1. Former state science director sues over intelligent design e-mail

Comment #203644 by Ultraviolet G on July 3, 2008 at 9:43 am

Scientologists at a school run by Will Smith!!??? THAT Will Smith?? That's really sad...I used to like him...

:(

2. Evangelical grunts

Comment #201152 by Ultraviolet G on June 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

Christopher:

I'm really sorry to hear about your team. I hope the injured soldiers recover quickly. Take care and get home safe. Whatever my opinions of Bush and his foreign policy may be, all the men and women of the military on these boards have my complete support.

3. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198764 by Ultraviolet G on June 24, 2008 at 1:00 pm

I had written a long post on the amazing lack of a sense of humour/irony in religious fundamentalists: how they can claim Secular society is immoral with a straight face while being so degenerate and vile. But then I started feeling to sick and remembered Walter Sobchak had already said all that needs be said (I paraphrase):

"...Nine-year-olds, Dude".

4. Darwinmania!

Comment #195482 by Ultraviolet G on June 18, 2008 at 10:06 am

"Religious" celebration!?? Quite the opposite: us humans like to have celebrations and festivals whether birthdays, the Olympics, Magic Chocolate Bunny Rabbit Day (sorry), the World Cup, New Orleans Jazz festival, etc. The difference with religious festivals is that they are based on supernatural and false premises sometimes forced upon participants upon pain of death. But community festivals can help us live together, we can have fun, and nobody has to get their genitals mutilated for mythological reasons. And in the case of Darwin's anniversary, we can improve our education too. win-win.

But more to the point: Animavore, your avatar is that grotesquely morally compromised, mediocre, commercial garbage "Garfield". So fuck you.

5. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191695 by Ultraviolet G on June 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

To fake richard_dawkins:

Please either get funny enough to be worth reading, or change your name. The real Richard is funnier.

6. New Online Survey

Comment #191557 by Ultraviolet G on June 11, 2008 at 8:16 am

Done! Only takes a few minutes if you are a fast and accurate reader. Some subjects may need to be careful about double negatives.

7. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185598 by Ultraviolet G on May 28, 2008 at 6:58 am

Hang on- if God ("the ultimate 747") drives a BMW ("the ultimate driving machine") does that create some kind of singularity? Something so ultimate, like a flying BMW with jumbo-jet engines and a brand-new Air Mac casually left on the passenger seat, that it creates an entirely new kind of yuppie messiah?

8. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184496 by Ultraviolet G on May 25, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Bullet: Hello and welcome. I'm not going to try and be clever or sarcastic, so please just read my post as it is intended. This is how "fact' and "theory" are used in the scientific sense. Facts are observations, theories are technical constructs which tie the observations together and allow us to make predictions about reality.

Facts about gravity:
Things (apples, say) accelerate towards Earth at 10m/s squared. People who fall out of high buildings get hurt or die.

The Theory of Gravity (parts of it):
Mass causes some kind of distortion of spacetime which leads to various effects (such as falling apples) and means that objects attract each other according to their mass. We then use this idea to predict effects, and test the theory. If we find a planet pushing apples AWAY, or a very massive star that doesn't have strong effects, we may have to change our "theory of gravity".

Facts about evolution:
Statistical analysis of the genetic makeup of many many different lifeforms suggests they have common ancestors in the past.
You are different from your parents, but inherit genes from them.
Isolated populations change until they can't breed with each other.
Chimpanzees are very closely related to humans.

The theory of evolution (parts of it):
Variations are selected by natural processes which leads to adaptation by populations to their environment. We call this "natural selection".
Inheritance is via DNA, which is the building block of life on Earth.
We can make preditions based on this and use them to, for example, find new kinds of animals in the places we might expect them to be from our theory. Also, if we found rabbits in 200million year old rocks, we would have to update and change the theory.

There you go, "theory" means a kind of guidebook which explains why we see certain facts together. There is not a graduation from theory to fact, they are different things.

9. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #184324 by Ultraviolet G on May 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm

"isn't it remarkable that almost everyone has the same religion as their parents"

Kristopher: re-read that sentence. There is a really important word there, "almost".

And, it's an important point but remember the wonderful work of the conquistadors et al in "converting" people at sword and gunpoint. Historically that has been the religious way. Which maybe is why you think "atheists" want to do the same thing to you.

