901. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #13062 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 8:26 am

39. Comment #13003 by Logicel

>>Brain fitness exercises can exercise each lobe of our fantastic brains<<

My exercise is to learn something new every day. As I age though, I find I'm not as good as I was and mentally, I tire sooner. Age also makes me aware of how precious time is, time not to be wasted in the pursuit of nonsensical frivolity. I have only one shot, I want to make the most of it so I manage my time better now than I did when younger. In conversation with young relatives and discovering what they spend time on, I find myself wanting to tell them how much valuable life they're wasting upon fruitless pursuits, but I restrain myself, knowing it would be wasted breath.

902. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #13052 by Yorker on December 15, 2006 at 7:39 am

Logicel

Feynman, like some others became iconic after his death and many dubious anecdotes sprung up. Like the one about a student who saw a van with Feynman diagrams all over it. A man approached the van and got in the driver's side, the student asked the driver why he had Feynman diagrams on his van: "Because I'm Feynman" came the reply.

Now, I'm pretty sure that any student who could recognise a Feynman diagram would also know what Feynman looked like, so the veracity of this story is doubtful.

Incidentally, have you ever tried the Feynman sniff test? It worked for me!

903. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12986 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 9:30 pm

17. Comment #12961 by JuliusFirefly

>>Seems like you've got a lot of faith.<<


"Faith is a belief in that for which there is no evidence. Faith is something you never get from within yourself. Faith in yourself is not faith, it's knowledge of your own abilities. Faith - when it comes to instilling confidence - is nowhere near as powerful as knowledge. Faith in fact, is something that someone else wants you to have based entirely upon their say so, they expect you to believe what must only be their opinion, otherwise it would be verifiable and be a fact that did not require faith!

Faith is very confusing and best avoided."

This is what I think of faith, I therefore don't understand your comment, please explain.

904. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12985 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 8:58 pm

12. Comment #12979 by k1mgy

Evidently you think as I do. Before retiring I was in software engineering also and familiar with behind-the-scenes population monitoring. Billions of pounds will be up for grabs if the British government gets its way with the ID cards they intend to force upon us. There will always be greedy engineers willing to do this kind of work, worse still, there will be some willing to sell sensitive data to commerce or even crooks. Criminals will also coerce those with access to the data they want.

Personally, I will never carry an ID card, even if it means going to jail. Many UK scientists and intellectuals feel the same way. Unfortunately, most of the public will be conned into accepting all the "confidentiality and security" bullshit they are already being fed.

905. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12983 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 8:19 pm

Logicel

Teller was a man of considerable intellect even in his 80's, he was very dismissive of Carl Sagan and often said things like: "Sagan who is he, what has he done?". I once sent him a letter telling him what Sagan had done, and asked him who humanity would remember best with fondness, him or Sagan? He never replied.

Feynman often professed himself to be selfish and interested only in his work, but he wasn't, he was a great teacher beloved by his students and a great example of humanity. Some of his quotations are gems of scientific truth. I liked Feynman because he was like I am, of course he was smarter than I, but I'm a better percussionist than he was and had one more wife than him!

Oh damn!, England's just lost another wicket (I'm listening) and falling apart again, 114-6, must get some tea.

906. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #12980 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 7:34 pm

7. Comment #12977 by JONATHAN DORE

Yes, that's about it.

Ask Josh if he will reset your name Jonathon.

907. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #12974 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 6:08 pm

>>...no word yet whether Eagleton's LRB essay was filed from a meatpacking plant or a more traditional coal mine, but his upcoming book, How to Read a Poem, promises to be a huge hit amongst inner-city Pakistani teens and white proletarian football hooligans.<<

Ooh...nice one!

>>Eagleton does rightfully take Dawkins to task for his political and historical naivety -- he's particularly baffled when Dawkins's suggests that the words "nationalist" and "loyalist" are, in their Northern Irish context, merely euphemisms for "Catholic" and "Protestant," respectively.<<

I see it Dawkins' way, because that's basically how they're divided.

908. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12972 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 5:46 pm

Martha,

I forgot to say that if you know of medical staff who are reckless and malicious, it is your civic duty to name them.

You'd better be right of course.

Tell you what, you name a bad doctor and I'll name a not only bad, but famous scientist. I'll go first.

Edward Teller:

The brilliant father of the thermo-nuclear bomb. He's bad because he pressed for the development of this horrendous weapon in time of peace. Power hungry politicians went for his deal. We've never used it, hopefully we never shall.

Your turn...

909. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12970 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 5:33 pm

8. Comment #12949 by Martha

With respect to you MARTHA,

Merely an idea my dear, no need to twist your knickers shouting at me. I don't recall mentioning guarantees or inciting magic morality. Of course swearing an oath won't cure all ills but it certainly can't make matters worse. I'm certain one function of the oath doctors take is to assure the public of competency and give confidence. Did that cross your mind? You disappoint me, do you take me for an idiot? I thought it went without saying that there will always be a few bad apples. Evidently I have higher opinion of readers than they have of me, certainly in your case anyway.

Frankly, I can't understand the motive behind your somewhat badly thought out reaction.

910. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12945 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 2:36 pm

Yes Manfred, I know. They're trying to infiltrate here in the UK also, I'm just saying that we have been all through this before, it's getting old. I suggest you listen to the 2 hour video destruction of ID by Kenneth Miller, it's here on this site. ID is already dead, they're changing its name to Critical Analysis (same old bullshit though).

911. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12943 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 2:20 pm

14. Comment #12937 by Logicel

I read this article, I found it somewhat boring, it didn't grab me or make me think. Here are some quotes I took issue with.

>>Fundamentalists and physicists might like to claim that they alone occupy the solid ground of ultimate authority..<<

I've never heard any physicist make any such claim.


>>A world run by like-thinking scientists is as horrific to contemplate as one run by like-thinking evangelicals.<<

Nuts.


>>There are some lies that society cannot do without.<<

Fine, as long as they are as acknowledged as lies; personally, I can live without them. This is basically the entire thrust of the article so I guess I disagree with it.

912. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12939 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Manfred

If you scan this site you'll see that the ID issue has been discussed at length, many people here have a sound grasp of what's going on and know what its aims are.

It has failed already, its supporters exposed as liars, will another judge in some future trial adjudicate against judge Jones? Will he/she ignore the past history of ID? How can any judge agree with bad science? Even if ID was accepted, it would simply hasten America's downfall. The rest of the world is not constrained to follow an obvious stupidity that may happen in the USA. The death penalty is a good example, most sophisticated countries abandoned this form of legalized revenge murder some time ago.

913. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12935 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 1:19 pm

10. Comment #12930 by rabidchihauhau

>>...soon they will establish the American Academy of Christian Scientists', establishing their own peer review board, and a host of other labs and foundations; the courts and the every-man in the street will be hard-pressed to understand why one science academy is legit and another one isn't...<<

I don't think this will ever happen.

America has a large number of scientists but not a world monopoly on science and certainly not on rationality. Other scientists would not put up with such nonsense, but even if things did get to a similar state, the best American scientists would just leave and help sensible nations to prosper. The USA would become an intellectual wasteland populated by a bunch of god-befuddled dolts waiting interminably for a never-arriving rapture and slowly sinking back to stone age existence.

Somehow I don't think corporate America and the real power mongers will allow themselves to bullied by religious lunatics. If push comes to shove, the wealthy controllers would have to stop pretending religion and crush the crazies. Keep in mind that history also shows that the USA is fond of eradicating those who stifle profits. As soon as religion stops turning a buck, it'll have to go. You know..like "all da way Bugsie!"

914. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12929 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 12:50 pm

This is not dangerous, this is good.

This is a response to the fact that Behe took a severe butt-kicking over his rejection of peer-reviewd papers in Dover. It doesn't matter how many papers they produce, if the science is bad, they will lose again! Last time they just lied, next time round, a bunch of bogus peer reviews will show they faked results -- a much worse offence -- one that will cause their demise and the discrediting of the scientists involved. If the science is good, they're right!

I think the outcome is pre-ordained -- if you'll forgive the expression -- here folks, nothing to worry about.

915. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12917 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 11:41 am

>>Starting in 2001, Robert Pennock at Michigan State University in East Lansing and colleagues wrote a computer program that behaves like a self-replicating organism able to mutate unpredictably and evolve<<

In 2001! A bit late since programmers have been doing this for yonks! Even hobbyist programmers did passable jobs of this. I think I'm right in saying Richard Dawkins did something called Darwin Pond, correct me if I'm wrong Richard.

916. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12916 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 11:26 am

I wonder if that place set up in Redmond specifically because it contains probably the largest concentration of atheists in a small area, anywhere in the world?

Anyway, I'm weary of the nonsensical, non-scientific ID non-debate.

917. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12913 by Yorker on December 14, 2006 at 11:02 am

The last thing I want to do is bash science or scientists, I got hooked at the age of nine and have been involved in applied science ever since. I applaud the UCS but can't help feeling the current state of affairs is partially the fault of scientists, there is no doubt that we have allowed politicians to manipulate scientific endeavours for egregious purposes.

