51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158450 by Galactor on April 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm

It's the last paragraph I like, all about sarcasm, ad-hominem attacks and *then* hypocrisy would you believe.

The irony of it all.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #158445 by Galactor on April 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Many Christians never think much ...

Yep. That's about the only accurate wording that I could find in this tripe.

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156014 by Galactor on April 6, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Just had a quick scout for our latest hypocrite:

http://profiles.yahoo.com/sdbranum

Check it out.

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149268 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 11:11 am

Not so much the rules, but the rules of the survival of the fittest. These Darwinists - once they get a hold of you, they shake, tear, snarl and watch as your very essence makes way for the new scientific know-all.

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149265 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 11:06 am

Steve, it's all too late. Now it's been established that I am cleverer than you, any attempts to backtrack and regain some semblance of respectibility and credibility will serve against you - you know how this crowd are.

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149262 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 10:55 am

Hey everyone, Steve Zara said:

Well, OK, you [Galactor] caught me out in an over-simplification

Gosh, I (for it is he, Galactor) must be so clever.

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149203 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 9:02 am

Steve, regarding your post #149140.

This type of thing and the explanation for how it can't work is for me the essence of why science and in this case physics, is a difficult subject matter to teach (and therefore be understood). You have to get the terminology right for one thing and it's so easy to kludge what you're trying to say.

Can you really "focus heat"?!

Heat is not a vector; it's a scalar entity and direction can not be applied to it (or else I'm 'itler's muvva). Yet heat is said to flow from one place to another!

You can direct the photons of course and this is the essence of where the cold sink device fails to work. For the device to work, it would have to attract photons from the source of heat it was intended to cool.

Stop me, I'm talking nonsense.

58. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149168 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 8:10 am

In response to comment #149139 by epeeist

I understand how easy it is to think that if someone did not believe in something that he might be motivated to have everyone else share this lack of belief. But if Stalin believed that having religious belief required him to positively act such that everyone abandoned theism then this is still not acting because of a *lack* of belief in something. It's still a belief in something. It's abstract, I know, but it's essential to understanding why you cannot attribute anything to something which is devoid of substance and is not operable.

The whole point is that as a word, atheism is a misnomer; a word that should arguably be abandoned and exists only because sometime in the past there was an opposing prevailing view that began to be questioned. It's like the word Darwinism - meaningless and misunderstood. We don't have social gravitationists.

59. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149134 by Galactor on March 25, 2008 at 6:51 am

In response to comment #149060 by clearthinker.

Atheism is just a conclusion that there is no supernatural being. It, the word, only came into being because around the time it became possible to be a heretic without getting burned at the stake, the prevailing view was that the existence of a God (take whichever flavour you like) was an absolute inviolate fact. The word atheist was thus applied to the minority of dissenters.

Funny though how we don't attribute words like afairiest, agoblinist, aleprochaunist to Stalin et al yet what is the difference? Why, you yourself are an afairiest I presume. Has your afairieism led you to do good or bad or in any way influenced your actions? No of course not. Did Stalin or Hitler or Mao do the dreadful things they did because they were not fairiests?

You cannot attribute atheism as a means to any end. It's nonsensical. You might say that not being fearful of divine retribution led Stalin to feel able to perform and instigate dreadful deeds with the knowledge or belief that it would go unpunished but that doesn't mean that you can blame it on Stalin being an atheist. Nor does it make sense to conclude that he performed terrible acts because he was an atheist, no more so to conclude that he did so because he had a moustache.

If you cannot understand this rationale then you haven't understood what the word atheism means. It is simple but apparently not for everyone. It is not a fucking creed. It's just a conclusion.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148854 by Galactor on March 24, 2008 at 4:51 am

124. Comment #148837 by bibanu on March 24, 2008 at 3:17 am

Do you guys honestly believe that Darwin did not have a considerable influence on Hitler and the scientists working for him?

The whole German society was heavily influenced by Darwin and by the philosophy of Nietzsche (atheist).

I think that it is rather convenient (but unfair) to blame someone (or something) else when great atrocities are committed by atheists (Stalin, Mao etc), and when certain theories lead in (perhaps) undesirable directions.

Theories HAVE consequences. What is/was discussed and debated in Paris/London (etc) - many times comes to fruition in regimes far away (Pol Pot, Mao etc).