Here comes the second sentence to re-read:

"If your agenda, is to rid the world of religion"

Yes, Religion. Not the people who follow religions. People have these things called "minds". And they can be changed without violence and coercion, simply by talking and educating. Amazing, really.

10. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #183118 by Ultraviolet G on May 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm

thegodsarenotgreat: I agree that sometimes people stereotype. I think when they calm down, most people realize that although there is some backwards "bible belt" culture in the USA, it is also the home of many great universities, and the country that gave us documents like the Bill of Rights. As for Sam Harris, nearly everyone on this board thinks he is a brilliantly clear, interesting and likeable speaker/writer.

11. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180862 by Ultraviolet G on May 16, 2008 at 1:28 am

Epeeist: Jean Fouquet - wonderful!!!!

Of course, many fundamentalists see all representative art, fiction etc as idolatry and evil.

Raiko: hits the nail on the head. "Moral" campaigners always seem to think up the most twisted interpretations of innocent things. "Gay rights?? It will lead to hardcore butt-sex toilet orgies in the streets!!!" Er, guys...maybe *you* have the problem??

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

Comment #175062 by Ultraviolet G on May 4, 2008 at 10:04 am

fides et ratio:

I agree that it's not a very challenging exercise to pick some deranged lunatic like Jack Chick and say "see how dumb Christians are!". I think there are too many articles like this on these pages (let's not forget though, this kind of craziness happens on a larger than necessary scale).

However, you must realize that the entire Cdesign Proponentsist movement is based upon the same thinking as Jack Chick. If you can accept a symbolic reading of Genesis, as you seem to suggest smart Christians mostly do, then you have to agree that there is absolutely no scientific basis for the entire Cdeisgn Proponensist movement. I'd guess that the Templeton foundation would be something like your ideal of smart religious people investigating science, and they can see Cdesign Proponentsism for what it is, purely political junk science. They made a statement on their website to this effect. On the other hand, if you insist on a literal Genesis, you *are* crazy like Jack Chick and I think a little derision is understandable.

13. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165440 by Ultraviolet G on April 21, 2008 at 1:26 pm

As a representative of the homeland of Pokemon- I can only say - Curses!!! Our secret is finally out!! All this time you thought we were animists and Buddhists...secretly we were part of the Zionist Masonic conspiracy.

Why do you think the cute yellow mouse is called Pika-JEW!??

14. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150704 by Ultraviolet G on March 27, 2008 at 9:31 am

Firstly, like any King who uses religious rhetoric, he is a lying hypocrite shitwad concerned only with wordly power. If he really believed the kind of Islam he forces upon ordinary Saudis, he wouldn't even be in Japan trying to grub for money.

We Japanese (heh, I say "we"- I am half Japanese and some conservatives think I don't count) have our problems with rationality (there are still traces of nationalism and racism) *but* one thing we can be very proud of is that we have almost no religion whatsoever. Even Japanese religions like Shinto and Zen Buddhism are viewed by most Japanese people as traditions like tea ceremony or flower arranging.

This is mostly thanks to the lucky combination of animistic/pantheistic religion surviving much longer on our little islands than in other countries, and then being met not with conquering monotheism, but with Buddhist teachings. It's almost impossible to end up with western-style anthropomorphic supernatural religions after a culture and language have been shaped by such forces. As long as don't screw up and reinstate the Emperor as "god" we should be fine. (Note: the Emperor was not believed to be a supernatural god with magic powers, rather his position as the symbol of Japan made him a kind of nationalist god, perhaps like the ancient Egyptian Kings?).

15. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139683 by Ultraviolet G on March 6, 2008 at 11:51 am

Dear Britain, what the hell is a "house of lords"??

Signed, the 21st century.

16. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138333 by Ultraviolet G on March 4, 2008 at 7:51 am

Ah, Idolatrous Death-Cults with added magic powers. We really need our politicians to pay attention to their advice on moral issues in the 21st century.

17. A natural phenomenon

Comment #138318 by Ultraviolet G on March 4, 2008 at 7:35 am

I'm not really one for heroes, and as Hitch says, it takes a lot to make me cry. But I will indeed cry in the presence of overwhelming beauty- whether the beauty of nature, pictures or ideas. So I proudly admit that David Attenborough (and his Natural History team) has brought tears to my eyes on many occasions for all 3 reasons.

