1. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54534 by reggiedixon on July 7, 2007 at 4:51 pm

PaulEmecz : Didn't read much of what you wrote to be honest but to summarize - "Its all magic" - sorry that's just risible.

2. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54446 by reggiedixon on July 7, 2007 at 6:55 am

Although I'm not missing him and his pointless "contributions" I was expecting to see FleaBrain leap to the defence of Behe.

3. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51950 by reggiedixon on June 25, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Downunder : Thanks for your explanation, I however am not looking for things that I am confident are not there to be found, only invented by the imagination. As I have mentioned before I'm not interested in what fictitious ideas can be invented, only that which is real.

4. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51747 by reggiedixon on June 24, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Dr Benway : Oscar Wilde although Irish probably has more influence on British humour than Benny Hill although he was good in "The Italian Job" - naturally I mean the ironic 1969 version, not the one best not mentioned - another example of evolution in reverse.

5. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51691 by reggiedixon on June 24, 2007 at 5:41 am

Downunder : Naturally your philosophy is important to you, in your original message you seemed to imply that people you described as atheists need to change in some way.
Have you considered that some people (myself incuded) have a philosophy that specifically rejects looking for subjective meanings and subjective attributions ?
I have on numerous occasions upset people who say they are "Not religious but are spiritual" by asking them to define how "spiritual" differs from any other system of belief in imaginary entities.

6. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51657 by reggiedixon on June 24, 2007 at 1:33 am

Downunder : I confess I found what you wrote utterly baffling. I have no idea whether you are or are not religious. All I could discern was that you seem to think that people who by definition don't believe in things for which there is no evidence should "Wake up" and invent their own personal ones with the apparent justification that the universe has been around a long time. Wouldn't it be better to wait for the scientific answers ? Yes we will all die but I plan on reaching the end of my years with my opinions based on solid, peer-reviewed, repeatable, testable evidence.

7. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51564 by reggiedixon on June 23, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I have a feeling that this is a case where if you don't get the context and the background then you shoot off in the wrong direction and get it all wrong.
Baddiel is a rather good comedian who doesn't strike me as someone who takes anything seriously, if you are aware of his work then you will have noticed my reference just then.
I liked this article because I read it with Baddiels's voice and mannerisms in my head. Its not a deep, intellectual tome but then it doesn't need to be - as he says :
"Logically religion is, of course, nonsense"
Which actually sums everything up rather neatly in a lot less words than is usual on this site which I am beginning to tire of due to repetition from people like FleaBrain trotting out the usual nonsense.
Plus Baddiel says another thing that I agree with namely you don't need any flash theory to explain religion - "basic stupidity, wishful thinking and gullibility" explains it just fine.

8. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49032 by reggiedixon on June 10, 2007 at 3:46 am

greg_m, logicel - The Monkey video

I think you are mistaken, firstly the video was what I would call "sardonic humour" (I'm British by the way), secondly I firmly believe that it is wrong to act as though we are superior to the other animals in some way.
I would actually characterise it as one of the keystones of religious thought that we are somehow special.

9. The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Comment #47108 by reggiedixon on June 3, 2007 at 3:15 am

I'm glad I'm not on my own here - a question that I hadn't considered before has just struck me - are there people who reject all deities and "spirituality" cobblers who believe in nonsense like Homeopathy, Astrology, Dowsing, Panorama programmes on the dangers of WiFi or even more ridiculously "Postmodernism"?

10. The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Comment #47010 by reggiedixon on June 2, 2007 at 5:14 pm

I'm sure this has been said lots of times before but why do I have to be labelled or label myself as an "Atheist" when actually my position is that I don't believe in the superset of things that don't exist of which deities are one member.
Excepting of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is above all this kind of stuff [edit](this is a joke by the way - suddenly remembering that we have some very literal-minded people here).
Any chance of a potential FAQ dealing with this - and yes I know about "brights" etc but I think that's missing the point.

11. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46488 by reggiedixon on May 31, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Oh Fleabrain you're at it again - absolutely ruling out Father Christmas who delivers presents worldwide on a flying sleigh pulled by flying reindeers is fundamentalism ?
No its called "having a sound grip on reality" - one piece of repeatable evidence for your supernatural fairies and sky pixies could change all that but there is none and we all know it. You're just playing the usual silly games that religious apologists play.

Gravity exists - is that a fundamentalist statement?

There is nobody playing darts in a pub on the planet Pluto - is that a fundamentalist statement?

12. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46356 by reggiedixon on May 31, 2007 at 3:00 am

Are the people asking if this article is serious actually being serious ?

I'm British by the way.

13. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46201 by reggiedixon on May 30, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Oh Fleabrain - evidence for beliefs ? that's rich
Basically I don't have "beliefs", there are statements about the world that can be backed up with the scientific method and there is dogma that is only backed up by ancient fairy tales written by men with big beards.
To paraphrase Eddie Izzard on "Intelligent" Design
"As soon as we don't understand something the answer must be f***ing magic".
A simple rule - If the answer involves the supernatural then it is wrong and anyone who believes otherwise is at the level of a child believing in Father Christmas - deep down everyone understands this.

14. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45857 by reggiedixon on May 29, 2007 at 12:08 pm

Hey Flea Brain
To quote the excellent barmaid from a recent Jesus and Mo cartoon :
"Believing things that aren't true doesn't make you deep, it just makes you wrong"

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2007/01/05/deep/

You want us to debate just how wrong your wrong beliefs are ? That strikes me as a waste of time.

15. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45613 by reggiedixon on May 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Richard (If I may be so bold as to use your first name), I notice you gave Winston a chance to assert whether he personally believes in god and he ducked the question.
I'd call that Game, Set and Match to you.

16. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29569 by reggiedixon on April 3, 2007 at 12:44 pm

I was explaining this rather pointless discussion to someone today and their brilliant response was "Postmodernism - that's just like playing a game of 'Mornington Crescent' isn't it?"

17. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29350 by reggiedixon on April 2, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Sorry "September" if you don't like my phallocentric use of quotes, but culturally they work for me. Which reminds me -
How many postmodernists does it take to change a lightbulb ?

18. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29297 by reggiedixon on April 2, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I note "September" that you didn't answer the question, this seems to verify the emptiness of the undefined nonsense that you are thrilled is over. I seem to have missed it, was it good?

19. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29278 by reggiedixon on April 2, 2007 at 12:52 pm

I don't know if this is just a restatement of the Popper falsifibility test but is the test whether it is possible to tell the difference between a parody or the real thing? Rather like religious fundamentalist writings it seems impossible to write anything weird enough that wouldn't pass as the "real" thing. I had a brief scan of the table of contents of "Postmodernist Deconstruction for Dummies - A Survivor's Guide to Building Your Academic Career" which I initially took to be satire but now I'm not so sure.

20. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28222 by reggiedixon on March 28, 2007 at 12:23 pm

This thread is a useful illustration of how ranking lists are bonkers, for every Einstein, how many Ramanujans were there who never got discovered ? Does a great discovery make someone smarter than a small, incremental discovery ? How ? Is intelligent, diligent progress resulting in a great breakthrough somehow better or worse than a flash of inspiration getting to a slightly less great breakthrough?
What if one scientist's Dad was bigger than the other scientist's Dad?

21. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27263 by reggiedixon on March 23, 2007 at 4:44 pm

To Site Admins : I've mentioned it once but there seems to be some problem here where posts intended for general amusement on the site "Fundies say the darndest things" http://www.fstdt.com/ are somehow being posted here. We even have lunatic bible quotations.

22. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27246 by reggiedixon on March 23, 2007 at 4:13 pm

"Why does prof dawkins acknowledge that organisms look designed? BECAUSE THEY DO, BRIAN. And why do they look designed? BECAUSE THEY WERE, BRIAN. Can I prove it? Of course not. But its a better explanation than time, chance, and natural selection."

Oh dear, my interweb is playing up, I seem to have been directed to the "Fundies say the darndest things" website

23. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27225 by reggiedixon on March 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Good grief - all the moaning about the audio - some of it from someone who seems a little unstable. My ears - no doubt something to do with natural selection - are quite used to a constant audio feed containing lots of conflicting noises. The comment about not understanding English English I assume was a joke.
Great video - plenty of insights into the little dogmatic minds of the fundies.

24. Ricky Gervais on Atheism

Comment #26459 by reggiedixon on March 19, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Milton> Thanks, just watched it again, it was funnier than I remembered, I'd forgotten Jesus and the missing shark ears.
He kind of re-used some of the religion stuff from Glorious as EndlessForms mentioned
http://www.auntiemomo.com/cakeordeath/glorioustranscript.html#creation

25. Ricky Gervais on Atheism

Comment #26336 by reggiedixon on March 18, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Although Gervais's stuff on Religion is good, its very similar to stuff Eddie Izzard has been doing for a long time - Izzard always plays god as James Mason and Noah as Sean Connery. If you can find his "Intelligent Design v Evolution" routine he did at the recent Secret Policeman's Ball I guarantee satisfaction - particularly the "Glaring hole in Evolution - hyenas laugh, we laugh, nobody else".