1. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #309802 by phasmagigas on December 31, 2008 at 3:50 pm

jgirolamo

Because God is Holy no one can enter heaven with sin * That is why there is Hell* God does not want anyone to perish* He gives us the choice to accept the atonement and be blemish free or not*

The atonement for sin since the beginning of time was blood* However that did nothing. there for the perfect atonement on our behalf was made*

By the way most did not understand what was happening during his crucifixion, it was not as if his followers let Jesus suffer so that they might live*

Whey is there suffering, Great question, don't have all the answers.
I do know, that we live in a fallen world and therefore we experience the consequences of others sin or our own* . Also, since we have free will, we make decisions which are sometimes not Gods plan* God does not sit up in heaven moving us around like pawns **

* assertions for which you or nobody else through history has any evidence
** i agree somewhat with that one.

the god delusion is the price we pay for knowing that we will die oneday.

2. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309797 by phasmagigas on December 31, 2008 at 3:44 pm

skb

Your believe system is not just scary, but also evil and depraved of morality. God has probably given you to uncleannessdishonour your own body between you and your homosexual friend. This is just too creepy and i am sorry you have found reasons to justify such sins are pornography, homosexuality and such. When and where did you come to settle the lie that gayness is a wonderful, natural behavior' I mean your welcome to believe whatever, but this sir is going too far with you... nothing i read from your post was informative except a justification for sin. I think with these signs of evilcary to the lake of fire. And who told you homosexulity was not a condemned sexual deviance' have you been to the world lately' Most people hate homosexuality, it's a dumb thing only practiced by the low self esteemed.

skb, this paragraph makes you sound not just utterly ignorant but also a little bit naive.

3. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309787 by phasmagigas on December 31, 2008 at 3:19 pm

The thing is that everyone who challenges these things: gayness, atheism, evolution, is considered dumb, stupid/ignorant in your atheistic communities

thats because people who feel homosexuality is wrong and dont accept evolution are ignorant, there are plenty of theists who whould agree with that statement.

I don't support gayness because it's a product of atheism.

how do you account for a homosexual christian, muslim or jew then(question mark), how can it be a product of atheism if a true believer is gay (question mark)

I love women and i would rather spend my life with them than with a dude.

hmm, nobody is suggesting thet you should spend your life with another guy, challenging homophobic attitutes is not about encouraging straight men to sleep with men but to try and stem hate towards gay people and ensure they are treated equally under the law in every respect.

but if you want me to love homosexuality, NO

im not sure anybody is suggesting anything that strong.

My promise is i will be tolerant toward carto and steve for who there are. Yet i don't expect to be called hateful and ignorant just because i prefer heterosexual behavior.

thats commendable but dont you see how patronising that actually sounds.

4. Darwin shouldn't be hijacked by New Atheists - he is an ethical inspiration

Comment #309688 by phasmagigas on December 31, 2008 at 12:06 pm

jamcam

She used the words scietific rascism. What the hell is scientific rascism'

its one of those 'teach the controversy' type things that has the religious minds going 'ohh' and 'ahh' and allows them to agree with something that has no meaning when its nothing but a device to demonise people who are actually unlikely to be especially racist.

5. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #309603 by phasmagigas on December 31, 2008 at 10:48 am

jgirolamo

Science is not against it in fact there is more evidence for it. People have been fed lies. for example the geological strata. It doesn't exist as we see it in all of the text books

sorry to butt in here, but just what are you talking about' strata doesnt exist as seen in text books, eh, ive seen many real layers of strata and they look very much like the textbook photos that they (the exact same strata) feature in.

you know nothing of geology. tell the people drilling for oil that they have it all wrong when they find the stuff.

edit, damn, my question marks still arent working!!!!

6. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #308630 by phasmagigas on December 30, 2008 at 6:07 am

But one of the ways to examine religion is as a set of shared stories and characters which explain what is happening in the world, and the new atheists, with their urgent, apocalyptic message about the dangers of faith, certainly offer that.

i suppose the significant difference is that nukes are real wheres hurled meatballs from the sky are less likely.

7. Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati

Comment #307324 by phasmagigas on December 27, 2008 at 4:43 pm

delia smiths comments are probably totally forgivable, i can bet she was referring to refined sucrose or glucose, shes old skool, follow her offalicious recipies and you cant go wrong!

8. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307073 by phasmagigas on December 27, 2008 at 7:14 am

The question of God’s existence is one of those few matters of general interest on which philosophers might pretend to expertise

so who does have the expertise ' somebody like the pope maybe ' i think not, hes such an idiot he thinks man lying with man will affect humanity to the same extent as destroying natural habitats.

Is there a 'fieldguide to the gods' written by an expert ' I have one for insects of europe, insects of north america, trees of north america, flowers of europe.

ok, a silly post but there it is, im getting frustrated at the lack of question marks (i have to use the & # 6 3 trick and even then when i edit they still vanish)....so i had to vent

9. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #307072 by phasmagigas on December 27, 2008 at 7:04 am

FG

first came to this site, 18 months ago, some what depressed and clutching at theological straws.

It was the kindness of a complete stranger, a very atheist poster on this site, whom , I will not embarress by naming, that kindness was truly something I needed. It helped a lot.

thats good to hear.

from my personal experience with talks with believers i find a sort of superficial goodnness but ultimately a lack of compassion will always rear its ugly head, the final question i ask is 'answer me truly, do you think im going to hell'' they will worm around some answer to try and seem considerate but eventually get to yes. i tell them that they feel that i am therefor no good in their gods eyes, I then walk away.

10. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #307070 by phasmagigas on December 27, 2008 at 6:59 am

Strange that an self outed totally un-emphatic Sociopath, who himself is not doing good to be good but just afraid from bad actions and thoughts because of the perceived watching of an imaginary Skydaddy is making that bold statements as a generalization.

considering the cosmic enormity of the concept of belief in god, of those who claim belief in and favours from the detity I wonder why they arent doing 'good deeds' all the time.

It amazes me that they could even consider engaging in the most pointless and selfish acts like buying a plastic christmas tree or eating anything but the most pallid simple food, or buying yet another television, the pope in his fine robes, the evangelist leaders in their colossal homes. Seems to me its just lip service and a perverted self aggrandisation. why any theist is even online discussing this stuff is beyond me, the minutes wasted typing could be minutes serving soup to drug addicts in a city project area.

im not being facetious here either, if they truly believe that their actions will affect their eternal condition then surely the simplest selfish act must be paid for.

11. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306711 by phasmagigas on December 26, 2008 at 7:04 am

mphil.

You're conflating two questions: The question is not the descriptive "where do we get the behaviour from we call moral'", but "what is it that makes certain things morally good/commendable and what is it that makes others morally bad/wrong'".

yes, i see the difference.

i suggest that theists simply pick and choose some of our behavioural repertoire (and our intellectual/emotional response to it) and feel that it has to come from god, just because they say so.

(the canine god says that sniffing a bottom and NOT biting it is one of his divine orders and thats why dogs sniff but dont bite, the atheist dogs would have no reason not to bite and run off with a chunk of calorific flesh)

12. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306701 by phasmagigas on December 26, 2008 at 6:24 am

billysands

10. How did Noah collect all the animals' (I worked out, using a conservative estimate of 10 million species, that in the week god allowed him to collect the animals in, he would have to round up and put one species on the ark every 60 microseconds.

oh billy you forget, he collected 'kinds'.

challenge a ark advocate: its a summers day, ask them to find an insect, easy enough, maybe a grasshopper. They proudly show you the grasshopper (clocks ticking, waters rising), now ask them to find a member of the opposite sex of the same species. Hopefully they wont return with a katydid and say 'oh that was easy', creationists arent known for their biological expertise.

13. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306699 by phasmagigas on December 26, 2008 at 6:03 am

skb

though they are always free to do whatever- no sense of morality)

dont make silly general statements like this, I suggest that youd have less fearful time amongst a room of militant atheists than a roomful of militant islamists. One of those groups accept god and should be more moral right '

youd have a point if all christians (for eg) behaved morally (and then you have to decide what is moral and what isnt, one mans immorality is another mans greatest pleasure) and all atheists were on permanent drug fuelled, chocolate eating, homosexual, murderous orgies, but as you know that simply isnt the case.

I mean, one day try to convince me to be an atheist, try once, I want to see evidence that there is no God and this universe came by purposely.

i have no interest in convincing anybody to be atheist.

Im not sure i can demonstrate that here is no christian god, perhaps you can help me there, show me evidence that there is no islamic god and I can then apply that to the christain god and arguments over.

14. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306698 by phasmagigas on December 26, 2008 at 5:34 am

skb

My wish is that atheists would actually answer a question directly the way it is asked. When I asked you about the first 5 seconds of the universe I wasn't questioning if people know or not, (first of all, you mad an unqualified generalization here by sayin "we all Know" trust me my friends, alot of atheists don't know how to explain most of the things they ought to answer), Anyway, I needed you to PLEASE, and scientifically explain how the universe came into being, and don't forget all the steps of the scientific method too(very important). I predict that your response is not gonna answer the question, mostly insults and pointless innuendos. I mean, one day try to convince me to be an atheist, try once, I want to see evidence that there is no God and this universe came by purposely.

you did not detect my sarcasm.

of course most (actually its all of them)atheists dont know what happened in the first 5 seconds because nobody does!! most atheists couldnt describe mathematically why a passenger jet can lift but that suddenly doesnt give any credibility to the 'aircraft lift by the hand of god theory'.

I know where you are coming from though: atheist doesnt know what happened in the first 5 seconds of the universe so goddidit. just like how people couldnt explain land mass movements until recently so godidit too.

why do theists specifically use moralty as evidence for god ' i dont get it, every species has a range of behaviours, depending upon the situation they usually aid the organism, some of these amazingly seem to be unselfish or certainly benign, so for eg dog might see another, it will go through a range of behaviours to assess each other and then perhaps walk away, they dont normally immediately set out to kill each other (they might), you could consider that non destructive behaviour 'dog morality' as such(oh hes such a nice guy, he sniffs you out so gently and never bites unless provoked).

theists seem to feel that without god people should be running around stabbing and raping each other, interestingly that is happening in many countries where situations are desperate and you can bet that most (if not all) the authors of violence believe in god.

I wonder why atheists behaving like good citizens seems to rub up some theists the wrong way, maybe they resent being forced through fear into behaving.

15. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306638 by phasmagigas on December 25, 2008 at 8:31 pm

skb

About those communist/atheist regimes of the 20th century. It doesn't really help you to say they commited their atrocities not in the name of atheism. If you read history, you will realize that Stalin/Hitler were trying to create a perfect society, no cripple, no sick people, only the blue-eyed blonde haired caucasians, thought by Hitler as the ideals. This idea of eugenics was endorsed and articulated by none other than Francis Galton, atheist half-cousin of charles darwin, just how dangerous was this' it took lives of millions and millions of innocent people. Let's say the idea of "love one another" or "love thy neighbor as yourself" was applied here, an idea championed by christianity, I don't think we would have had those lives taken away by the monsters of atheism, aka your fellow atheists. Christianity is not as bad as you make it look like man. it's not.

even if all atheists ate babies alive for breakfast it wouldnt alter the case for or against god one bit.

thats not you point im sure, what i think that you are saying here is that atheists are bad.

anyway your points are trite, you make no mention of 'atheism' just eugenics and something about an atheistic half brother (jees, those nasty half siblings) and as for teh 'love one another' bit, well i agree if they stuck with that then they wouldnt have murdered all those people, but if they had also 'rolled down a hill instead of killing' (not a christian virtue but one of my own) they wouldnt have done it either.

16. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306628 by phasmagigas on December 25, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Also, troubling for atheists, is the issue of morality.

nope, not for me, I know its wrong to twist babies fingers, i dont need allah to tell me that.

why is that wrong (question mark) you might ask me. well if you have to ask me that then you are a pervert.

damn, my question marks still arent working.

