Comments by severalspeciesof

651. Pope: Religion has a place in politics

Comment #254833 by severalspeciesof on September 26, 2008 at 9:37 am

From the article:

But he added that societies must also be "more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to -- among other things -- the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society."

(Emphasis Mine)

Yea, like there's ever been a lasting consensus between religions.

652. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254826 by severalspeciesof on September 26, 2008 at 9:27 am

From the article:

"The questions that these atheists raise are questions people of faith have also, that they haven't been given permission to ask," he said.

I've been thinking about that part of the article. I feel sorry if you aren't allowed to ask, but I wonder if it's isn't more of the line of 'not given permission to answer'. I think most theists at some point will ask (at least to themselves), but it's the answer that they're not allowed to have.
[EDIT: or will allow themselves to have]

653. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254715 by severalspeciesof on September 26, 2008 at 6:24 am

I imagine you've already heard about 'gullible', but did you know they've also taken 'credulous' out of the dictionary?

Good one Mixmastergaz...

Fortunately, I saw someone else take the bait... phew!

(Wonder if Old Sarum did?)

654. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #254085 by severalspeciesof on September 25, 2008 at 10:20 am

Seems as though there is 'resuscitation' in the air today!

655. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #254061 by severalspeciesof on September 25, 2008 at 9:02 am

Epeeist-

I see there is life after death. Or at least the attempt at resurrection.

Resuscitation might be a better term! ;)

656. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #254060 by severalspeciesof on September 25, 2008 at 8:59 am

1754. Comment #254058 by gimlibengloin,

Indeed the whole of that book is geared towards explaining why the features of life that appear designed can be explained by selection and mutation and thereby avoid the need for a designer.

And your point is?

657. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254035 by severalspeciesof on September 25, 2008 at 7:23 am

(This is late, I know, so it may be frustrating)

Fanusi

... eight weeks for somatosensory formation. Read: the ability to feel pain

Don't jump the gun here, somatsensory formation does NOT necessarily mean the ability to feel pain, but to feel. i.e. pressure, warmth, cold. Pain may not come into the picture until later. There are people who can't feel pain, but can feel pressure, etc. This tells me that pain may be something that develops further down the path to birth (but it's just a hunch)

To be fair here, my position on abortion is, don't do it. (But of course there's a lot more to that statement than meets the eye.)

658. Without God

Comment #253318 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 9:41 am

Mitchell Gilks,
Thanks for the correction!

659. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253316 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 9:38 am

As long as Sarah Palin's Kingdom doesn't come, he'll be happy.

660. Without God

Comment #253312 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 9:35 am

Goldy,

...Or have I changed in the course of the years I have lived to become another?

In a serious note here, according to what I've learned about physics, you actually are (physically speaking) different than you were just 15 minutes ago. Every atom in your body has been replaced by another.

How's that for a mind blowing thought?

661. Without God

Comment #253306 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 9:29 am

If we know cats has self consciousness

Mine does!

662. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253293 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 9:20 am

Quetz,

No more slanging matches, so Skylark accomplished that much.

Hmmm, could be SkyLark is more sly that I give him credit for...

Here Kitty Kitty (NO cage behind my back), There's the Photo of Sarah Palin for you to lick. I've even got one of McCain for you!

663. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253290 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 9:15 am

Hawt,

Your ON-TOPIC post was "meaty" about playground stuff....

You might save him yet from demotion with supporting comments like that, thanks.

664. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253285 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 9:04 am

Hangs head low...
I might have to dethrone Skylark from the status of god. His attempt to re-rail this thread have failed miserably, and has only caused discussion of Manga (of all thing!).

(holds a cage behind my back) Here kitty kitty, I've got a treat for you, a photo of Sarah Palin for you to lick. (Honestly, my cat DOES lick photographs, don't know why)

665. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253251 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 8:29 am

Sargeist, Quetz,

(sorry for the late response, such is the price for doing this when I do, at work) Yes, the schoolyard stuff is precisely the use of the informal, but also on top of that, the fact that McCain is now an afterthought. Sarah is the 'popular' one now, and (brilliantly so, at least for now) is being used as such by the McCain people, just like in school. School student elections were (and still are) 99% popularity contests. Very little would be changed no matter who got elected. I fear that is close to what we have here.

666. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253168 by severalspeciesof on September 24, 2008 at 6:54 am

Quetz,
this is a bit late, but your comment about renaming this thread: "When Atheists Attack Each Other" is quite apropos.
Maybe between the power of your god and my Skylark, we can redirect this thread back on topic. I'll start:

Yesterday I saw a bumper sticker that read: "I'm voting for Sarah". I thought I was looking at a High School bumper sticker for class president or something, but it wasn't.

Sad.

This is real schoolyard stuff and it shouldn't be part of the election process, but we're stuck with it.

667. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252547 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 10:00 am

1027. Comment #252541 by Mitchell,
But could you actually see Palin publicly endorse such a thing? Me thinks she's smart enough to avoid that.