It's hard to imagine a more beloved and respected figure in Britan - so it baffles me that there is still anti-scientific sentiment among people who would probably consider his work as "gospel". With luck he will complete his evolution program, find a large audience for it, and improve matters.

18. Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection

Comment #137039 by Ultraviolet G on March 2, 2008 at 7:51 am

@notsobad:

And every year in the UK over 500 people are killed by people on drugs who had succesfully passed a government examination to use a lethal weapon. It's called drunk driving.

I don't think the US has everything worked out with repsect to guns but it's not as black and white as people think.

19. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128865 by Ultraviolet G on February 18, 2008 at 5:55 am

>>minhuna

If you have some insight into the article that you would like to discuss here (about British attitudes to "multiculturalism" for example) please go ahead- many of the contributors on these boards are interested in such topics and would be pleased to hear from you, whether you agree or disagree with "multiculturalism", as long as you can give some reasons and listen to other peoples points of view.

Apart from that, I don't understand what you mean about peoples comments. It seems that most of the commentors are expressing their exasperation that the Archbishop has said something so unbelievably idiotic, and that Sharia law, where it differs from secular law, differs by being sexist, oppressive, superstitious and barbaric.

Of course, we already knew these facts, but I don't see the harm in people letting out a little stress by talking about it strongly on a website.

20. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123650 by Ultraviolet G on February 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Well I for one think this is a marvellous idea.

You see, as a successful stock trader and business analyst, if I really want to fulfil my potential it will be necessary to steal from a few pension funds, use insider info to stag a few markets and destroy a few companies: but I am held back by the current "one-law-for everybody" concept, which doesn't accept insider trading, stealing and so forth.

Also, a friend of mine is in a Nordic pagan black-metal band, and he says it is essential to his religion that he burn and destroy any Christian, Jewish or Muslim churches or temples wherever he may encounter them. You atheists and secularists may consider that to be criminal violence and barbarism; but that's because you are not sensitive to his (very sincerely held) religious needs. With this kind of approach, he could burn and pillage for all he's worth without being unfairly penalised or alienated by the law of the land.

Brilliant.

21. A Mutant Obsession

Comment #123097 by Ultraviolet G on February 6, 2008 at 1:04 pm

I am going to risk the wrath of some posters here and possibly Prof. Dawkins himself by saying: I wish Richard was doing more work like this and less arguing with faith-heads.

As you may guess from my screen name, I was inspired by the Christmas lectures as a young person; to the point where I later attended lectures by the Professor in person.

I think there is an increasing gap between Richard's fame and his educational influence: could Channel 4 be persuaded to make, say, an "ancestors tale" documentary, or even a children's animated version? I think this kind of inspirational work is more likely to foster inquiry and reduce superstitious thinking than the image of an oxford don and an evangelist squaring off and shouting "you don't understand science!" "oh yeah? well you don't understand god!" - this is a purely emotional, confrontational situation for the believer, which allows the faithful to maintain exactly the same beliefs *and* feel bullied by mean-old Professor Dawkins at the same time.

I think leave religion per se to Sam and Dan.

Flame away!

22. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118961 by Ultraviolet G on January 31, 2008 at 8:10 am

And one more thing about Nietzsche:
He was brilliant (in my mind one of the most brilliant philosophers who has ever lived) and he was way, way ahead of his time. But things always change and develop- his ideas are not the be-all and end-all. As he might have put it; he would not have wanted his ideas to become "mummified".

23. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118958 by Ultraviolet G on January 31, 2008 at 8:05 am

>>"al-rawandi" & "epeeist"

I hate to say this: but the best way is to read Nietzsche. "Penguin classics" do very good English translations and I would recommend starting with "Beyond Good and Evil". Of his other "hits"; "Zarathustra" is more poetical, but less developed and straightforward. "Twilight of the Idols" is narrower in scope, more mature and brilliant, but requires dense literary-historical knowledge. Actually, all of his books benefit from extensive background knowledge of languages, classical history and so on, but the Penguin versions do a fairly reasonable job in this regard with appendices or footnotes.

When reading Nietzsche- a good piece of advice is *don't* assume you know what he is going to say; read everything twice, maybe with wikipedia to help with greek names and so on; and take time to enjoy the humour (yes, humour) and lightness of touch (yes, lightness, in a Germanic philosopher!).

24. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118090 by Ultraviolet G on January 30, 2008 at 10:17 am

As an ex-Nietzsche scholar, I can only grit my teeth at abuses of his writing in articles like this.

>>Artful_Dodger

You and Mr. Oakes have misunderstood Nietzsche. He suffered enough from this kind of thing in his life: at least have the decency to stop quoting him as if it helps your position.

Quick version: He wasn't a nihilist. And he thought Christianity was ultimate nihilism.

25. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117092 by Ultraviolet G on January 28, 2008 at 8:48 am

Great article to sum-up the present state of play.

Not sure that "anti-dogmatist" is snappy enough by itself, but it should always be brought up very early on, as the central point of this whole debate.

>>HeyBishop

..do the thing with the knife!

;)

26. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114880 by Ultraviolet G on January 23, 2008 at 5:29 am

>>bluehillside
"Except they were called the Beatles... "

You mean the band? True, but by an amazingly unlikely coincidence - "beatles" and "beetles" have EXACTLY the same pronunciation! It is something called a "pun". Notice the original text spelled "beetles" correctly, and the "beetles" were the ones sending greetings.

>>j.mills

I agree. Why "gloat" about something so obviously true? It gets stale quickly. Let's celebrate!

27. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114633 by Ultraviolet G on January 22, 2008 at 1:42 pm

>>How about the evolution of man image with one on the primates holding a party balloon and wearing a party hat?

Also good.

28. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114627 by Ultraviolet G on January 22, 2008 at 1:38 pm

>>"John, Paul, George,Ringo and one million other species of beetle wish Charles Darwin a happy birthday!"

Winner! More like this.
Simple, clever and a good opportunity for a lovely visual image.

I think "smart alec" political comments should be avoided like the plague, they look cheap, date quickly, and don't do justice to the ideas.

29. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #112882 by Ultraviolet G on January 18, 2008 at 8:11 am

Notsobad beat me to it but...

"Rodents of Unusual size...? I don't think they exist. (AARGH!)"

30. The battle of the butterflies and the ants

Comment #108524 by Ultraviolet G on January 7, 2008 at 5:58 am

>>morgantj

That is a very important question for people who are just starting to learn about evolution.

The important point is this: animals aren't "choosing" to develop anything, those that happen to vary in a way that makes them more successful pass thsoe varitions on, and it becomes more common. The "choosing" is called "natural selection" and is a function of the environment that things live in (in this case the ants environment includes those caterpillars).

A realy good introduction is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW1rVGgFzWU&feature=related

From the Royal Institute Christmas Lectures by Richard Dawkins, and aimed at a young, non-specialist audience so they are really good fun to watch.

31. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107754 by Ultraviolet G on January 5, 2008 at 7:26 am

By far the best one of these "debates" so far. Sam is always exemplary, but the Rabbi also engaged with the conversation, and asked real questions to Sam.

This is unlike almost every other "debate" on religion where the religious side avoids any kind of engagement with the atheistic proposition and tries to score points and win some kind of popularity contest simply by rhetoric.

The Rabbi also made some very good points which Dan Dennett also talks about, evolution of religion being the one way to prevent destructive religion and so on, and it seemed liked Sam was also listening carefully to, and considering these points.

Most of all, I found the whole debate easy to listen to, fun, fact-filled and entertaining. With that disgusting liar and ranting slimeball Dinesh D'Souza I couldn't stand more than a minute of his shouting, tricks and outright dishonesty.

I would like to see the Rabbi invited to a serious "team" discussion with Dennet, Sam and Richard. Who else is interesting and reasonable enough to be on the religious side? Any suggestions?

32. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101420 by Ultraviolet G on December 20, 2007 at 10:47 am

>>Nefrubyr

While reading the article I was most struck by the same thing as Nefrubyr.

"Jesus' father was Joseph"?

Coming closer to reality step by step. Because this is all word games anyway; that's an important phrase to keep alive.

(He gets his credit finally, poor ol' dad!)

33. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95874 by Ultraviolet G on December 9, 2007 at 11:40 am

Oh, and this should be a non-story.