What I ask for Prof. Richard Dawkins is, if we are to imagine a world without religion, how do we explain such christian virtues as Love, mercy, peace, self-control, and all the ideas that are not articulated by atheism and certainly not by evolution'

certainly not by evolution! 'certainly'!! nobody can be ever certain about anything, you got some research falsifying the above things cannot be attributed to evolution, of course not.

EDIT, whoops, of course that should be falsifying that they ARE attributed to evolution.

'Christian virtues', jesus H christ you are a comedien, you actually think love, self control, mercy are exclusive to christians (question mark)

insane comments.

17. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306622 by phasmagigas on December 25, 2008 at 7:55 pm

How do atheists explain how the universe began, how do you explain the first 5 seconds when nothing exploded, do it scientifically'

your question makes you sound incredibly stupid.

you think we dont all know what happened in the first 5 seconds of the universes history, especially the bit when 'nothing exploded' jees, everybody knows that.

18. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #306619 by phasmagigas on December 25, 2008 at 7:43 pm

SKB

Atheists know that they are standing in a dangerous ground when they say there is not God, they know that if they are wrong and God actually exist, then they are doomed.

ROFLMFAO

doomed, an assertion for which you have no evidence.

atheists can be a bit touchy sometimes because theists often make idiotic statements like that.

its like you will be doomed if you dont accept allah, assuming you dont already. the assertion that god will doom non believers is the core trite belief of many a theist, it is a retarded idea, one that keeps you in a state of infancy, if im doomed thats for me to deal with, not for you to gloat over so piss off you whining imbecile.

you have God who is above and greater than any man, he consequently holds everybody accountable for their actions.

an assertion for which you have no evidence.

From reading your rude atheistic comments, I take it you're from the UK.

what an fucking idiotic comment.

19. Florida Woman Says Former Church Plans to Make Her Sins Public

Comment #306543 by phasmagigas on December 25, 2008 at 6:10 am

shes an idiot for being involved with such a malign regime in the first palce and deserves no sympathy whatsoever.

20. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306446 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 5:16 pm

brian.

Meat's in the oven, spuds too. First beer opened. Aaah, life's good. :)

kumera too, i hope.

21. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306445 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm

when people bring up absolute morality its like some idiotic last resort to try and assert their gods existence, it really is pathetic, kind of like 'oh, im soooo good, and big god daddy will be watching me and im special'

nappies and dummies come to mind.

22. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306444 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 5:11 pm

gimlib, you speak of absolute morality, what does it consist of, do you adhere to it, if you do you understand that somebody somewhere will tell you that you have it wrong, how do you know your right. sorry for omitting the question marks, mine arent working.

23. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #306354 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

carto

Your only criticism of the thinking of all the sane, sensible neuroscientists in the world is that, well, if there really were some spooky immaterial substrate to thought that we can't perceive then - get this - we wouldn't perceive it! and thus we can't say definitively that it isn't there. Whatever experiments we do we cannot, by definition, pick up on the imperceptible. Well as I, MPhil and many others have kept trying to hammer home, that is not a particularly profound or helpful point at all. Imponderables, inexplicables, stuff we can't perceive at all - they might exist, they might not. If we can't perceive them, we can't tell. That puts them firmly beyond the remit of science, and thus beyond the remit of human knowledge.

I call those imperceptibles the 'divide by one'

one is there but the outcome is the same as if it wasnt so it might as well not be there, even if it is. eg the divide by one god might guide evolution but he might as well not actually be there as far as an observer is concerned.

24. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306346 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 1:05 pm

DR

phas - Again a misunderstanding. I am not playing the ,more than one truth' card. I am playing the ' lets not be so arrogant as to think that we are the only ones who know the truth, or that we know the whole truth'. The purpose of education is surely to allow one to think freely and to inquire for oneself, not to have THE TRUTH drummed into you, or be sent to be reeducated!

no, im not being arrogant, teachers are supposed to teach what the evidence shows as best as people can decipher it, that doesnt suddenly give a free lunch for every idea that any tom, dick and sally can imagine.

if a teacher tells kids that two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom can combine to make a water atom then they need to be re educated on that one yes (question mark) who cares if its a water molecule, its only a word subject to the constraints of a definition, its not like its some total unhinging of a whole body of evidence, a system of working and problem solving, which is precisely what teaching creationism in science would be.