Got to go now.

668. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252539 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 9:42 am

Hawt4dawk

my personal feeling is that if the responses to the article are past the 20-page mark, then off-topic is okay. I don't know if anyone agrees with me though. :)

you're right, I just sometimes, well, wish there were meatier things for me to say about some of these articles that are presented here for us. Others seem to do very well in that regard and I want to learn more, but I'm as guilty as the next person for derailing many a thread...

It's that damned kittycat Skylark, that evil thing!

669. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252533 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 9:31 am

Mitchell Gilks,

Her and her wingnut church try to "pray the gay away".

Sigh...You're probably very right.

An aside here, just how can it be that a gay person could actually work for AND promote someone like McCain? Talk about compartmentalization! (I also think that could be case with Palin and her family issues.)

670. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252527 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 9:17 am

by BrandySpears

Homophobe John McCain has a gay scandal!

Will be very interesting to see how Palin reacts to this (trying to get back on topic, again. ;)

671. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252523 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 9:12 am

by Hawt4dawk

...Your Catly Eminence! (He doesn't much care for the scent of spruce, I see. :D )

Wouldn't know, it was a fake tree. Maybe that's why he's appears to be pissed off... he also doesn't much care for Palin (trying to get back on topic here). ;)

672. Why albino monks won't conduct stem cell research

Comment #252519 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 9:03 am

In my feeble mind, I see this as good news. They're scared (of the truth), and one way to deal with that is to try to meet the fear head on, which they appear to be trying to do. Let science forge ahead, and they'll sink.

673. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252513 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 8:52 am

OFF TOPIC
I'm officially out of my Pink Floyd Funk,
Skylark is back!

674. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252511 by severalspeciesof on September 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

1000th comment! Do I win a prize?

Yeah, a date with Sarah Palin and a free ticket to Jesus camp.

That's cold, and in so many ways! ;)

675. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252242 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Hawt4dawk,

Skylark was temorarily dethroned while I was in a funky mood, then last week Richard Wright died and I'm still in a funky Pink Floyd mood. But don't worry, Skylark is still around and may soon be placed on the throne of avatardom once again.
He might actually have more intelligence that Palin even, so I might throw him up for VP on the write-in vote.

Gotta go now.
[Edit: In all seriousness I do think Palin must have some modicum of intelligence, or else she wouldn't be in the place she's in now. But is it the right kind of intelligence? I think not.

676. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252234 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm

I miss the good old days when my Grandmother told my father that she wouldn't vote for Nixon because he looked like a crook (I'm not kidding here, she actually said that). My father actaully scolded her for having such a view (he didn't vote for Nixon either, but for purer reasons).

Things never change, except for the quality of the candidates, which Sam here takes issue with.

Oh, and welcome back Hawt4dawk, missed that avatar of yours.

677. It's Time for Science and Reason

Comment #251882 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 9:32 am

aquilacane,

This won't work one bit.

I hope you're wrong, even if for just a 'little' bit.

678. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251878 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 9:11 am

Vaal,
You really needn't apologize to David. Even if it turned out the quote was incorrect about Newton, the intent of the quote is still very much intact. David is merely playing 'Detail smearing', somehow equating a mistake in one area as a means to discredit an otherwise valid statement.

679. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #251874 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 9:04 am

Smacks hand to forehead again!

Gotta learn to read the posts first so that I don't end up repeating what's been said already, in usually better ways.

shuffles off...

680. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #251871 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 8:50 am

Smacks hand to forehead! (gotta stop that)

...a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.

Just tell me, anyone, what the hell difference is there in the belief of born-again Christian believers and others embracing 'paranormal' beliefs, 'paranormal' wise?

In other words, why aren't Christian beliefs considered 'paranormal'?

681. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251866 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 8:38 am

David,

Surely you can see that a 'quote' which has Newton as being punished by the church or Bertrand Russell as a scientist is a prime example of spectactular ignorance.

Show us that quote, please.
(Hint: it isn't anywhere,... being persecuted is different than being punished)

682. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251865 by severalspeciesof on September 22, 2008 at 8:34 am

Quetz,

I have to say your response to Vaal does strike me as a complete over-reaction.

Are you surprised by this? ;)

683. Creationist Britain (would you Adam and Eve it?)

Comment #250325 by severalspeciesof on September 19, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Arggg,

No I'm not talking no pirate here, just saying arggg. You Brits have just taken a trip to the dark side, welcome to what it's like to be in the U.S.A.

[EDIT: Evolution-wise that is!]

684. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250320 by severalspeciesof on September 19, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Political...
This is political liberalism trying to sound scientific (it may be, but something tells me the studies cited by Haidt might speak more about those who conducted the studies than the responders to the study)
I say this because as I was listening to the talk I kept on agreeing in essence what was being said. Then I started reading the opposing views, Harris, Fanusi, et al. and, quite frankly, agreeing with them. How can this be so? I fear that Haidt has pulled a sleight of hand here, transposing what he defines as liberal (and using data which confirms his bias)with what people themselves regard as liberal in their own thoughts.