You are KIDDING yourself (or live in denial) - if you think that Darwin and Nietzsce did not have a considerable influence on Hitler and his eugenics programs etc.

In response to Comment #148837 by bibanu.

The whole German society was heavily influenced by Darwin ...

(my emphasis). Wow! That's one broad brush you've got there. THe whole German society? Heavily? Would you care to back up these assertions with any evidence or do you feel that just stating something as contentious as this (such as merely stating that God exists) is enough? It should be easy enough for you to back up what you say given the depth of the assertion.

You clearly do not understand what atheism is. Try, every time you read or write the word, to replace it with something like "people who don't believe in any God" and see how vacuous the suggestion that atheists actually do something because of a disbelief is. Great atrocities were not committed by anyone because they didn't believe in a deity; they didn't get up in the morning and say, "great, now I know that God doesn't exist I'll start mass murdering", did they? You might argue that because they lacked the fear of divine retribution they were able to be particularly nasty but that only works if you can prove that God exists. And the examples you give are so hackneyed. These people were atrocious because of their perverted beliefs not because of any lack of belief in something.

theories have consequences

Your're not saying that Darwinism is "just a theory" are you now? For heavens sake, read a book about science and understand the terminoogy. Whether you like it or not, evolution is the best description we have for the diversity of life and its complexity. It is founded on scientific evidence and whether it is misused or not is neither here nor there. It remains the only way we have - that is plausible - of describing how we came to exist. Maybe people misuse the theory of evolution but that's only because they don't know anything about it. Dawkins has explained how mankind can operate outside of (defy) the selfishness of our genes and be responsible, caring and social-minded.

You are not kidding yourself I contend. You are merely ignorant. No crime or disgrace in itself but you are now being held accountable for it because you are positing nonsense. Go away, read up on the subject matter from sources that are credible and non-religous and fill in the ignorant void in your education and then come back and make some sense. Darwin did influence thinking but that is irrelevant - his theory is founded on evidence (that's why it's a theory). I can't comment significantly upon Nietsche but he was a philosopher and his proposals are open to opinion.

61. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148839 by Galactor on March 24, 2008 at 3:17 am

Further to the discussion on whether Mathis knew Dawkins was present, I think that for this to be true, Mathis is guilty of being extraordinarily discourteous and rude. To not have at least welcomed Dawkins after having (in Mathis's mind) travelled so far and being a interviewee of the production is a disgrace. Lagomort believes that Mathis planned the expulsion of Myers (whom he presumably could have known was present by the very fact that Myers disclosed his intended presence as a requirement of attendance) and allowed Dawkins to stay (having recognised him - remember that Dawkins' name was not registered as this was not a requirement for guests) with the anticipation that Dawkins could be made to look foolish because his debating style was not up to the task. I do not disagree that Dawkins could be made to look bad in the presence of a weighted and biased crowd by someone as unscrupulous as Mathis and indeed, it would seem to be the case that Dawkins was pilloried and eventually withdrew from further exchange. I do, however, find it incredulous that Mathis, despite being such a bungling and incompetent fool, would elect for such a strategy (expel Myers and admit Dawkins) and not foresee the long term consequences! It's tantamount to taking a pawn and sacrificing your queen. Once again, Mathis appears in the science blogworld as an utter twit. His only gain has been to "humiliate" Dawkins in front of a select group of psycophants. Clearly Mathis is capable of behaving disgracefully. Clearly he can behave stupidly and incompentently and this makes it still harder to believe that he stage-managed Dawkins attendance once he had supposedly seen him in the foyer.

62. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148834 by Galactor on March 24, 2008 at 3:02 am

Lagomort, your post #148789 where you ask for an example of debating a creationist in a public manner beggars belief. I have already discussed this with you - Dawkins does not debate creationists and has publicly stated as much and further advises that other respected scientists avoid lending credibility to creationists by debating them. We won't find examples of Dawkins debating creationists whether it meets the standards that you feel are accomplished or not. Once again, I ask you as in my original post, what evidence do you have of Dawkins debating (as opposed to brief verbal interview/radio discussions) creationists whether good, bad or ugly?

63. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148275 by Galactor on March 22, 2008 at 2:15 pm

"Of course they recognised him." What is the rationale behind your statement? It can't be based upon your having seen pictures! How do you reconcile the points I have made in the previous post? Has Mathis been (deliberately) discourteous or is he lying and which is plausible? Has Mathis grossly underestimated the effect of not publicly recognising Dawkins prior to his admittance to the screening or do you feel he has made a coup? Mathis is looking like a fool in the blog community - he can't possibly have wanted the reaction he has earned and surely no-one with a shred of decency would ignore a man like Dawkins whom Mathis knows personally. Forget the pictures you have seen unless they show Dawkins standing next to Mathis telling him he doesn't know his arse from his Tiktalik. Evaluate the plausibility of how Mathis has behaved and what he belatedly stated and the effect he has caused. Your conclusion makes no sense to me.

The examples you provide aren't really debates - they are radio programmes where Dawkins doesn't know who will call and the other is an interview with a preacher where presumably the subject was to be religion and not evolution/creationism. These aren't exchanges along the lines of Myers-Simmons. Haggard, if I remember correctly, was the one who brought up how some scientists believed the eye could have merely appeared without evolving. Dawkins was trying to discuss the fervent nature of the congregation. Preparation for this hardly seems possible. I can imagine that Dawkins is perceived in many ways but I am not sure that the original statements you made about how Dawkins should avoid debates with creationists are really applicable.

64. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148244 by Galactor on March 22, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Lagomort, I find it difficult to agree with you that the whole escapade was stage-managed. The producer, Mathis, has come away looking like a complete idiot and he has to answer to charges of lying (he claims he knew it was Dawkins) or being extremely discourteous by not approaching Dawkins and at least welcoming him; Mathis claims Dawkins must have travelled the Atlantic to appear at the screening; what would you do if you saw one of the main protagonists of the "debate" who is someone you had interviewed personally, i.e., you'd previously met and you assumed that they'd travelled three thousand miles to be at your film? You'd at least say "hello" wouldn't you? I find it hard in the very least to reconcile this with Mathis's claims.

As regards your remarks concerning Dawkins's debating skills with creationists, I think you have a point as regards style but your original comments give an impression that Dawkins regularly takes on creationists in debate and should avoid doing so.

65. EXPELLED!

Comment #148237 by Galactor on March 22, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I'm sure many of you are following the observations, remarks and exchanges on the various blogs that are holding discussions on the subject. One thing that strikes me is how these Christians are so able to lie and are so uncharitable. Mathis states that he recognised Dawkins and assumed he must have travelled a great distance and so allowed him entry. What would you do if an emminent professor, who was gracious enough to have appeared in your film, travels the Atlantic (the arrogance should not have escaped you by the way) and turns up at the showing? You'd think a good Christian would be at pains to welcome the man, not just to the country but to the showing itself, wouldn't you? "Hello, it is you Richard isn't it? How lovely to see you! You must have travelled some way. How nice of you to come." You wouldn't just keep your distance and ignore the man, would you? So either Mathis is a liar (which I think is the case) or an uncivil little shit who hasn't the decency to welcome people who were kind enough to him to appear on his production.

And that's the thing I just can't understand about this whole escapade. When movies are premiered, the whole cast are invited and paraded to the waiting masses and media. They're provided sandwiches and lemonade and made to feel welcome. Yet with this joke of a film, they're left to apply to some website to register their intention of attending. Scandalous! I can't believe that they really stage-managed the events to embarrass Myers and Dawkins but if they did, it shows a singuarl ineptitude in public relations.

66. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148125 by Galactor on March 22, 2008 at 6:42 am

In reponse to comments 147979 and 148065 by Lagomort. You state that Dawkins performs poorly when debating creationists and you then demand of someone who disagrees that they provide evidence of how well Dawkins performs. I think the onus is on you to provide evidence as you make the original claim, particularly given the fact that it is well publicized (see A Devils Chaplain) that Dawkins attempted a long time ago to propose with S. J. Gould that all serious scientists avoid public debates with creationists in order that they might prevent providing credibility where none is merited. I am under the impression that this is why Dawkins does not enter into debates with creationists and that the volume of such recorded debates must be very small indeed. Perhaps you know otherwise and I for one would be extremely fascinated to hear a debate of Dawkins and a creationist.

