize attempts to water down evolution instruction in public school science classes

Comment #258064 by The Hogfather on October 1, 2008 at 11:56 am

"I look at evolution as still a hypothesis with weaknesses."

Obviously this statement is complete rubbish. The interesting thing is that even if it were true I still think that Evolution would be a much better idea than Creationism. Think about it- even without the evidence, evolution has explanatory potential, we could say that it would explain the living world around us if it were true. Creationism on the other hand explains precisely zero, zilch, EVEN if it was true!! An explanatory hypothesis with some flaws is STILL better than a clueless stab in the dark based on bronze age thinking! What have the Creationists to say to this???

11. Debate erupts over proposal to teach creationism in Brunswick schools

Comment #257502 by The Hogfather on September 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm

"Joel Fanti, who said he wasn't around 2 million years ago to witness evolution at work"

Well, well Joel wasn't around 2 million years ago. Maybe we should ask Bruce Forsyth whether evolution is true or not!

Also, what is the relevance of 2 million years exactly?

12. Debate erupts over proposal to teach creationism in Brunswick schools

Comment #257493 by The Hogfather on September 30, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Let's teach Creationism.

Lesson 1- What is Creationism and what does it say:-

"The Magic man in the sky did it"

End of lesson.

Lesson 2- Erm.....

How about teaching the "Strengths and Weaknesses" of Creation "Theory":-

Strengths- Erm.... It coincides with what Mommy and Daddy told you and it's so simple to understand?

Weaknesses- Well everything- No evidence in favour. The "Theory" makes no predictions, is not testable in any way and has a explanatory potential of precisely zero. On the other hand, there is masses of evidence across numerous disiplines testifying to the Truth of Evolution and a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Evolution has masses of explanatory potential, is testable (and has been tested rigously for 150 years) and can be used to make predictions. It is also falsifyable.

End of lesson 2.

Lesson 3- Are you still a creationist and why are there so many dumbasses who still believe this shit?

I'm looking forward to lesson 3!!!

13. Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Comment #256787 by The Hogfather on September 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Maybe I'm being a bit thick but the statement- "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?" - seems to make no sense whatsoever. As many have pointed out we actually do see many examples of evolution happening right now.But more importantly I cannot see the connection that is being proposed between something being slow and "seeing something now". If a process is slow, I can see how that might be a reason to expect not to see anything now. But how can an argument possibly be made in the opposite direction? That statement seems to be of exactly the same kind of stupidity as "there are no intermediate forms?". If only the Creationists could comprehend the gibberish they spout!

14. An idea ready for takeoff

Comment #255880 by The Hogfather on September 28, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Religulous opens on October 3- this is the date it opens in the states right?

Does anybody know when us Brits will get the opportunity to watch it?

15. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255879 by The Hogfather on September 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #255803- I agree with you Count von Count it would be unwise to make any strong philosophical conclusions from QM given that there is still so much we don't know. Despite this though, I still stick by my HUP argument even if it is only at best a useful supplementary argument to all the other reasons for non-belief. If somebody argues that God is somehow immune to HUP then he/she is either a cheat or a hypocrite. They would be a cheat if they are trying to make an argument for the existence for god using naturalistic evidence (as Ward seems to be trying to do here). One cannot have it both ways, either God exists entirely outside the realm of science in which case naturalistic evidence could not be used in either direction, or naturalistic evidence is admissable in answering the question on God's existence in which case my HUP argument stands.

16. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255626 by The Hogfather on September 28, 2008 at 1:35 am

I have said it before and I will say it again, I actually think a Quantum Mechanical argument (albeit a tentative one) can be made in the opposite direction.

I don't think that the following argument is comprehensive by any stretch, even so I think it would be an interesting thing to point out to a believer using the quantum world as an argument.