If we start saying there is a theory of creation and we will 'explain' it in science then you are misteaching the kids, there is no theory of creation as you know, theres no framework to explain it from and you know it. actually David, pray tell us just what these creation lessons in science would include, im goingto press you for an answer, i cant think of anything as there is precisely ZERO to say.

flight engineering, do you think it wise to include 'carried by gods hand theory' of flight too'

god might personally carry planes across seas and made it look like its actually a combination of shape/air pressure/thrust taht get them up there, is this new theory worth teaching' Is a tutor arrogant to suggest that somebody wanting its inclusion in engineering courses should be retrained or even sacked''

Quine - what about evil' RD tells us that there is no evil in the universe. For atheists evil does not exist. So how can something that does not exist be a proof that God does not exist'

you prat. Quines asking you the question. Stop playing stupid politician, you know damn well that dawkins means that 'evil' isnt some absolute written into the fabric of the cosmos. you know damn well that its a construct of our minds but just as real a the pain when you tread on a pin.

Laurie, Thanks. Sadly again you are arguing against a strawman. When did I ever proclaim that it's all a done deal and everything is foretold in the Bible' I don't and never have. Still I guess if you want to be rude you need to make up something to be rude about.

so the bible isnt the infallible word of god, how do you decide which bits to pick, according to some you will rot in hell, perhaps they are right.

Diacanu - bizzare! 'Our' computers, cars, electricity etc. Who is 'our'' Scientists or atheists' The two of course are not synonymous. There are many scientists who are atheists and many who are not. Your 'point' is completely illogical.

oh dear, im sure diacanu didnt actually mean 'our' computers, jees david, get a grip.

Sigh....I have answered this one many times. I actually don't know enough about it but from the little I do know it appears to me that evolution is the most likely and probable explanation for the development of human life. That does not mean it is beyond question.

nobody here would dispute that as you fully know.

Tyler - I have read several history books on Adolf Hitler and Mein Kampf. You do realise that part of the atheist creed is that it is sinful to call a child by any religious term' You have sinned. Hitler was born into a Catholic home but he was in no sense a practicing Catholic and was indeed very anti-Catholic, thinking that the Christian churches were outdated and outmoded institutions. Now what were you saying about ignorance'

so hitler was actually an atheist then'

25. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306219 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 8:01 am

al

Do you have any evidence of this, or did you just make it up'

thats going to be my new tool for discussions, i usually say 'thats an assertion for which you have no evidence' but that sounds a bit arsey, also yours is a bit less austere.

26. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306209 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 7:56 am

i just think that life doesn't have much meaning if we all make our own little goals surely its better to have one collective goal like belief in god.

whats a troll'

erm, the word 'poe' is starting to enter my brain....

27. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306205 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 7:54 am

A'R'D

that's a good point but do you not find yourself thinking "whats the point of life'" why bother going on living

are you mad!! i have a spouse i love, a family i love, pets i love, hobbies i love, i enjoy real ale, i love good food, sex, coffee, i love music, fresh air, exercise, i love to see and hear nature, i love to feast my eyes on beautiful objects, you poor thing, you need an invisible celestial watcher to give your life meaning.

28. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306198 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 7:48 am

A'R'D

yes that is a good question. i must admit that im stumped... maybe he temporarily enters the physical in order to interact or has some physical component. those are the only solutions i can propose.

well at least you are honest!

solutions that can never be actually tested so ultimately that puts us back as square one, nothing is explained...again.

29. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306192 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 7:45 am

A'R'D

evolution is when the good genes are selcted above the bad ones and @design@ gets better and better and better until finally you get your end product, the human, the one god intended. i do believe in evolution you know, just not that morals can come from such a mechanical process.

ah, so you are a theistic evolutionist. I cant understand why if god wanted to make man why did he have to go through 3 plus billion years of evolution, why not just do it like it says in the bible.

30. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306181 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 7:38 am

ARD

there is a lot of sincerity in what isthatclear says and he is a teacher so must be clever

you have a lot to learn, stay put.

Turns out they are bullies and snobs

im not sure im a bully, i am a bit of a snob though, a reverse snob, i prefer fish and chips to a pacific rim fusion cusine extravaganza.

31. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306178 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 7:35 am

atheistsaredumb

yeh they are all rebels just doing what they like with no morals and they have nothing to make them behave responsibly. they have no controls.

the whirling dervishes of destruction strike again.

Go to your local prison and see how many atheists are locked up in there.

32. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306160 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 7:15 am

gimlibengloin

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850 but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
Stephen J. Gould Ontogeny and Phylogeny 1977. p 127, 128. Harvard Press.

idiot.

assuming i have your position correct, if evolution could plainly explain racism it would not change the fact that its the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet.

Luckily for us, the type of person who is racist is also the type of person who doesnt accept evolution anyway. so to be consistent would have to ignore any evolutionary basis for racism. those who accepted evolution in the past and used it to justify racism were products of their own time, luckliy the 'moral zeitgeist' has moved on.

what needs a greater explanation is if man is made by god, then why did he include racism in his repertoire'.

funny that you would quote gould.

33. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306142 by phasmagigas on December 24, 2008 at 6:25 am

DR

What amazes me is that so many f you seem so insecure in your understanding that you seem to support the ludicrous call to 're-educate' anyone who wants to discuss the controversy.

insecure about our understanding of what' Im not opposing discussion of creationism, what i oppose is teaching it next to evolution in science class, dont you get that'''' Of course you do, you are just playing stupid. oh and please, 'controversy' thats just sooooo 'DI' or is that 'ID'.

There is only one science'! Who says' Good job that there are good scientists like Einstein who are prepared to question. In fact if I recall correctly there was even a good scientist (RD) who said on one of his tv prorammes that in a couple of hundred years we might find out that the theory of evolution was false

i think thats the most idiotic thing ive read in a long time, you really are a politician.

you think nobody here is aware that evolution could be shown to have never happened'' now you are playing stoopid, science is an accumulation of new ideas supplanting old, you are trying to use the strength of science, the paring away of nonsense to reveal the best explanation we have for something against itself, thats pathetic, you are not talking to a bunch of bible quoting apes here david, we arent falling for it.

It just so happens that theres is no evidence to show that is the case, evolution has yet to be falsified, thats why its the current theory of origins of diversity. You know David, you are one of those who likes to say things like that (evo being false in a few hundred years) as that is enough to persuade the layman that your position is viable, its like when a TV show host jokes when they get stuck, the audience laughs and the host moves onto the next question or whatever, its like a false diversion that only some fall for. 'was you grandma an ape"' (audience laughs and suddenly the creationist is right) David, your silly false diversions wont work here.

A couple of reports recently suggest that the belief in God is universal because it is innate in children - one of the reports I read suggested that this was an evolutionary throwback, rather than proof of the existence of God.

im not sure i accept that innate belief in god stuff, it is open to testing of course but putting groups of kids on isolated islands and never mentioning grand sky daddy to them to see if they eventually start pointing up and going 'goo, goo, big dada in sky, see' would be rather difficult.

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of God" Charles Darwin, letter to John Fordyce - 7th May 1879.

"You have expressed my inward conviction, that the Universe is not the result of chance" Darwin - letter to William Graham - 1882.

And one from the greatest....."Know the truth and the truth will set you free" (and not incline you to want to send those who disagree with you for re-education!).

thats nice DR, free christmas quotes!! why not simply quote dawkins where he says there might be a god (wherever he says that, its somewhere im sure)and use that as trying to validate your position, quoting smart people from years ago is perhaps less persuasive than quoting smart people today, people as a whole know so much more today.

damn and my question marks arent working again!!