I trust you are not referring in your original post to the widely viewed creationist interview where Dawkins is made to look unable in answering a creationist question regarding information increase in phenotypes.

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

Comment #145087 by Galactor on March 17, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #145040 by AllanW

Another one-off driveby trolling

It can't possibly be so. Someone who levels criticism of the kind found in the post to which you refer (Dawkins is a coward apparently) would not possibly want to expose themselves as being both a coward and a hypocrite, surely. We'd best expect a response from our learned friend who no doubt will face responses to his critique head on. Wouldn't you agree?

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

Comment #145082 by Galactor on March 17, 2008 at 8:24 am

Comment #144820 by post-secular

I find it fascinating and appalling at the same time that no one in this discussion has any trouble with Dawkins' flippant assertion that religious education of children constitutes child abuse

I myself find it astounding (and appalling) that people who claim to be highly educated can so mis-read or misrepresent what has been said or written by others. No-one here indeed has any trouble with the assertion that you claim Dawkins to have made purely because he has made no such assertion at all. You claim also to have read The God Delusion; you can't have done so very attentively.

69. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125419 by Galactor on February 11, 2008 at 10:40 am

or overpower others with a stench

Hmmm, there's a certain bovine odour that may have arisen from this subject matter ...

70. The Pagan Christ

Comment #124821 by Galactor on February 10, 2008 at 10:27 am

albondigas

You write

Two organisms that are unaware of each other yet evolve independent processes

That would indeed be staggeringly unlikely, but you see, my dear fellow, that is not what has happened. Read

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

for some proper science.


I can smell the unhappy reek of "argument by personal incredulity". That's why I gave the analogy of the water forming (and not as a direct analogy of the complexity of cell mechanisms). This is a mechanism you take for granted. You understand it. You're used to this and you have no quibble with it because it doesn't impact on your religious beliefs yet it's just as wondorous and complex and astoundingly incredulous as what goes on in a cell. Would you say that water forming is "trivial"? Admittedly there are significant levels of complexity between water forming and cell functions but try going from one end to the other with gradual steps over billions of generations.

Your analogy of the stick man and a Rembrandt. The mechanisms "are" the same - atomic chemistry. The result is different. Rembrandt would have started the Nightwatchman with as few strokes of the brush as you did drawing your Lowry matchstick man. Of course, Rembrandts painting evolved into the final article after hours and hours of additions but the mechanism was the same. A rather nice analogy of evolution - simple molecular bonding becoming more and more complex over vast periods of time and under the filter of natural selection.


Take care,
Galactor

71. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #124041 by Galactor on February 8, 2008 at 8:02 am

My guess is that if it is real, the rotor magnets are providing the energy and will therefore be losing their magnetic field strength over time.

It would then be an interesting case as to how we could re-magnetize the magnets using the earth's magnetic field.

(Oh stop me, I'm talking nonsense)

72. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123617 by Galactor on February 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

ridelo

More mirth from the church of Darkness indeed. The movement to which the good Reverend Shayne refers is one originating from the bowels. It would seem his sphincter control has pinching capabilities. Think of an extrusion mould if that helps.

For another good cracking Reverend Shayne Dark bellyaching laugh, read his post about the ear mistype on

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2045,This-Weeks-Flea,RichardDawkinsnet,page3#114134

It had me in stitches.

Take care.

'lactor

73. The Pagan Christ

Comment #122774 by Galactor on February 6, 2008 at 3:45 am

albondigas
Your comment 275/#122588 (my parentheses)

I'm saying that since it's [christianity, islam, leprochaunism?] the established belief, the best reason for change is to prove that it's false.

I respectfully but utterly disagree. You cannot disprove God (or Allah, or Thor, or Pixies, or Goblins, etc., etc.). You can disprove the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution with evidence that refutes their predictions. What we observe in materialistic science is an acceptance of the prevailing consensus which is happily shifted or abandoned when the evidence necessitates doing so. This is a far cry from some numbers game where a prevailing antiquated notion has been established and must remain inscrutable.

No. The best approach is for everyone to continually re-assess and re-evaluate current thinking and through use of rational thought draw sensible conclusions however hard it may be to admit errancy. There should be no disgrace in admitting to have been fooled or deluded and nor should religion be impervious to scrutiny.

