Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Geoff


751. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114165 by Geoff on January 21, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Let's see now: we get Charles' head on our money, the Yanks get "in god we trust" on theirs.

Hmmm, tricky choice.

752. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114093 by Geoff on January 21, 2008 at 11:10 am

Enough of this crap about "blasphemy". Why the hell should their delusions have such a special privilege? And why the hell doesn't their imaginary friend do something about it if he's really so touchy, instead of relying on them to whinge about it?

[/rant]

753. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114090 by Geoff on January 21, 2008 at 10:59 am


Comment #114010 by Shmeezers on January 21, 2008 at 8:01 am

Mr. Zara,

Read The Selfish Gene.



I have read TSG many times, both the 1976 and 1989 editions (as I'm sure Steve has), and I fail to remember any such quote. Can you be more precise?

In fact, the book has very little to say about faith, except in the "memes" chapter.

Deluded, misinformed, brainwashed, certainly, but none of these indicate either stupidity or mental illness.

754. Honour Killings

Comment #113726 by Geoff on January 20, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I notice he didn't mention this case:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2057524920071120?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

I don't see him calling for the 10-year old aborigine girl in his example to be flogged.

755. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113723 by Geoff on January 20, 2008 at 11:52 am

Yep, definitely vinelectric!

Unless it's the vinrouge I'm currently quaffing...

756. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113698 by Geoff on January 20, 2008 at 10:56 am

We Brits should perhaps explain the regard in which Charles is held over here; something akin to a rather dotty old relative that you want to hide in an attic to avoid embarrassment...

The guy talks to plants. And, apparently, they listen.

Edit: found an interview with him from 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture6.stm

Some of the quotes sum him up pretty well:

"The idea that there is a sacred trust between mankind and our Creator, under which we accept a duty of stewardship for the earth, has been an important feature of most religious and spiritual thought throughout the ages. Even those whose beliefs have not included the existence of a Creator have, nevertheless, adopted a similar position on moral and ethical grounds. It is only recently that this guiding principle has become smothered by almost impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism."

He goers on, essentially, to blame atheists for global warming...

"It is because of our inability or refusal to accept the existence of a guiding hand that nature has come to be regarded as a system that can be engineered for our own convenience..."

757. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113669 by Geoff on January 20, 2008 at 10:15 am

I still suspect, admittedly without seeing the film, of course, that it will contain no criticisms that would be considered offensive by any other organisation than a religious one. Yet another example of the freedom from criticism that religion enjoys, IMO.

758. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113560 by Geoff on January 20, 2008 at 3:28 am

I'd like to see people using the more accurate term "blastocyst" rather than embryo. If nothing else it might remove some of the emotive baggage associated with so-called embryonic research.

I'm convinced most people (especially DM readers!) envisage a tiny homunculus, rather than the reality of a virtually invisible cluster of cells.

759. The New Theology

Comment #113223 by Geoff on January 19, 2008 at 2:49 am

I found it a curiously muddled article, as if he was struggling to please everyone (even quoting Dumbski, for FSM's sake!).

Some great one-liners in it, though:

"The key is to correct your portrait of God"

Indeed! It becomes a blank page, like Pat Condell's "non-fiction" version of the bible.

"a divine plan so subtle it's almost invisible"

Almost?

"Intelligent design's shortcomings as science are immense"

which is rather like saying a banana's shortcomings as an aircraft are immense.

"why would it be such a stretch to imagine that such a being could, on rare occasions, suspend those laws?"

Imagine, sure. Observe? Nope.

760. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #112856 by Geoff on January 18, 2008 at 7:36 am

My daughter wants one to keep as a pet - I made the mistake of showing her the article when I submitted it to Josh.
I guess the gerbils are going, then...

761. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112505 by Geoff on January 17, 2008 at 11:42 am

I may be reading more into your statement than you intended, and if so, I apologise, but are you then saying that opposing drug trafficking is one of your moral absolutes?