Scientists have the potential to wield overwhelming political power; imagine a world where scientific research concentrated solely upon work beneficial to humankind; a world where weapons development for any purpose, was barred; a world where no-one was persecuted for religious belief, but encouragement of it, looked upon as detrimental. I think most people would prefer such a world rather than the one we currently inhabit; that being so, why do we accept the world the way it is? An entire book could be written as to the reasons, but basically it comes down to laziness and our built-in willingness to follow leaders.

Many would see the imaginary world I've just described as idealistic, impractical and unobtainable; and of course it is, given the way we do things right now. But it doesn't have to be that way. I have a few ideas that if implemented, would enable the creation of a world like I describe. These ideas are far beyond the scope of a post like this, but basically it involves re-prioritizing so that human survival is paramount; the suppression of nationalism, patriotism and other deleterious doctrines; and the way by which these things could be achieved. I would like to share just one of these ideas with you now.

Hippocrates is the icon of medical science; doctors seeking to practice their craft must swear the Hippocratic Oath, binding them to use their knowledge wisely and ethically. There are many who could rightfully don the mantle of general scientific icon, personally, I would choose Eratosthenes, he who revealed the spherical nature of the Earth and accurately calculated its circumference 2300 years ago. Why don't we create "The Oath of Eratosthenes" and require all newly qualifying scientists to swear it? I have given some thought to the content of such an oath, but a novel idea occurs to me; why don't people here see if they can come up with their version of the oath, it might make for interesting discourse? Peer review and verification is a cornerstone of scientific enterprise, science respects no authority or national boundary; indeed, scientists are perhaps the best international communicators. This fact means that the application of an oath would be self-monitoring, just like science's automatic error-correcting mechanism.

Currently, science has limited political power, its teeth drawn and claws blunted by the fact that most scientific research is funded by public money under the control of egomaniacal politicians who have humanity-unfriendly short term views. It's also true that profits resulting from the application of publicly funded science largely ends up in private coffers; we pay the huge research costs, corporations and corrupt politicians, reap the benefit. This situation obviously must change before science can "just say no" to the requests of anti-humanists; it will be difficult, but not impossible to fix this problem.

Science needs its consciousness raised, especially to the danger of religious fanaticism. Before nuclear weapons were made, international conversation took place between scientists who saw that they could be made, had these men been bound by an oath, they may well have said:

"Sorry Mr. Truman, sorry Mr. Churchill, sorry Herr Hitler, we are unable to do as you ask."

I'd bet that not a single scientist at Los Alamos ever considered the possibility that the awesome power they were about to unleash, may one day fall into the hands of not a crazed politician, but a simple, lowly, religiously-deluded nobody who just wanted to be thought of as a martyr in a non-existent paradise. It's a pity that consideration never took place.

918. Simon Mayo interviews Keith Ward about his book 'Is Religion Dangerous?'

Comment #12788 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 9:33 pm

This is getting tiresome.

919. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12781 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 7:40 pm

14. Comment #12749 by Jared

Had to get up -- needed tea, now I can't sleep.

I forgot to mention that the UK is starting to show 'failed state' signs also.

I thought I knew much of Chomsky's work but the Lacan quote is new to me, I can't think how I missed that. Yes, Noam is credited with revolutionising cognitive linguistics, but most people are more familiar with his political activism. There's a lot of YouTube videos featuring him and he's a regular on the Democracy Now website, a trustworthy place for world news.

His videos on how America developed and how modern election campaigns are designed not to focus on issues are eye-openers. As for the Middle East, his analysis of that situation should be made required viewing for young Americans. His calm and quiet voice plays down the power of his arguments, but the truth bells start ringing in one's head. Unfortunately, he's getting on, I hope someone can step into his shoes, we can't afford to lose Noam Chomsky, the world will be a much worse place without him.

I hadn't intended this post to be a plug for Noam Chomsky, but it sure has turned out that way so I might as well finish with a flourish.

For those unaware of this marvellous man, he's about the easiest person to find, there is even a special Chomsky website with many audio and video lectures by the MIT professor, but he's everywhere. Best of all, he's an atheist.

920. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12751 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 2:59 pm

10. Comment #12730 by NoLongerHaveBelief

We need more like you my friend. Perhaps you can try to convince the remainder of your family that we're not that bad, we don't eat children, and rape is not uppermost in our minds. We just want to give humanity a chance to manage the future based upon reason rather than superstition.

921. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #12726 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 12:08 pm

10. Comment #12670 by saneatheist

The jam "Robertson" wasn't the one I had in mind saneatheist, as I guess you know.

922. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12723 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 11:54 am

I know this is off-topic but having Chomsky in mind, I have to say this.