This is confusing even to me, but hell, I consider myself to be a conservative liberal, or a liberal conservative, depending on my mood.

And I really do mean that.

685. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #250247 by severalspeciesof on September 19, 2008 at 6:34 am

Vaal & Quetz,

I also took the time to read trcwest's blog. Obviously doesn't understand evolution.
And the sad thing, trcwest will probably never read any of Dawkins books to try and understand what Dawkins means by 'the illusion of design". You know, books like (hint to trcwest) "The Blind Watchmaker" or "Unweaving the Rainbow" or 'Climbing Mount Improbable" or ...

686. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249699 by severalspeciesof on September 18, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I think you and flying goose need to agree on a definition of "religion".

I agree.

Flying Goose,

I used to be in the camp of Bishop Spong, until I realized that by watering down the definition of christianity, hope in trying to understand it becomes ever more difficult and confusing. It's difficult enough without changing its' definition. I won't be able to respond until tomorrow but I'm in total agreement that Spong's Christianity is like 'non-biological biology' Or better yet (maybe) a democracy where no one votes but likes the idea of voting.

687. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249582 by severalspeciesof on September 18, 2008 at 10:21 am

The fundamental control of ones life should rest with that person, for good or bad.

That was well said.

688. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249553 by severalspeciesof on September 18, 2008 at 9:19 am

thewhitepearl,

Not drunk, just infused with tons of caffeine... makes me all jittery and excitable...

689. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249544 by severalspeciesof on September 18, 2008 at 9:07 am

18. Comment #249527 by flying goose

Can I not be a non theistic religious person, living with all my doubts without either the church saying bugger off, or others more certain in their atheism saying ' you can't be a christian and not believe in x y and z. My response is why not? We are free arn't we?

I suppose you can, but then you would be diluting the meaning of 'christian' thereby contributing to confusion when the term is being used. It doesn't help to advance rational thinking.

[EDIT: I may have assumed too much here... I'm thinking in terms of x y and z being some of the major tenets of christianity... i.e. Jesus was raised from the dead...]

690. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249536 by severalspeciesof on September 18, 2008 at 8:59 am

Hey, I believe that the picture taken (referring to the Onion article) is in Chicago, let's all who are near, go and pay homage!!!

691. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249524 by severalspeciesof on September 18, 2008 at 8:36 am

As I kneel here in front of my computer with an image of Darwin on the screen, I invoke the spirit of Darwin to send Nick Spencer the mind, or at least, of that of the monkey's convictions that the monkey is smarter than he.

All agnostics are really atheists...if you don't know, you don't believe.

692. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249497 by severalspeciesof on September 18, 2008 at 7:56 am

113. Comment #249479 by Philip1978

Philip, you forget that Porky Pig also inhabits the 2-D world, so it's possible that Mickey could be friends with Porky...

693. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248952 by severalspeciesof on September 17, 2008 at 8:47 am

57. Comment #248906 by decius

I hereby issue a call to arms binding my fellow Dawkinsians to visit Wilkins's blog and set the esteemed doctor straight.

I've commented, and so has PZ Myers in his usual erudite way.

694. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #248543 by severalspeciesof on September 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Paula,
quick,
go ahead and review the other 1188 chapters before D.R. does. I'll studiously await. ;P

695. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248498 by severalspeciesof on September 16, 2008 at 10:28 am

18. Comment #248492 by Robert Maynard

Damned! You also have a good point.

...mutters to self, 'How can that be?', and shuffles off again...

696. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248491 by severalspeciesof on September 16, 2008 at 10:16 am

16. Comment #248487 by Neuro,

You've got a great point there.

... Shuffles off to ponder the insanity of all this religious stuff...

697. YouTube Removes Viral Video on Palin's Churches For Inappropriate Content

Comment #248483 by severalspeciesof on September 16, 2008 at 10:02 am

72. Comment #248445 by squinky

That's pretty low. Though I'd rather have an intelligent porn star in office over what's being offered from the republican party.

698. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248480 by severalspeciesof on September 16, 2008 at 9:53 am

There's a term for this...

wait...

wait...

wait...

EXACERBATINGLY EXASPERATING!

Sheesh.

699. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248126 by severalspeciesof on September 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm

No No No No No. This isn't good. Freedom of speech is paramount here. First he should be able to defend his words, which he has. Then let it be shown that his defence is wrong, which hasn't happened, THEN one might go ahead and can him, but only then, and with due process.

700. Natural selection

Comment #247943 by severalspeciesof on September 15, 2008 at 10:04 am

Off Topic

Fuck, just heard that Richard Wright of Pink Floyd has died. Bummer for the rest of my day... Going home now to listen to Pink Floyd and pay my humble respects...snif... snif...