34. What do atheists do at Christmas?

Comment #305836 by phasmagigas on December 23, 2008 at 5:25 pm

thats a bit of a no brainer, if im visiting the UK its mince pies and real ale all the way.

Actually a better question would be 'what does a real christian honestly do at christmas thats any different than what the average 'secular' brit does at christmas''

35. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305834 by phasmagigas on December 23, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Oystein

That is why I am surprised to see him playing the "there is more than one truth" card in this situation.

christians seem to like playing the 'more than 1 truth' card when they are opposing evolution in state schools as it makes them seem 'reasonable' and 'fair', at all other times they prefer the one truth idea is THEIR truth, im sure they are less open to 'other truths' at the pulpit on sunday.

its a bit like how right wing conservatives are all for the liberal wishy washy academic freedom business when it suits them.

36. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305827 by phasmagigas on December 23, 2008 at 5:00 pm

crooked shoes

More than likely this polling is skewed towards elementary school teachers who have science in their daily routines.

thats a possibility, its probably true to say that primary teachers who do cover the science elements will have but a rudimentary understanding of science, possibly nothing passed their own school education, and that is more the 'label the flower' variety than 'what is science variety;

37. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #305822 by phasmagigas on December 23, 2008 at 4:48 pm

well its obvious what the problem is, the teachers themselves have no idea what science is.

when they were initially interviewed for teacher training they should be asked about the teaching of creationism, if they agreed then they should get remedial help with 'what science is' before they can get on the course.

ah, i pre empted RD's reply, i didnt get that far down!!!

as far as DR's idiotic slippery slope comments go, a teacher who insisted that creationism should be taught in science simply should not teach science, thay have shown that they cannot differentiate what is generally accepted as science and what isnt, who know what other 'misconceptions' they will pass on to those kids oh and god forbid they get the wrong creation story too!!

38. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor

Comment #304056 by phasmagigas on December 20, 2008 at 8:20 am

if obama wanted to be truly inclusive he include an islamic cleric at the proceedings, or a wiccan perhaps.

39. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302470 by phasmagigas on December 17, 2008 at 4:42 am

jabber

If i had kids, i would like to think that they didn't need to go to a mosque, church or temple to be the best kind of human they can be. So, yes, they can go for the entertainment value, the music, the theatre - but i would question their visit if they felt it was a 'need' to be satisfied.

if i had kids i simply would try and avoid telling them lies, i'd have a bit of trouble with santa though, i wouldnt want to actually ostracise my kids at age 4, that could be bad for them.

40. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302467 by phasmagigas on December 17, 2008 at 4:39 am

As atheists, Maher and Dawkins commit the same sins they mock and condemn

oh indeed, all those non believers will be flayed by the whip of sagan and be suffocated in the beard of darwin.

41. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302465 by phasmagigas on December 17, 2008 at 4:35 am

Jabber
So, so long as parents don't do the above, they are free to live as religious people, take their chidren to Synagogue etc

its all very interesting, i went to a russian jewish wedding a few months ago, it was an elaborate non austere event and a great time was had, however during the service (and i'd say the rabbi was quite a 'modern' kind of rabbi) aside from the general statements regarding love to one another and bringing the families together most of it was total sky fairy nonsense, it seemed harmless enough but of course most of those around me acepted the words as meaningful at some real level and im sure all the kiddies in the hall were listening intently too.

42. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302435 by phasmagigas on December 17, 2008 at 3:57 am