I wonder how many of you here watched the Beyond Belief videos and heard that somewhat distasteful character Scott Atran, mention the name of Vassily Archipov?

It was Chomsky who dug up the fact that this Russian submarine commander was the hero who saved countless American lives by refusing the order to release nuclear weapons during the Cuban Crisis. Until Chomsky revealed it, I didn't know this, how many Americans did? Very few I think, indeed, this may be news to many right now. The American government would never release news to its largely theistic populace, that an atheist Russian had saved their bacon. But Noam did, and I'm sure many in the CIA hated him for it.

We came very close to nuclear war that day, but still we have people who just want to bury their head in the sand or stick it up their ass, let's hope they don't have to kiss it goodbye!

923. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12717 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 11:33 am

7. Comment #12686 by Jared

Hi Jared,

I hope for your sake, the sake of American friends and my son who still lives there, that it's not beyond saving. But it undeniably meets all the criteria of a failed state. Have you read his book "Failed States"?

Many times I've been aghast at what Chomsky says, so I spend the time, I dig and dig, check his sources and references; I have yet to find him wrong on a single point. Nobody defeats him in debate because he's always right. He's the champion of many young thinking Americans because he doesn't spin intelligence-insulting patriotic bullshit, he tells the simple truth regarding the underhand deadly workings of the US political machine. It's because he's American that they love him, not only that, but because he's also Jewish and understands exactly what's going on in the Middle Eastern American outpost named Israel.

Many times he's been called the world's foremost intellectual, and not without reason.

924. Gershom Gorenberg on Christian Zionism

Comment #12709 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 11:06 am

The Pastor Hagee segment is simply the ravings of a lunatic. We all know the lunatics wield enormous political power and must be pandered to so they keep voting Republican. Perhaps the White House actually believes the religious lunacy, but I can't believe the real controllers of the USA, i.e. big business, is swallowing this nonsense and making corporate plans to deal with imminent rapture. However, they must be worried that religious mania is getting out of control; these madmen are trying to engineer political events to fit with their interpretation of biblical prophecy. Corporations must take action; how is greed to continue if all we suckers get transported on high or killed in global war? You have to admit, it's better to be alive and under the corporate cosh than to become victims of lunatics who would delight in our death.

Personally, I rebel against both situations, we sane people must rise up en masse and stop this insanity by whatever means we can, failure may well mean the death of us all. We can start by forcing our government to raise world-wide consciousness of the need to stamp out this lunacy, and we can force them, we've done it before, all it needs is enough of us. Of course, we non-believers are too small in number; even if every one of us got involved they would dismiss us as reactionaries because we don't have the clout. Therefore, whether we like it or not, we must enlist the help of the moderates, they must be sensible enough to see the danger of this madness.

We must prioritize and take action, our enemies may be lunatics, but they're lunatics who understand the power of large numbers, apparently better than we do. We are good at intellectual discourse, but this site is a perfect example — if one were needed — that the force of intellectual argument means nothing to fanatics, they are aware — even if only on an animalistic subconscious level — that violence is still the ultimate sanction. If we allow the situation to deteriorate to the extent that they use that sanction, we have will have nothing to say, our inactivity may cause our demise. Sadly but logically, we will have deserved it.

925. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12680 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 8:23 am

As usual, Chomsky is correct, America IS a failed state.

926. Julia Sweeney on The Late Show with Craig Ferguson

Comment #12673 by Yorker on December 13, 2006 at 7:57 am

I'd heard the audio of Sweeney's "Letting Go of God" before but never seen her. On this performance I suspect some in the audience would think the CD was some kind of joke -- she didn't really mean it. I liked the audio but this didn't grab my attention.

Craig Ferguson is new to me, I instantly disliked him. Excessive jocularity, too keen to play the audience for his own purposes, and came across as a shallow lightweight.

I recommend the TED stuff, David Deutsch was good.

927. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12611 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 10:11 pm

Ah, what to say about this…Dalrymple spends about half his article havering about IVF, he seems to have a big problem with the fact that it's successful in only 1 in 4 cases, but ignores the fact that it's 25% of complete success! Kinda like asking what the point of quarter of an eye is, as Dawkins would say, it's 1% better than 24% of an eye. He seems surprised that couples desperate for a baby would go for it.

I must admit that after the IVF bit, I sort of lost interest in what he said, the remainder seemed to be a bunch of non-sequiter rants unworthy of refutation, and outright nonsense. An example:

>>The old, for example, are under perpetual curfew, imposed by some of the young, in Britain<<

Utter bollocks. There are a few areas with problems, but this statement just made me switch him off.

928. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #12607 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 8:51 pm

So, ID is dead. Long live the new creationism named "Critical Analysis".