Here is my argument from an old post of mine (watered down a bit):-

Firstly, because of "Heisingbergs Uncertainty Pricipal" (HUP)- it is true to say that nobody (including God) can have complete knowledge of a quantum system, for example one can know the position of a fundamental particle but the more knowledge we have about the position the less we can possibly know about another property, say velocity. This immediately scuppers the idea of an all-knowing God, but we have barely started yet. Now if God had to create the first particle (which constituted the entire universe) and assign the correct properties to the particle sized universe to ensure that it expanded in the way desired (to mention nothing of his plan for how matter was created etc...), then isn't HUP going to cause him a few problems. I might even go as far as to say that the universe is completely "undesignable" (in the sense that the end result of the initial creation could not have been completely predicted). But even if God had a way of getting around HUP, isn't he deliberately making it harder work for himself! What sort of designer would create something out of basic building blocks that were inherently unpredictable!

Secondly, Imagine that we are analysing a "Atheist Universe" and lets ask ourselves what properties we can expect this Atheist universe to have if it did indeed harbor life. Two properties spring to mind for me- The first is some sort of self-structuring capacity- clearly the universe we are in has this, Darwinian evolution is the best example of this. But the second property would be some sort of self-creating capacity (although this could apply to either the universe or to a larger framework such as the multiverse). For me, the sheer weirdness of the very small subatomic world, also hints at the existence of this second property in our universe. After all on the subatomic level particles (and their associated anti-particles) are constantly appearing out of nowhere and then disappearing again- the only condition that they need to abide by is that there can only exist for a very small time period. Now we could have quite easily have found ourselves in a clockwork Newtonian universe, whereby everything operates by classical laws. Presumably, the classically governed universe would have been the easiest for a God to have built, yet he didn't build it this way!

17. Pope: Religion has a place in politics

Comment #254272 by The Hogfather on September 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm

""The presence of Christian values is fundamental for the survival of our nations and our societies"

Well maybe if the phrase "Christian values" is in fact a synonym for decent moral behaviour in Pope speak. But why use the phrase "Christian values" rather than say Morality or Human values?

Or alternatively, the phrase could mean teaching ignorance in the Science class, Homophobia, Pedophilia or childhood indoctrination. If this definition is accurate then I think we are just fine without those "Christian values" thanks.

18. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254260 by The Hogfather on September 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Well said Paula, I am also concerned by the willingness of some Atheists to give New Ageism, Astrology etc... a get out of jail free card. It particularly annoys me when people say things like "Astrology is just harmless nonsense". Astrology is definately nonsense, but it is not harmless! Just think of places like India and Sri Lanka where belief in things like Astrology are very high. The Burmese military government bases much of it's decision making on this kind of bogus irrationality.

Technically, the thing that we should be encouraging is Rational, Critical, objective thinking rather than Atheism per se.

19. 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

Comment #252614 by The Hogfather on September 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I know everybody is already saying it, but I just cannot help myself- this guy is STARK RAVING BONKERS. I think even by Creationist standards he is completely and utterly mad!!!!
I think he is actually genuinely mentally ill rather than just your typical lying scumbag fundie.
I never thought I would say this, but he actually makes Ann Coulter and Ben Stein look comparatively sane.

20. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251783 by The Hogfather on September 22, 2008 at 5:09 am

"Above all, we now realise, that contrary to being a complete waste of space and a descendant of apes, you are actually made in the image of God."

Wow, and they say Dawkins is strident and militant! I cannot remember Dawkins ever calling anybody a "waste of space" though.

Why is it that when religion is criticised almost everybody is up in arms, yet when a Atheist is called a "waste of space" or told that he/she is going to burn in hell for all eternity nobody seems to give a shit?

21. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251273 by The Hogfather on September 21, 2008 at 10:21 am

"We really need God to step in and settle this dispute once and for all"

That's the one thing that definately ain't gonna happen.

22. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #251267 by The Hogfather on September 21, 2008 at 10:16 am

The problem with this article is that it seems to assume that when one gives up one lot of bogus nonsense that they then must immediately substitute it for another. Some people do this, but there are many of us who do no such thing!!!
The author of this article doesd not seem to be aware of our existence.

I like many others who post on this site are against all superstitious woo woo no matter what particular form it may take. This is the reason why we should encourage critical objective thinking as a whole rather than just Atheism.

23. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242057 by The Hogfather on September 3, 2008 at 10:57 am

I think Palin does deserve massive criticism for her views on the Evolution/Creation "Debate" regardless of whether she is a creationist (Young Earth or otherwise.