As many people have pointed out, it is painfully obvious that the author of this article has not read any of the people he thinks he is criticizing. I was at first shocked that such an obviously weak student could get into Harvard, given that there must be so many bright and able students who would love to go there in his place. But then I remembered that we get them in Oxford too. I once had a student who was even worse than Dhruv Singhal: he was actually a young earth creationist! The philosopher A J Ayer was a Fellow of my college, and I told him about this student. Freddy's reply was characteristic: "What' What has gone wrong with our admissions procedure'" Harvard must be saying the same thing about the author of this fatuous article. And about the editors who published it.
Richard

generally:

i only started making a concious decision to use rationalism as a rod for thought in my early 20's, I really wish my parents/teachers had given me a head start in my early teens (or earlier for that matter) but theres so much utter tripe thrown at the growing mind that its probably too late for some to ever get over idiotic indoctrination. Up until the point at which i started reading sagan etc if you'd asked me 'do you believe in ghosts' i might have said 'hmm, well i'm not sure' of course it takes time for a mind to realise the vacuity of such things, i just wish that i'd had a head start, I might have casually read a horoscope at the age of 19, i never took any of it seriously but it takes a while (well in my case, maybe some can do this at 8 years!) before you finally say 'this is shit' and discount it totally, all youngsters believe some nonsense and it seems a gradual process for the mind to become weaned from it and ultimately be able to fully detect the baloney.

I think my point is that as a YEC an 17/18 year old simply might not have enough experience to realise the inanity of the position, i think the whole rationalist approach takes time to emerge especially if its not specifically implemented. Of course the said YEC could be a hopeless case, they type who will never give up those ideas, i wonder what it is about particular brains that allow those ideas to sit fixed forever''

then again maybe oxford and harvard are looking for those brains that have sorted the wheat from the chaff at age 8 years!!

43. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #302430 by phasmagigas on December 17, 2008 at 3:39 am

this is one of those 'dawkins is strident so god exists, we win' type articles.

44. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292809 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2008 at 8:09 am

bernstein.

My mistake. The quotes should not have been there. What I meant by 'extra mile' was things like going out of my way to educate others about gay rights etc. Stuff that goes beyond voting in support (which I don't think is an obligation of mine, in any case). I no longer have any reason not to concede that last 1% of moral support to gay rights, though. Unpleasant experiences with Steve and Cart are not going to change that. I also don't think any less of homosexuals in general because of them.

And of course my stretching of 'extra mile' wasnt meant to be taken literally.

i would say its reasonable to vote against that which would take away rights (as you now concede) and thats a reasonable minimum that anybody can do, no need for waving pink triangles and stuff in your day job.

45. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292764 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2008 at 7:50 am

im not sure the PT is having the right effect, i keep seeing a pink bikiki brief and thinking of the words 'camel toe' for some reason.

46. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292719 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2008 at 6:56 am

going back to the article, just what is it with the religious right and their idiotic slogans: 'protecting marriage' 'teach the controversy'

I suppose they are catchy little soundbites that lull the ignorant into thinking they have some validity, the type of thing you can write on a placard and feel all smug about.

edit: i see they often use a kind of pathetic emotional pleading 'protecting' and even 'teach', that suggests something positive and essential thats being passed on ('explain the controversy' wouldnt work as well perhaps)

47. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292712 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2008 at 6:44 am

It's people like you, Steve, that keep people like me, from going the "extra mile" when it comes to gay rights.

thats an insane comment. Its not like steve is suggesting that straight men should be forced to test the waters or anything.

48. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292705 by phasmagigas on November 28, 2008 at 6:31 am

bernstein

I AM AGAINST THE SO-CALLED (ADDITIONAL) "RIGHT" TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE

god forbid 'redefining' something!!

goes something like 'you two biker blokes cannot get married, if you did we'd have to start changing the movable types in all those dictionay presses, sheesh, the bloody cheek of it'.

49. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291372 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2008 at 10:07 am

steve

Or is it instantaneous, for all marriages no matter what'

maybe its an unknown quantum effect or something else to do with that physics stuff.

50. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291371 by phasmagigas on November 26, 2008 at 10:04 am

DP

I don't know if its true but thats what she says. So she sees no point of letting them marry if most will just end up in divorces.

i had a rethink about my previous post on this, just because some gays are promiscuous, and i suppose a guy who screws 3 different men a week could be considered fairly 'active', i dont see why that should be used as ammunition (if it counted as a vote) against those who are committed to one partner, no matter how rare or common they are.

additionally, unfaithfulness doesnt always lead to divorce