At least that will probably be the clarion call the ex-ID'ers use to rally the still faithful.

I have to say that Miller presented the most balanced view I've yet witnessed, of a theist's approach to Darwinism. I still cannot understand the 'dualist' brain or mindset of a theistic scientist, but that aside, it was an interesting and revealing presentation and destruction of ID by a self-confessed Roman Catholic. Almost certainly Miller will be labelled 'turncoat' by the rampant politically-motivated fundamentalists, but there's no doubt the ID brigade suffered a huge defeat. Behe especially, must have lost all credibility, not only in the eyes of his scientific peers, but in the eyes of his paymasters and taskmasters who probably tore him to shreds for failing so miserably. Miller is probably right that ID is now dead but will be supplanted by Critical Analysis (CA?), which is just another tired way of allowing for non-evidential hypotheses to creep into the teaching of biology.

It was hilarious that the foolish Pat Robertson — is 'Robertson' a generic buffoon's name — in trying to admonish the citizens of Dover, inadvertently admitted it was a religious crusade by saying they had thrown God out of their city; I imagined a big off-camera DOH!!, a few seconds later!

Miller also mentioned the danger of America losing its scientific lead if the citizenry reject science, it would allow other countries to forge ahead. I can assure him it's already too late and in one field, software engineering, it has been happening for years. The situation was summarised in a book titled "The Decline of The American Programmer", nearly ten years ago (the author's name escapes me). I worked for three software houses in the USA, two of them major players, in every case the key staff (software engineers), were mostly foreigners, people from the UK, France, Spain, Latin America and Japan, were the brains of those outfits. Just take a look at pictures of Microsoft employees for example, — you'll get the idea. Sadly its also true in the UK, software can be and does get, produced by any skilled programmer anywhere in the world, location is not a problem, the net is the perfect telecommuting highway. Guys like me cost too much money, as I found out when I returned.

I liked that fact that Miller was a strong proponent of scientific popularisation and wanted to see much more of it. However Professor Dawkins, I'm not sure you would be his ideal iconic figurehead, still, a good thing nevertheless.

It crossed my mind that sending the video, not the link, to McIntosh the 'nutty professor', might be a good idea, in fact multiple copies to LU also.

Well, I think we'll find that Critical Analysis will turn out to be a giant misnomer, neither critical nor analytical, but time will tell.

929. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

Comment #12599 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 5:46 pm

This is the guy whose book Dawkins recommends, I'll watch for a while -- see if it can hold my attention and keep me awake.

930. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12587 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 4:40 pm

110. Comment #12376 by Logicel

>>If we were able to provide death with dignity, and aid our fellow humans in dying without pain, I think that much of the fear would be removed. Not surprisingly, the supporters of religious superstitions certainly are frightened of this possibility and are doing their best to prevent it from becoming a reality for us all in our time of need, when our death approaches.<<

Sounds like you support euthanasia Logicel; so do I.

Coming as I do from a family of non-believers, and having many relatives of the 'unsure' variety, I have seen death up close on a few occasions. In all but one case, the person close to death displayed remarkable calmness and fortitude, I have a good memory of my grandmother just hours before her death, calling us all together and giving assurance that her affairs were in order; she took me aside and said she was glad she'd lived to see me find a girlfriend. The exception I mentioned, was my cousin, she died of cancer aged 32 and left 2 young children. It was many years ago, but to this day I can see her in her hospital bed with tears running down her face and saying she didn't want to die because her children needed her.

Only three years ago, my mother died. She'd never been an abrasive person; indeed, I always thought her worst fault was her inability to refuse a favour, that's why two of her last words amazed me. She was surrounded by visitors as she lay on her death-bed; a few of them were people who had paid little attention to her in happier times, she beckoned them closer and in a clear voice told them to "fuck off". I felt like giving her three cheers.

It pains me more than I thought it would to write this, but I needed to because of the contrast I'd noticed between close-to-death non-believers and believers. From what I've seen, believers seem much more frightened of death, perhaps the 'devil of doubt' grows stronger as death approaches. Extreme hypocrisy is another thing I notice among theists; recently, a lifelong friend of mine died, he was agnostic but his family decided to give him a religious funeral anyway. I sat in the church and listened as another friend of his (not mine) gave a eulogy; the person he spoke of was unrecognizable to me, the character being described was a work of fiction, but the family seemed gratified. I have already taken steps to ensure such a thing doesn't happen when I check out.