If I go for a job as a Medical Doctor and after qualifying say "by the way, I don't believe that the lungs oxygenate the blood"; I should lose my job there and then for being a liar, a fraud, and incompetent to do a good job.

Why is it so many people think it's ok to lie and trick others "for Jesus"? It baffles me.

34. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95871 by Ultraviolet G on December 9, 2007 at 11:34 am

ADH: "It seems to me that while there is evidence for evolution, it is turning out to be rather different from what Darwin envisaged."

..You know I always try to avoid this tone of argument, but..

It "seems" that way to you because *you don't understand modern biology*.

Please don't make such pompous statements, be humble about what you do and do not know.

What Darwin observed, reasoned and imagined has been supported in all its basic principles (Eg. the discovery 100 years later of the precise method of inheritance of all living things, which happens to fit his logical prediction perfectly!)

It has also been added to and extended by all kinds of interesting new discoveries and clever ideas (for example Dawkins' "extended phenotypes").

The only people who say fatously simple disparaging comments like "it seems to me that there are problems with Darwinism" or "I'm not convinced by (insert currently fashionable argument from ignorance here, say, the baterial flagellum)" are people who *don't know what they are talking about*.

I could just as easily say "quantum mechanics is turning out rather different from what Heisenberg envisaged"..it might make me feel confident and clever, but the truth is I know almost nothing about quantum mechanics.

35. Monotheism was a con from the beginning

Comment #91065 by Ultraviolet G on November 27, 2007 at 6:17 am

Rtambree>

I think Hitchens doesn't bother to elucidate this because he thinks it's implicit: the immoral actions are the direct result of scripture, and in your position as a "believer" you are given authority to carry out such actions, regardless of whether you personally think the bible/koran is true or not.

Without religion, Mother Theresa may or may not have been a good person, but she would not have had any authority to promote suffering on such a large scale.

Likewise with Jerry Falwell, it is possible for him to be a liar and fraud AND to have religious delusions too. Doublethink is practically a condition of religiosity for anyone with a higher education.

36. African Crucible: Cast as Witches, Then Cast Out

Comment #88220 by Ultraviolet G on November 15, 2007 at 11:56 am

elfinabout>

(adopts Alistair McGrath voice)

"..but what I would like to say is, that isn't OUR religion.."

Of course not Mr. McGrath, YOUR religion is obviously the correct one, not like these poor fools.

Does anyone else think that the "not my religion" crowd are, not racists per se: that's completely the wrong insinuation and I do not accuse them of it for a second- but extemely chauvinistic and provincial and bourgeoise?

37. Patience, fairness and the human condition

Comment #78355 by Ultraviolet G on October 12, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I can't remember exactly, but I think I read about an experiment with chimpanzees where they did in fact have a sense of something like "fairness". The basic idea was that chimps were offered banana skins (which they will eat) or whole bananas (which are tastier). Chimps were happy enough with banana skins if that's all they were offered. However, if one chimp was offered banana skins and another was offered bananas- the first chimp would reject the deal. Does anyone have more information on this?

38. Fiction or prediction?

Comment #77952 by Ultraviolet G on October 11, 2007 at 8:48 am

Yeah there was a bit of a gap between Roman Britan and the Black Death... However, he is right that people (in mainland Europe as well as Britain) did kill cats, believing them to be witches familiars and therefore responsible for the plague. This certainly made matters worse.

To go off on a tangent; most city-dwellers nowadays don't know what domesticated animals were actually for. My grandma had a house full of Rats and just one Tomcat cleaned it up in about a week; kept it rodent free ever-after..Cats and Dogs weren't always just fluffy sofa-stealers.

39. Call for major science campaign

Comment #77088 by Ultraviolet G on October 8, 2007 at 12:11 pm

USA_Limey>>

I partly disagree: as the article says, it is worse now than 10 years ago. This is a cultural thing: anything that isn't easy and instantly gratifying is marginalised on TV and in pop culture. Science classes with good, funny, interesting teachers can help but I think it might be a losing battle against "big brother survival island part 27".

Maybe Channel 4 would be open to giving Prof. Dawkins and some of his associates a "state of the art" science series, introducing and exploring one subject per week for a couple of months, with production values like his previous mini-series?

40. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #77046 by Ultraviolet G on October 8, 2007 at 9:33 am

Corporate abuse of DNA testing is a big concern in many areas.