I'm still having difficulty in thinking of any example.

762. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112379 by Geoff on January 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

BAEOZ:


OK, let's pretend we're driving in any direction, with no predetermined finish or destination, the car that travels the furthest, with no retracing of steps, is the better evolved?


More evolved; not better!

Think of the "Mount Improbable" fitness landscape: more evolved would mean travelled further in any direction, up down or sideways; better evolved would mean higher up.

763. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112376 by Geoff on January 17, 2008 at 2:19 am

Styrer, I do take your point about NOMA, and essentially I agree with you, but I think in this case there is a good argument to be made for the stance of the Academy.
The book is, after all, aimed at theists (or at least "neutrals") who would simply dismiss it out of hand if it came right out and told them that they were deluded.

Continuing the "war" analogy, it's the difference between a gradual annexation of territory and a "blitzkrieg" approach. Either might work, but the first is arguably more stable, and also (again arguably) involves fewer casualties.

If we first get them to admit that evolution makes more sense than creationism, we can then introduce a rational approach to their other delusions, one at a time, until they have nothing left.

IMO, of course...

764. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112250 by Geoff on January 16, 2008 at 4:16 pm

I think that all of us, intuitively, believe in objective morality, whether we call it that or not.




Not really no. I don't.


Neither do I.

765. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112244 by Geoff on January 16, 2008 at 4:07 pm

The day Abu Hasan farted...

766. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112234 by Geoff on January 16, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Goldy, I do so hope you're referring to that wonderful tale from "1000 nights and a night"

767. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112226 by Geoff on January 16, 2008 at 3:35 pm


Send it to Josh at "design@richarddawkins.net"


It's changed recently; it's now articles@richarddawkins.net

768. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112198 by Geoff on January 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Steve said:


Some species are the result of stronger selection pressures than others. How do we describe the result of that stronger selection pressure?


True, but I can't help considering other species as being part of that pressure. We could say, for example, that a cheetah is "more evolved" than its cat ancestor, but "better evolved"? Probably not, since they're said to be on the verge of extinction. In a very real sense, they've lost their "arms race".

769. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112193 by Geoff on January 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

The way I see it, the only way to use "better evolved" would be in the sense of "fitter in its particular environment".

That then implies that a "worse evolved" organism (in the same environment) is on the way to extinction as a result of competition.

"More evolved" is trickier, and I'd propose that one would have to look at the number of functional (i.e. those with a phenotypic effect) changes in the DNA (compared to a common ancestor).

Or is that too simplistic? I'm no biologist.

Edit: mesomodel kinda beat me to it there!

770. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112131 by Geoff on January 16, 2008 at 12:12 pm

I was a little disappointed to see that the BBC article didn't call it a CULT.

Would this be the appropriate place to mention that the CULT of Scientology is a CULT?

Oh, and congrats to Dinesh...

771. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111265 by Geoff on January 14, 2008 at 7:26 am

I think Tyler's right, Paula (and it's very rarely, if ever, that I disagree with any of your comments).

It's a bit like all the different atheist/humanist organisations; some will prefer the Rational Response Squad approach, others the BHA or the NSS, for example.

Also, the books [of the 4 horsemen and others] are quite different in style, despite the message being basically the same. Personally, I prefer TGD, but others will prefer Hitchens' "in your face" style, or Dennett's more philosophical approach.

They do pull together where it's important.

772. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #109645 by Geoff on January 9, 2008 at 11:32 am

Comment #43987 by ronhende


...research the teaching of hell and death he would find that there is no such teaching in God's lovely message to us humans.


Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:29
Matthew 5:30
Matthew 10:28
Matthew 23:33
Mark 9:43
Luke 16:23
James 3:6
2 Peter 2:4

773. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108781 by Geoff on January 7, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Anna, don't listen to all these Yorkshire yokels, come to Lancashire instead!

