501. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #145040 by AllanW on March 17, 2008 at 7:51 am

Ah! Another one-off driveby trolling. This time by the religiot calling themself Post-secular Ph.D.

Sooooooo many prejudices and mistakes and straw-men in your post it's not worth picking it apart.

Waffle, waffle, generalise, 'look -at-me', project, waffle, demonise, project some more, waffle, offense-taken etc

We don't want your ignorant, bloated, self-obsessed opinions; bring some meat with evidence to back it up or bow out.

502. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144935 by AllanW on March 17, 2008 at 4:16 am

She Who Must Be Obeyed

503. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143870 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Yep, enjoyed that. Colmes was a good host (not too intrusive and not ignorantly provocative) so it went well.

The callers were hilarious; creationist got smacked down (bullshit! Spoken by Dawkins! lol), religiot got told he is only Christian because he was born in the US (basically) and the snobby jewish lady left in a huff! Classic!

Well done Richard.

504. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143697 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 10:01 am

clearmind; answer the questions you have been asked.

No evasion from you; how old do YOU think the earth is?

505. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143551 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 7:46 am

Oh shit! I just had twenty-seven people in this office asking if I'm ok.

prettygoodformonkeys; your avatar caused me to cry with laughing. Thanks.

506. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143339 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:50 am

'he is probably going to make himself look a total ass. '

Exactly. he already has. I agree with the comments made above by Ygern, Philip etc.

You may be reacting 'towards anyone in authority' but there is the root of my point; by allowing him to make these comments (and how would you stop him?) he undermines himself and his office. He advances the cause of reason by illustrating just how divorced from the reality of popular notions he and his office and religion are.

507. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143328 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:32 am

As always, Russell makes my case better than I can.

508. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143327 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:31 am

Steve Z; 'I would ...' snip

And this is where we disagree :). But only about effects and tactics. Read the item again; included in it are a bunch or reactions against the Bishops' words. Many of the individuals reading the paper or on the net will also see these plus other comments (such as on sites like this). What possible benefit would attempting a prosecution under hate-speech laws provide compared to the coverage already given? For me there are too many downsides rather than potential wins in using this unwieldy weapon of legislation. It makes the prosecutors look like censoring, mean-minded, prissy, over-zealous, thin-skinned single issue zealots.

'I also think it is appropriate to act against hate speech .....' snip
I do too but not to launch woolly legal procedures. Use the same or better information routes; use the words they have uttered to destroy them; demonstrate the depth of support you have compared to them etc etc

I hope you know by now that my comments refer only to the tactics we are discussing, not the underlying issue where, of course, my sympathies and support are all in one direction :)

509. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143312 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 1:33 am

Agreed Russell; they do seem to be more strident and revealing in their intemperance.

Yet jaf I would never reach for the hate-speech legislation; firstly it would deter a few of them from making their comments in public (and revealing their biases and prejudices is very healthy for the cause of reason) and secondly the hate-speech legislation is two-faced and could be used, by a venal and monomaniacal government against you in the future.

Remove these unworkable pieces of legislation. Words cannot hurt. They support a victim mentality that enables professional offense-takers to hide their alarmingly irrational views with the support of the state and justice system.

510. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143311 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 1:27 am

Hehehe; a driveby trolling from dad4justice.

Unless you care to backup any of the words in your post? Demented? Smelly old hogwash?

Thought not.

There's a parallel here with various causes or ideologies; the members of a particular cause should be aware that they represent the cause to some small degree to the rest of the population who are not as au fait with the issues but can be persuaded.

Myself, I'm sympathetic to the cause of fathers4justice as my brother-in-law got shafted by the family justice system. Yet when I come across the noxious arse-gravy spouted by dad4justice on this forum it makes me think he may just have been unlucky and the system that prevents marginalised mind-sets such as those posted in the previous message from infecting children is not to be meddled with.

511. Fleabytes

Comment #142903 by AllanW on March 13, 2008 at 7:27 am

Wooooo Hooooo! 5k

What do you all want to talk about now? :)

512. Two More Fleas

Comment #142896 by AllanW on March 13, 2008 at 7:24 am

Re; comment #142890 clearmind/wooter

No more questions; answer the ones you were asked by Jon_sociologist and epeeist.

513. Fleabytes

Comment #142844 by AllanW on March 13, 2008 at 6:17 am

It feels almost like New years' Eve; I'm settling down with a nice beverage (I refuse to divulge which one for fear of incurring the wrath of the mighty Quetz), a few nibbles to hand and looking forward to the fireworks that will light up the sky.