My cousin did not die a painless death, I don't know why, but pain management at that time didn't seem as effective as it is now. It wasn't my place, but I wanted to ask the doctor to help her on her way. I know he would have refused though. As a younger man, I held that taking one's own life was an act of insanity, now I'm not so sure; I think circumstances could arise where death is the logical and sensible choice. Personally, I have no fear of death, it — as someone said — can only exist when I don't. I fear the process of dying; I don't relish the thought of a slow, painful demise without drugs for example. Mostly I suppose, I fear being alone, I have no wife now and my two children live far away, I have brothers and sisters but again they are scattered and none are close by. When my father died, he died alone, my first feeling was guilt, how could a man with seven children die alone, as the eldest, I felt responsible. I know he would not have blamed me however. He was a man of strong character, disliked by some for his forthright manner and habit of not disguising the truth, he was a military man all his life and I have many abiding memories of him, two which involving religion, I shall relate.

In my schooldays RI was a mandatory subject so I had to read the bible even though I came from a non-religious family. When I was fourteen, my dad took me aside and asked what I thought about religion, I told him I'd read the bible but thought it was very hard to believe, he replied that he thought so too, but just wanted to assure me that whatever I thought about it, was OK with him. When I was a little older he told me a wartime story about the fallacy of 'no atheists in foxholes', I never doubted my dad because he had a chest-full of medals that would have sunk a D-Day landing craft, twice he'd escaped enemy prison camps, so he'd seen plenty of action. He told me that soldiers in foxholes needed five things: weapon, ammo, food, warm clothes and a bible. Yes a bible. Apparently bibles were an item that commonly went 'missing' from regimental stores, but not because terrified soldiers huddled in foxholes needed to clutch them. Bibles, you see, are made from high-quality but very thin paper, an absolutely perfect substitute for hard-to-obtain cigarette rolling paper! Yes, many a firefight has been won after the burning of Genesis!

Well, I seem to have let my memories run away with me; if I've bored anyone, I apologize.

931. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12544 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 1:35 pm

15. Comment #12495 by Logicel

Well, you have been a busy girl haven't you!

I saw that little fracas going on but steered clear of it -- reminded me of a bunch of kindergarten brats sitting around in a circle playing with their food and throwing it at each other. They had a good time but left the mess for an adult to clean up; looks like it was you.

932. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12540 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 12:46 pm

17. Comment #12509 by Thrall

>>...Craig says "God can't show himself, or else there wouldn't be faith"...<<

Of course not; showing himself would be evidence, faith therefore, is not required. Naturally, the moment he did show himself, the ex-faithful majority would fall at his feet and grovel. But then the delighted minority (including myself) would be venting our contempt of him, he'd have to show his true vengeful nature and omnipotence by killing us; thereby proving what we'd been saying all along.

I haven't visited OGM in a while, I guess that was a comedian you speak of.

933. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12535 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 12:29 pm

14. Comment #12492 by Logicel

Ah, I see. I think I just guessed your nationality by your spelling.

When I lived in Florida I found myself coming to the defence of France against a few people. After a while a new colleague came -- an American who'd spent many years in France, after that, the anti-French jokes ceased. Amazingly, shortly afterwards, a native French colleague joined us, he epitomised everyone's idea of a Frenchman and smoked those horrible black Gauloise cigarettes.

Yes, I did notice the post flags; a good idea.

934. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12488 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 6:43 am

11. Comment #12486 by Eamonn Shute

Yes, I wondered that also Eamonn. In fact, I found myself mentally reciting the sentence that I knew Dawkins would say and he tripped me up by saying 'codes'. Personally, I think 'replicators' is better, no doubt he'll have a reason though.

935. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12485 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 6:34 am

9. Comment #12475 by Logicel

>>The power of humor when it relaxes and gives pleasure must not be underestimated in its prowess as an educating tool. Why can't we have fun while we are learning?<<

Yes Logicel, I think you're right. I'm not a teacher but on occasions where I've had to impart knowledge, I found humour to be a big help, especially in a situation where the 'pupils' needed to learn rather than wanted to.

The host of such a show has a big effect. Dara is a fairly smart guy who makes frequent appearances as a panellist on Stephen Fry's "QI" show. As an American you may not be aware of QI, it's a quirky quiz show that features apparently simple questions that have an answer contrary to popular belief or understanding. It's funny, and one of the few things worth watching on TV these days.

936. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12483 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 6:08 am

68. Comment #12476 by Roger Stanyard

>>Is he actually saying that all bonds between chemicals can only exist if there is an intelligent designer?<<

That's what it looks like to me Roger, I see no other explanation.

LU should fire this guy, but I cant help wondering what else is going on here. What does your organisation know about McIntosh? Is he being bribed by American fundamentalists perhaps? I find it incredible that a so-called 'professor' could make such a fool of himself for nothing!

937. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12480 by Yorker on December 12, 2006 at 5:59 am

Thanks for the reply Squirrel.

I remember thinking before returning home, that it would be good to be in an environment where sanity prevailed and values meant something. It was a shock to see how far the UK had sunk during my ten-year absence; fame-obsessed young people barely able to write a sentence, rampant greed everywhere, charlatans and woo-woos at every turn, and worst of all, a sharp increase in religiosity.

I have some thoughts on why it happened, but still working on it.

938. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12356 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 3:40 pm

52. Comment #12261 by Stephen Topping

Mr. Topping,

Coming here to show us your bible-quoting abilities is like a whore trying to convince a nun to join the brothel; most people here will be mightily unimpressed. Giving you the benefit of the intellectual doubt, I must assume you already knew this and so then must ask why you're here, is it just petty anger perhaps? Do you really think your embarrassingly simplistic ravings will have the slightest effect on anyone here? If you had taken the trouble to read some threads before posting, you would have seen that better than you have failed in their silly attempts to scold us, you haven't even cleared the first hurdle, you seem to think your Wholly Babble is powerful, most people here would see it more as a Grimm's fairy tale! To impress us, you must come up with something original that makes us think, I know that original thought is much more difficult than simple and lazy belief, but please try hard.

I addressed you because I'd not seen your name before, are you new here? If so, then I would like you to answer the following simple question.

Will you admit that your evident belief in a god of some kind might just be false?

A negative answer will disqualify you as being unworthy of debate as far as I'm concerned, others may talk to you; I shall not.

Oh, I almost forgot, make mine extra cheese…

939. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12242 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Thanks for the support my friends, I sincerely appreciate it.

940. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12208 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 9:10 am

38. Comment #12203 by tentotheminus9

This is unbelievable! In my student days I never met a single colleague who was religious, madness is upon us!

How can a biologist be ignorant of evolution? The entire science is underpinned by it! AC Grayling writes that university standards have fallen and entry too easy, he's wrong, standards are non-existent, fools are given entry.

Am I to understand that biology exams ask no questions about a student's understanding of evolution? I'm amazed at the level we have sunk to.

941. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12199 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 8:05 am

In that last Robertson diatribe, he mentioned that religites were not swamping this site; I have to agree with that, they don't because they can't.

In my travels across this Earth I noticed one outstanding thing about god-lovers: the vast majority of them are poorly educated and in quite a few cases, are illiterate. It's therefore no surprise that religious commentators are low in number here. There are a few sites where they make puerile attempts and as a fan of schoolboy howlers, I occasionally take a look to get a hearty laugh, many of them have discovered that font colours can be changed, so they select garish hues that better highlights their ignorance.

Note also how Robertson cherry-picks, selecting only aggressive comments to bleat about, nary a mention made of the well-thought out comments asking awkward questions he can't handle. In such an impersonal open place like this, there are bound to be people who make aggressive ill-thought out comments, its natural; that's why most of us don't get upset by it! What a wonderful world it would be if all atheists had the brain of an Einstein and the writing talent of Sagan, apparently, that's what Robertson thinks we should be like! Sadly, we are not, we are just like other people, but we do have the right and the wit to question those who make ridiculous unsupported claims.

If every theist would simply say: "Yes, it's true, I have no evidence but choose to have faith" then everything would be fine, but they don't. They never admit their error and much worse, they try to get us non-deluded people to join them and have the audacity to expect respect for their delusion. Those days are over, there are far fewer religites now than there were a hundred years ago, the writing is on the wall.

A day will come when the last theist is planted or roasted, he (it will be a man) will likely have children; logically, they will not be theists so by his beliefs, they'll be sent to hell, he'll be in heaven and so they will never ever meet. Disturbing for the last theist you'd have to say.

942. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12191 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 6:41 am

67. Comment #12183 by David A Robertson

>>And (you will not like this but I have to say it) please be careful about mocking God. One day you will stand before him and give account for every careless word and thought.<<

Mr. Robertson,

I normally would not address you because of my self-imposed rule regarding closed-minded religious people, but since you have decided to depart and not return, I wanted to say this.

I and many others here, have no need of your god. As an open-minded non-believer, I have to concede the extremely unlikely possibility of his existence. However, if he is the kind of childish god that would attempt to judge me, then I am prepared. Long ago I composed and committed to memory, the statement I would make to such a god; it is simple and irrefutably logical. In short, I have him by the balls, he shall not judge me; I shall judge him and call him to account for his absolutely useless performance.

Just think for a moment about how utterly demeaning the concept of a god is to sentient human beings. I am a man; I have spent the majority of my 63 years of life in the pursuit of knowledge of this world, its workings, and the Universe in which I live. Do you expect that a man such as I will cower before some petty egotistical deity who would dare to punish me for not worshipping him? You must be joking!