The concept of health insurance is that it's like a big club, and it works financially and socially if everyone accepts "I don't know if I will get ill, but just in case, I will pay some money, and we will all share the risk". This is pretty efficient, because there are enough of us to smooth out the costs and benefits, and basically quite nice because it takes care of the occasional unlucky person.

Recently, companies are trying hard to "screen out" risky customers, or charge them more, while still offering "shared risk" style insurance to the less risky customers.

So..In the future, the only people being offered the insurance will be the ones who aren't at risk!???

41. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76459 by Ultraviolet G on October 6, 2007 at 12:05 am

Yawn...*What* a surprise..

Can we just prepare a couple years of future news articles right now and save the trouble?

This just in: Pastor "Johnny Righteous" of "Foundation for American family values" has been exposed as throwing lavish drug parties featuring sex shows and underage male strippers with money culled from his congregation.

Next, the weather.

42. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76262 by Ultraviolet G on October 5, 2007 at 9:12 am

doodinthemood>>

I don't think that's a hard question. Having powerful hormones and mammalian brain chemistry isn't an insult to anyone, it's just a fact.

If you've ever been in love you'll know that evidence sometimes takes a backseat to what you wish to be true, just because the emotional responses are faster and stronger than the rational parts of your brain.

The fact that powerful people in history used this phenomena to keep the plebs under control, and even in the 21st Century still want to perpetuate this sorry state of affairs could be seen as an insult to humanity, I suppose, but they are also mammals- greedy alpha male monkeys- so it's understandable.

43. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74583 by Ultraviolet G on September 29, 2007 at 3:52 pm

One wonders where to begin...

This manages to somehow simultaneously insult all those who gave their lives to protect human rights for really good reasons that would have been the same regardless of religion, and fail Hitchens' test of "a moral action that couldn't be performed by someone without a religion".

44. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73251 by Ultraviolet G on September 24, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Bear in mind the Christians have had about 700 years longer to get over their worst habits.

The author is brave, and also a welcome sign that, however small, there is still an element that would welcome an Islamic enlightenment, bringing the faith more closely into line with reality. That's the only place to start.

45. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #72936 by Ultraviolet G on September 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Physics is incompatible with the belief that thunder and lightning are caused by Thor and Odin fighting.

It's against the first amendment - stop teaching Physics!

46. Taking exception to Jake

Comment #72545 by Ultraviolet G on September 21, 2007 at 2:41 pm

>>Everyone jumping on Zamboro

I don't think Zamboro is making the mistake you think (s)he is making. His point wasn't about consensus making an idea or belief more credible; but rather that consensus is not necessarily a sign of following a group belief. It can simply be a sign of correct interepretation of reality by those individuals. The test, as you all pointed out and I am sure Zamboro agrees with, is whether this consensus is consistent with the facts or not.

47. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71669 by Ultraviolet G on September 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Last in a triple-post...well at least we all tried to help a fellow poster, seems like this place can be warm and friendly after all! (just joking, Yorker- and for what it's worth I quite enjoy your insults now and again)

48. Oxford's Christian colleges 'are not suitable for school-leavers'

Comment #71667 by Ultraviolet G on September 19, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Steven Mading>

It means people just out of high-school (ie. they have "left" their secondary education).

49. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70999 by Ultraviolet G on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Flagellant (plus everyone else, actually):

When I said maybe we should refer to "gods" rather than "God"; I wasn't thinking about that particular "statistical" argument about Zeus and so on, so much as how very simple choices of language can get in the way of making oneself understood to a believer, particularly in a montheistic religion.

Revcort is providing an excellent example of that emotional reaction: he or she is making the assumption that the "God" she believes in is specifically the one that I don't believe in.

Revcort: Allah is the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet. There are millions of testaments from deep personal experience that this is true. Please take up this discussion with them and maybe they can help you see the error of your ways.

50. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70926 by Ultraviolet G on September 17, 2007 at 9:01 am

Here is an idea, possibly useful for Prof. Dawkins when he gives interviews. I am sure someone can improve on it.

When referring to what Atheists (don't) believe, it might help monotheists bypass their emotional reflex, and understand your point better, by saying that Atheists don't believe in gods. Saying "God" triggers an automatic response. Saying "gods" is both more accurate and less emotional.