So no pressure to deliver something awesome then ...

Think I'll just send some texts before the deluge hits;

Congratulations to Paula for her original work. Happy 5k.
Congratulations to all the contributors who have been wise, funny or illuminating.
Congratulations to the few who are wise, funny AND illuminating. Happy 5k.

514. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #142420 by AllanW on March 12, 2008 at 1:00 pm

'I always compare materialists to babies; babies only perceive as "real" what they see in front of them. ' Projection, projection, projection (along with the rest of the drivel in comment #142396.

You received a whole bunch of responses to your question and typically chose to ignore them and insert your own prejudice. Ignoramus.

If you want to be listened to you have to offer the courtesy of listening in return.

515. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142219 by AllanW on March 12, 2008 at 6:49 am

I love that clearmind (as in wiped clear?) got comment 666; appropriate.

516. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #142211 by AllanW on March 12, 2008 at 6:44 am

'As for banning, everybody got the message of cencorship. Did you read 1984? Big brother is watching you. Once you spot logic, just ban it. there is no other way around. '

Yet more slack-jawed inanity. It constantly surprises me that with his tenuous grasp of reality, wooter/clearmind doesn't need more help to use the toilet. Or keep breathing. Or stand upright.

517. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #142104 by AllanW on March 12, 2008 at 2:40 am

So now I have to switch to marking as troll the new character clearmind? Sigh; ok, it's a shitty job but someone has to do it.

518. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141905 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 11:02 am

All the best people are living in Level 8; in fact, I think my house is just around the corner from you, irate_atheist! Come round for a cup of tea sometime.

519. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141795 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 8:15 am

'I am confused. What happens if you are extremely gloomy but also very lustful?'

It looks like you're sad that you won't be getting any soon, mate :)

520. Fleabytes

Comment #141734 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 6:36 am

clearthinker;
'Should we jail them if they misbehave? Should we hold them accountable and responsible? Or do they police themselves?'

What a monstrous arrogance is displayed here! I really hope you meant it as a humorous (although it isn't) remark; if not you display again a vanity that knows no bounds.

521. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141730 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 6:33 am

Damn! Logicel beat me to a lower level (it must be the living in France part :)) plus I knew I shouldn't have answered so nicely on a couple of questions grrrrrr!

522. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141724 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 6:26 am

Man, I'm very pleased with myself; 8th level for me!

Level
Purgatory Repenting Believers Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo Virtuous Non-Believers Very Low
Level 2 Lustful Very High
Level 3 Gluttonous Moderate
Level 4 Prodigal and Avaricious Very Low
Level 5 Wrathful and Gloomy Very High
Level 6 - The City of Dis Heretics Very High
Level 7 Violent High
Level 8- the Malebolge Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus Treacherous Very High

523. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141540 by AllanW on March 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Wrong, Shmeezers;

'What I am saying is that the debate is reduced to a simple nothing; it is simply thrown out the window, as if there is no debate.'

I wish it were; theists are sooooooo adamant that they know the things that they cannot possibly know (blind faith?) that the debate continues.

As for your stupid assertions that Hitchens and Dawkins et al are spiritual leaders it deserves no time spent upon it; plainly worthless and patently untrue. As a starter just look at the threads where disagreement with these gents is quite firmly held.

'No God'. Ok, let's say that. 'No good or evil'; whoa! One step too far; they are man-made concepts and have no part in being dismissed along with God.

'No ultimate justice'; there is none. Why should there be? The Universe is pitiless in not caring for any of the individual atoms or clusters of them that exist. Any justice existing, we make ourselves, or fail to make. Just prove the opposite if you can.

524. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140169 by AllanW on March 7, 2008 at 3:04 am

Comment #140161 irate_atheist

I agree; it's beliefs like those expressed by wooter in that section that demonstrate most clearly how sick the God mind-virus makes people.

525. How to abandon your God

Comment #139475 by AllanW on March 6, 2008 at 12:20 am

What a poorly organised, thought-out and written article. Full of 'look at me/what I think' self-obsession, disorganised points in no particular flow and how do you read sections like;

there might yet be hope for the nation to evolve and grow and bust out of the archaic straitjacket of religious authority once and for all. Possible? Possible.

Or maybe not.

526. Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection

Comment #135912 by AllanW on February 29, 2008 at 10:50 am

I hope this really does deliver the protection and quality of life she deserves; as free from worry as possible.

One up for Europe I would say (which is difficult for me as I have soooooo many problems with the Euro political elite).

527. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134580 by AllanW on February 28, 2008 at 2:35 am

I can't disagree with the proposition that a strong and united Europe would be a very useful entity. Strong links to America but a forceful, friendly foil to their idiocy in foreign relations. A possibility to bring Russia and the ex-Soviet republics into the fold would be well worth pursuing.

However the ideal is not only far from being realised but I would argue that the current political structures and participants are so woefully corrupt and unfit-for-purpose that it positively harms the chances of ever achieving this ideal.

I've travelled and worked in much of western Europe including Scandinavia and agree that the similarities and outlooks of the vast majority of the population would provide a solid and useful concensus for the ideal when set against the differences that most of the media concentrate upon.

But the utterly distant and remote political superstructure of the EU as it is currently formed would, in my opinion, be wholly incapable of representing this concensus and is therefore frustrating not enabling of progress.

528. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134190 by AllanW on February 27, 2008 at 11:27 am

Yep, nice session. The interviewer was a little hesitant at first but then let things flow as the callers come online. She cut things off when calls got too long as well so congrats to her.

Dawkins was quite a bit more agile in his responses; I'm so pleased to hear that. He was abrupt but crucially full of facts in response to one caller which shows his developing presentation and debate skills; more feisty is good sometimes.

I came away from the show with a warm feeling that he is in good shape to take on all-comers in whatever guise they appear; the responses are sharper, pointed, and still fact-packed. Please, someone photo-shop that scene on the steps in Philly from 'Rocky' with Dawkins' head superimposed as my abiding reflection is that he is finishing his pre-fight training in preparation for his american tour :)

529. Fleabytes

Comment #134128 by AllanW on February 27, 2008 at 9:58 am

So. Come on, Robertson. When are you going to answer the question?

530. Fleabytes

Comment #132619 by AllanW on February 25, 2008 at 3:50 am

Bye bye David. Running off again with so many questions left unanswered. We all look forward to your return to these boards and the light you will shine here.

Your last paragraph above reminded me of a stock trader I knew once whose favourite phrase was 'Market's open, gotta do business'' he was a huckster as well :)

531. Fleabytes

Comment #132605 by AllanW on February 25, 2008 at 3:17 am

'Allan, and all the others please stop the amateur psychology. I believe what I believe because I think it is true. It is not out of fear and yes I have doubted many times, and a couple of times even tried to be an atheist. But the evidence would not let me.'

Just show us the evidence then David.

532. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132602 by AllanW on February 25, 2008 at 3:09 am

'Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?'

He is not incapable of understanding it, he just thinks that anyone making or accepting statements such as;

"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong." in other words, if I've already decided that any evidence you present is wrong or is based upon assumptions I think are wrong then I won't let it change my mind,

is bonkers.

533. Fleabytes

Comment #132254 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm

krisking; no. I could but I won't. You get the most benefit if you read it yourself and take what you can from it. We did.

That is not meant to be a facetious response but constructive. I could write my understanding of what TGD says but I expect it would be muddled in parts, miss crucial points and nuances because of my own perceptions and I'm sure RD would be able to point out a ton of points I had completely missed.

This stuff is complex and difficult; don't expect to reduce it to a simple list of prescriptions. It won't boil down to that. It is written in an accessible way but deals with the top surfaces of many complicated issues; lap it up then let it ferment.

A spoon-feed from anyone will wildly miss the mark for your understanding.

534. Fleabytes

Comment #132244 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm

'Religious conflicts are probably less of a problem than non-religious ones, as all the one side has to do is convert to the other's religion, and there is no longer a problem.'

This could be termed the BORG approach to conflict resolution.

535. Fleabytes

Comment #132211 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm

krisking; no. So many mistakes.

1. Observation not argument. Correct factually. But not 'religion' rather organised religion and people with that credulous mind-set.

2. No; you are wrong. RD does not say that. Some have been, some are not. More complex than that.

3. No again; do what you want with your belief system but recognise the evidence basis for it and stop shoving it down other peoples' throats.

4. Sigh. Yet again wrong. He does not want everyone to be atheist and forcing them if necessary. He believes that if everyone looked at things scientifically they would inevitably conclude atheism is the only way forwards.

5 Give me a break.

Firstly I can't believe the other posters waltzed over your completely skewed and erroneous list.

Secondly I suggest you reread the book as you have not the first understanding of the seventy-odd pages you claim to have read so far.

Mark so far; D and falling.

536. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132201 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Top 5 fiction;

Cyteen - C.J.Cherryh
LOTR - J.R.R.Tolkien
One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Behold the Man - Michael Moorcock
Foundation trilogy - Isaac Asimov

Bugger! I couldn't fit any Pratchett in! Or Orwell :((

537. Fleabytes

Comment #132134 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 9:20 am

His pathology is that of a typical fundamentalist, imo. At root, he may suspect his religion is not true but cannot for one second give in to the surging, primal fear of being responsible for himself in an unforgiving universe. Fear or maybe a better word is terror; that's the root of fundamentalism.

538. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131896 by AllanW on February 23, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Steve; 'This was a rare lapse, and I apologise to everyone.'

So you should to, you stepped on other peoples' turf but Diacanu, me and others will let you off this time.

Seriously? Don't be so hard on yourself. And it's ok sometimes to get frustrated at the sheer scale of willful ignorance displayed. Let loose once in awhile; we're all human :)

539. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131827 by AllanW on February 23, 2008 at 11:52 am

Shrommer; Steve Zara and the others are nice, polite people and will try to convince you of facts as they believe you are open to debate. I'm not nice; I can see from your posts you are a deeply deluded, bigotted and closed person.

Read the information already posted to you as well as those below before strutting your arrogant ignorance here.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

540. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131566 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Babrock, you haveta keep yanking the mans chain on these things; I'm entirely with you.

On all forms (not just unimportant ones now) when asked my nationality I always answer 'English'. This may not seem a big thing but over here we are expected to write 'British'. My point being that the nation I was born in is England; it just points out the absurdity either of the question or of the nature of our little kingdom/commonwealth.

Plus I'm getting a little pissed-off about the Scots banging on about gaining their independence.

541. My Argument With God

Comment #131564 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Nice little humorous article with an important point to it.

Good on yer Gervais.

I love the idea that other celebs could do the same thing.

542. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131560 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm

In answer to Deepthought; something else :)

543. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131559 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Yep babrock; the monarch is the titular head of the church (thanks to good ole shy and retiring Henry the eighth :)) but the Archbish is the leader on a day-to-day basis.

544. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131556 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Hehe; epeeist I have had exactly the same experience; "I will put you down as CofE."

Gotta love Frank Zappas story about when he went to the hospital for the birth of his first child (named Moon Unit Zappa). When asked for religion he hummed and hawed then asked the nurse to enter 'music'. She refused :)

545. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131418 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I'm off to take my youngest son to his swimming training. I'm sure that when I return krisking will still have made no substantive point and that you other guys will be playing kiss-chase with his non-ideas.

Fruitless and unproductive.

546. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131413 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Re; comment #131411

Another example. Say what you mean then!

547. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131410 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Hello Steve

Faith is not a benign approach to understanding things.



But then neither is atheism.


Yeh, I thought you wouldn't or couldn't stay on a point.

Sigh. Off on another jolly little comment merry-go-round, dodging anything substantive.

This is precisely why many non-believers have been forced to accept a view that believers are merely procrastinating their way around their own internal dissonance. You demonstrate it perfectly.

548. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131407 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Come on again, krisking. Outline for us all the ideological implications of atheism, please.

You'll notice that I use no swear words or ad hominem attacks.

But you consistently refuse to follow-up on your little statements leaving me of the view that you are merely here to disrupt. Make statements that we can debate; air your views; don't hide behind little non-sequiters or bomblets and then move on to another point.

See if you can make any one point stick with us.

549. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131401 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I have to disagree deepthought; 'I can picture a form of atheistic indoctrination. It would consist of a parent homeschooling their child to protect them from religion and teaching them all the arguments for atheism. I would say that the best way to bring up children would be to not teach them religion and don't bring it up except when directly questioned.'

As anyone who has tried to bring up children would tell you, no matter what rules/principles/guidelines you try to enforce, any exposure to society will bring them into contact with opposing or diverse ideas. This process of itself will cause young minds to question and rebel and defeat the aims you set out.

I go back to my original point, despite krisking failing to convince that there is an atheist ideology to indoctrinate, not teaching about religion or attempting to remove them from any contact with it will only prove self-defeating.

Rational, sceptical enquiry and openness to all ideas will inevitably lead most people to a rejection of religion. You don't need to do anything else; certainly not coach or teach against it. The best way to get people to question belief is to expose them to the proponents of belief and inquire into the teachings. Most people here will tell you that is the process that made them into non-believers.

550. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131394 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:01 pm

You could do those things, yes. But how does that support your posted view that atheists would be indoctrinating their children with their ideology?