All they have to offer (which, admittedly, is a very tempting offer!) is the Theakstons brewery.

They don't even have any decent Rugby League teams...

774. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108239 by Geoff on January 6, 2008 at 9:52 am

ADH, if that's what you think your god is like, even if it did exist I would want nothing to do with it.

That sounds even more repulsive than RD's classic description of the OT god.

I'll stick with Cthulhu, thanks, he's much more comforting.

775. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #108087 by Geoff on January 6, 2008 at 2:42 am

I_am_a_7:

I don't see anything immoral about nudity, either in public or in private. It seems to me that's one of those "morals" that we get from the theists' obsessions with anything that's remotely sexual in nature.

Having said that, with my body, it would be a crime against aesthetics if I was to do it.

776. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108083 by Geoff on January 6, 2008 at 2:19 am

Steve: been missing for a while, just caught up with this thread!

I didn't mean to offend, as of course you know - I was actually intending my use of the word "out" to point out that he was OUT of a job! Apologies.

777. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108076 by Geoff on January 6, 2008 at 1:34 am

ADH:

Two reasons for being a Christian theist:
1. The stunning uniqueness of Jesus Christ as he comes across in the four gospels, the historical reliability of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt.


Don't you mean the stunning uniqueness of the four different Jesuses in the gospels, the historical reliability of which are on a par with the Narnia tales?

778. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106482 by Geoff on January 3, 2008 at 2:59 am

Coincidentally, just yesterday, news of another one "out" in my home town:

http://www.wigantoday.net/wigan-news/Priest-arrested-over-sex-abuse.3634663.jp

779. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105860 by Geoff on January 2, 2008 at 1:43 am

I'm rather surprised by Harris' admission that he "once trusted in the wisdom of Nature".

780. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104931 by Geoff on December 30, 2007 at 4:12 am

Christopher Hitchens said it best in his challenge:

"...name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever."

Still no takers.

781. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104740 by Geoff on December 29, 2007 at 9:58 am

Ties in nicely with this recent article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7163767.stm

Wonder if the pope suffers from hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia

782. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104616 by Geoff on December 29, 2007 at 2:28 am

Anyone else got Mike Oldfield's music running through their heads now...?

I still find it difficult to decide at first sight whether these type of article are from the Onion, without checking the source; they really are beyond parodying.

783. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104016 by Geoff on December 27, 2007 at 2:47 pm


Can you give us some references, please? I found the following on the BBC web site..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1273594.stm


...which has the line....."The truth about Pilate is difficult to ascertain since records are few."



I'm no expert, and certainly stand to be corrected, but I believe Josephus and Tacitus are the main contemporary sources. There's also archaeological evidence (the Pilate Stone")

Edit: just found that there's apparently enough to fill a book, if you're interested:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pontius-History-Interpretation-Testament-Monograph/dp/0521631149

784. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #103928 by Geoff on December 27, 2007 at 11:01 am

Some weird implications of this ruling, which is why I sent it in.

Just suppose it was extended to other fantasy figures...

785. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103840 by Geoff on December 27, 2007 at 3:20 am


He probably accepts 'micro-evolution' or some such sophistry.


Mmm, perhaps, I keep forgetting how they can wiggle.

OK, how about if we tried him on why we can catch some diseases from other animals, or test drugs on animals (whatever the moral issues), or even successfully transplant animal organs into humans, or that we share so much DNA...

Yeah, I know...God did it! Jesus Wept!

786. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103834 by Geoff on December 27, 2007 at 2:46 am

I wonder if he understands, for instance, why vaccines need to keep up with evolving microorganisms, or why it's important to complete a course of antibiotics.

787. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #103305 by Geoff on December 25, 2007 at 3:54 am

I'm afraid we simply don't have room for you all, here in the UK. 30 million refugees? That would be a 50% increase in our population! And we don't really have enough godbotherers to deport to make room for you.
Sorry.

In any case, Giuliani seems a more likely nomination, doesn't he?

788. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103015 by Geoff on December 24, 2007 at 7:38 am

Well done the Shermans!

Hardly a coherent response from the godbotherers:


"What's the problem? Every single time we meet on the Senate floor, we open up the session with prayer -- whether it's given by a rabbi, or a priest, or a Buddhist or a minister," Lightford said.


Equally unconstitutional, I'd have thought.

789. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102964 by Geoff on December 24, 2007 at 4:00 am

Paula, I agree with you about aliases, I've never seen much point to them (well, except on my porn sites, maybe...) - I'm "Geoff" on pretty much all the boards I post on.

Nothing against using my full name (Newman), just that it seems more friendly and informal somehow.

790. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102550 by Geoff on December 23, 2007 at 7:54 am

with regard to the A.C. Grayling quote in comment 49:


...or that gods exist only some of the time - say, Wednesdays and Saturdays...


Surely that has to be true - Odin & Saturn have claimed the two days mentioned above, but have to give way to Thor, Freyja, Tyr and the Sun and Moon gods on other days...

791. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #102389 by Geoff on December 22, 2007 at 3:07 pm

OOooh! my first coconut this year! Thank you!

Could I be cheeky and ask for a banana instead, though - they're much better designed...

;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk

(there was a wonderful YouTube riposte to this with a coconut instead of a banana, but I can't find it now...)

792. Do our leaders believe in God?

Comment #102305 by Geoff on December 22, 2007 at 9:45 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm


Splitter!

I love this bit:

"Last year, Mr Blair, who is now a Middle East peace envoy, said he had prayed to God when deciding whether or not to send UK troops into Iraq."

Of course, that'll help him in his new job...

793. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102139 by Geoff on December 21, 2007 at 5:15 pm

No problem! It's sometimes difficult to spot irony on a message board!

Often even more difficult to spot the difference between "real" fundies and parodies - something the Onion does so well.

Came across this recently that you might like:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=21031815

794. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102134 by Geoff on December 21, 2007 at 4:48 pm


38. Comment #102129 by Radesq

Shane it almost sounds as if some parts of the Bible actually contradict other parts. How can that be the case if the Bible is the inspired word of God? Are you merely describing transcription errors?


Are you serious?

Since "'tis the season" etc, the contradictions about the nativity alone run to several pages (and it's only worth mentioning in two of the four gospels - odd for what you'd think was a fairly important event for them).

There's even a 10 or 12 year difference in their dating of the event. Luke (from the census) reckons 6 AD, Matthew (from Herod's reign)somewhere between 4 & 6 BC.

795. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #102125 by Geoff on December 21, 2007 at 3:58 pm

I skimmed bits of it, till I saw "what good is half an eye" in there.

If he won't do any reading on subjects he posts about, he's got no chance of appearing credible.

796. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #102116 by Geoff on December 21, 2007 at 3:34 pm


"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house."


epeeist, that sounds like Heinlein.

One of the Lazarus Long books?

797. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #102112 by Geoff on December 21, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Our version of "that" carol (in the 60's) was:

We three kings from Liverpool are
One in a taxi, one in a car
One on a scooter, blowing his hooter
Following Ringo Starr.

798. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101294 by Geoff on December 20, 2007 at 7:41 am

Enough of this wooting. It was funny at first, now it's just boring.

799. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100232 by Geoff on December 18, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Good one, Paula!

But "I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition"...

800. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99389 by Geoff on December 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Roger said:

I somehow doubt it as anyone with the slightest commercial ability would not build a touristy type park in Wigan.

With all due respect to the good denizens of the town, it has never had any reputation as a fun place to go to for a day out. Just the opposite, I'm afraid.


As a "good denizen" of Wigan, I admit that I have to agree with that (although we do have the most famous Rugby League team in the entire Universe...).

People might be interested to know that it's a solidly Labour council, though, so I guess they're not all Blair-ites.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next