Let's face it she is clearly on record advocating "teaching the controversy". The fact that she doesn't know that there isn't a scientific controversy shows exactly how ignorant she is on the subject.

Now we have this video today where she can't even go 5 seconds without calling on the almighty!

Then there is McCain and his nutty talk about how America was founded on Christian principles. It was categorically NOT founded on Christian prinicples and the American constitution is the most secular constituion ever devised. NOT to mention George W and everything that goes with his presidancy.

The conclusion- How can any secularist possibly consider voting Republican?
In fact, I really can't understand why anybody other than a Religion obsessed fire-breathing evangelist would possibly consider voting Republican.

24. Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview

Comment #242043 by The Hogfather on September 3, 2008 at 10:38 am

Is there anything this woman doesn't pray for?

She prays and encourages others to pray for a gas pipeline, her community, the Replican party, Alaska, the Wasilla assembly of God.... all in the space of 15 minutes. I think her God is in serious danger of being overworked!

Damn good job he doesn't exist then isn't it!

25. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #236389 by The Hogfather on August 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Decius- I entirely agree, this is supposed to be a comments section for people who have some vague clue about reality.

Wow! These creationists do like to babble don't they. Joe Morreale is really getting on my nerves!

26. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236164 by The Hogfather on August 24, 2008 at 10:26 am

It seems perfectly obvious to me that RD did NOT tell the children to become Atheists. If he had, then obviously that form of indoctrination should not be tolerated.

But I find it very interesting that the moment that it became a remote possibilty (in the minds of his critics) that Dawkin's was indoctrinating in favour of Atheism- there was so much criticism and frantic jumping up and down. Yet when people indoctrinate children with their own religion (and yes, some of it does go on in schools) all we hear is deafening silence.

So it's okay to indoctrinate in favour of religion but not against?

27. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197310 by The Hogfather on June 21, 2008 at 5:16 pm

The Discovery institute are calling us "Desperate Darwinists" urm... why do they think we are desperate exactly when all the evidence is on our side and precisely none is on theirs? Not to mention the fact that evolution is falsifyable, makes predictions and postdictions and has amazing explanatory potential. ID has none of these things.

The link that they give is interesting- why on the "Why is the bill needed?" section do they talk about dissenters from Darwinism losing their jobs and being harrased and not even mention those that have been discriminated against for being pro-evolution! And they say that the bill is neutral- don't make me laugh, the language they use makes the agenda blindingly obvious!

28. Science leads to killing people

Comment #171219 by The Hogfather on April 28, 2008 at 11:25 am

Absolutely unbelievable- I try to give people as good a chance as possible, but I have completely lost patience with this Stein guy. What an absolute ignorant idiot this man is.

The part which I think may be the most revealing for me is the bit where he goes on about "mankind being more than specks of mud". Presumably, the bit about "specks of mud" is supposed to by a (incredibly stupid) reference to the current theories on the origins of life. But Stein is, as usual, totally missing the point, the beauty with the Darwinian world view isn't about the so-called "mud" at the start- rather it's about the magnificient and awe inspiring mechanism that has resulted in the wonderful world around us. I mean does he really think that Atheists take their philosophical inspiration from mud- is he really that thick?

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

Comment #165028 by The Hogfather on April 21, 2008 at 12:10 am

Well done Richard Dawkins!

You have said what a lot of us already wanted to say on this issue. It really amazing how low the "Anti-science brigade" and the anti-atheists will stoop.

It is an intereting aside that Ben Stein and co are actually scapegoating- which is ironically exactly same thing is the Nazi's did. It's a simple case of- "well let's blame the holocaust on the most convenient target available, the group that are already most hated in the US, oh look it also happens to re-enforce our Anti-Darwinian agenda."

I think most of us Atheists are sick and tired of agendas full stop, I know I am. We just want to be left in peace to enjoy the Universe for what it is. We should not need to make nonsense up and then suspend our critical facalties in a process called- "faith".

30. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #162237 by The Hogfather on April 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Wow! Both Dawkins and Krauss are great in this discussion. Krauss really impresses me, my favourite quote from Krauss is when he said:-

"The world would be a better place `sic` if we were just to accept it for what it is"