I have made mistakes in my life, I am not always correct, but as I age I find I make less mistakes and I'm right more often than wrong, I am improving. When I die, I will do so happy that I leave this world a better man than when I entered it, I will have fulfilled myself, the meaning of life for me is what I made of it. In contrast, I see a religious person as an individual who has wasted a golden opportunity, leading life as if it were a rehearsal, conned into accepting a crappy life now for everlasting paradise later. As E.O. Wilson says, after the first few trillion years, even paradise will become boring!

In the interest of saving valuable land, I shall be cremated after death; will god re-ignite my ashes in hell? That's all he can do since I think the concept of a soul is erroneous. Like me, you are going to die; no doubt you think your wasted life will guarantee you a place in heaven beside your lord, but in the dark recesses of your mind, must lurk the nagging doubt that perhaps you're wrong, there is no heaven, there is no hell; you will never see your loved ones again. I pity you, because I have no doubts; that's why I cherish my loved ones now, on this Earth, I need no commemorative stone, I will live in the memories of those whose lives I touched.

Eventually, this planet will be destroyed, my atoms will be recycled, I shall have a kind of immortality, what more could I ask for?

P.S. I'm re-applying my rule, any response to this post by you, will be ignored by me.

Bye, bye.

943. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12184 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 5:17 am

Logicel

I forgot to mention your comment about doctors being less atheistic (a Sam Harris statement), I must admit that surprised me.

I think if I were a doctor who had to deal with the absolute finality of death daily, it would make me less likely to believe! Perhaps it has something to do with my monist -- i.e. non-dualist -- character.

944. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12177 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 4:40 am

58. Comment #12110 by Logicel

>>I really appreciated RD saying in TGD that there is only good and bad medicine--medicine that either works or do not (and not mainstream versus alternative).<<

Yes, I've always disliked the 'alternative' label applied to medicine. If it works it would just be part of mainstream medicine, no label needed. If it fails, the 'alternative' label is wrong and should be replaced by 'quack' or 'crap' medicine.

945. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12173 by Yorker on December 11, 2006 at 4:29 am

62. Comment #12155 by Logicel

That is interesting, people like to latch onto a good thing. I like Oberg's phraseology, so if I were you I'd give it to him.

Log-in Timeout

Thanks to all who responded to this, it seems the characteristic exists whether designed or not. I also edit off-line for anything bigger than a paragraph now.

946. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12143 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 6:38 pm

Logicel said:

"I think therefore I am is not equivalent to I believe therefore I am."


Indeed so, perhaps it should be:

"I believe, therefore I need not think"

947. The Atheist Delusion: a pisspoor presentation

Comment #12140 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 6:34 pm

>>Paraphasing some clever person--can't recall the name at the moment--who once said open-mindedness is fine unless your mind is so open your brain falls out.<<

Logicel,

In the Dawkins quotes here a very similar thing is said. I can say with confidence that this comes from a Sagan book wherein Carl quotes NASA engineer James Oberg who said;

"I like to keep an open mind, but not so open my brains fall out"

Oberg was the originator, let's give him the credit for it.

948. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12138 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 6:07 pm

26. Comment #12132 by Jack Rawlinson

>>This was a thinly disguised piece of pro-religious propaganda.<<

Yes Jack, it was, and it has lowered my already low opinion of the media, especially the Irish media.

When faced with people dishonestly bastardising scientic facts and being vastly outnumbered, I think Richard would do better to engage the audience directly, ask if they understand the science. The answer will probably be no, so then he can ask what the point is in talking above the audience.

Then again, the media is the whore of the Industry of Deception, so what can we expect, even the BBC nowadays, behaves like it needs ratings.

949. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12131 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 5:45 pm

Professor Dawkins,

Please use whatever influence you may have, to get McIntosh invited as a speaker to next year's Beyond Belief conference. I want to hear him spout his drivel in front of world-class scientists, this disgrace to the word 'professor', needs to be publicly humiliated.

950. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12125 by Yorker on December 10, 2006 at 5:14 pm

I found this almost impossible to listen to. This McIntosh fellow is a disgrace to science. Irrespective of professional discipline, anyone holding such nonsensical beliefs, has no business teaching in any capacity.

Leeds University will become a laughing stock -- the place with the nutty professor -- shamed and abhorred world-wide.

What say you, shall we put together a petition to have this disgrace fired from his post ASAP? I am certainly for it. Is the RDF ready yet to start sending materials out? I suggest we flood LU with protests about this. How much would it cost? Would donations be required?

Richard, please let us know.