74. The Pagan Christ

Comment #122768 by Galactor on February 6, 2008 at 2:50 am

albondigas
Your comment 274/#122586

I submit that a belief in God doesn't have a corner on the market of delusion, oppression, or corruption. There are any number of examples of good beliefs being perverted for personal gain. Take the medical profession for example. Doctors have used their position of influence to take advantage of their patients. Does this mean medicine is damaging? How about the ideal of working hard, making a living, and owning a business. Some people have done this as responsible citizens, while others have done it by subjecting others to misery, cheating, lying, and stealing. Does this mean the ideal of entreperneurship is bad? More examples could be given but they would all reflect the same truth. If one looks at these examples, one can identify the common factor in all of them. It isn't the belief or ideal that's responsible for the abuse, it's the individual who perpetrates it.

I accept that it is not exclusively religion that perpetrates evil. On the contrary, believing in sky fairies or pixies at the bottom of the garden may very well lead to good being done but this is not the point. It's the erroneous, unreliable, unproven, questionable basis or foundation upon which one might act - in your case, the belief that God exists and the fact that the bible is true - that is the problem. If it was indeed true that the bible was indeed God's word and "factual", then mankind would have a different outlook on the Inquisition and the crusades. They would at least be justified because God told us to do it. Because there is no evidence of a supernatural overseer, however, anything done in its name and especially evil acts are contentious to those who require evidence for its existence.

Your analogy of medicine being abused is somewhat misplaced. Medicines that are available for use have undergone scientific scrutiny and are to an acceptable degree, proven. That dishonest people abuse this is neither here nor there. A better analogy would be quackery because any quack dispensing leeches to cure a blood disorder does so through ignorance although he still may cure his patient perhaps via a placebo effect or due to unrelated causes. It's the ignorance upon which one bases ones actions that is the issue.

I would submit, that actions that are carried out without a basis of factual and reliable knowledge (and I include the perverted science of Hitler, who, with a sound grasp of the theory of evolution may well have understood that he was not part of a superhuman race) are serious causes for concern.

If people are going to be evil, then they are going to be evil but wouldn't it be better to take away the hiding places from where they can justify their actions?

75. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122515 by Galactor on February 5, 2008 at 11:25 am

hes2@usa314

Your comment #122318 about what scientists really think about evolution and the disgracefully dishonest manipulation of the statement by the "Discovery" Institute (they chose a wording that even Dawkins in theory could happily sign and then made it seem that all signees seriously doubted the veracity of the ToE) has been debunked long ago:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html

Read it, ya lunatic.

76. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121774 by Galactor on February 4, 2008 at 6:08 am

It's unfortunate that it will be as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest ...

Well, as you should know, there's still an evolutionary advantage in 49% of an eye so maybe there's hope. Besides, if everyone lies down, there's still some serious kicking to be done. It's a shame that amputees are never miracle cured - funny that.

77. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121772 by Galactor on February 4, 2008 at 5:56 am

Steve,

I concur. It's basic ignorance grubbing along, hand in hand with misinformation and a lack of logical reasoning.

78. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121763 by Galactor on February 4, 2008 at 5:26 am

hes2@usa
I think I'm feeling OK now; I'm all "laughed out" as it were so I'm going to try to add something to the debate. I must say, it was a little surreal in the house just then. Mrs. Galactor was wondering what the heck was going on, she and the kids were laughing along in sympathy so I explained it all and we all had a good chuckle - much needed at the moment what with the youngest just coming through a bout of chickenpox (God be praised). It brought back memories of the old chestnut that creationists think that the Flinstones is a documentary!

Listen! About this faith thing. I often read how theists equate things like science and atheism as being "faiths" and it seems to me that this is the kernel of the problem. What should we put our "faith" in? That seems to me the fundamental (ouch! the F-word) question. What makes someone take the word of a scientist like, say, Einstein, Feynmann, Newton, Faraday, Weinberg and, dare I say, Richard "Tricky-Dicky" Dawkins and have more "faith" - see, I'll use your word - in say the word of a minister like, I dunno, the Archibishop of Canterbury or Ted "Shaghard" Haggard or Pat "Dover watch out" Robertson or even your own pastor?

I guess for me it's that science as a method has had some pretty astounding results. Medicines, space travel, computers and even some horrid, horrid things like atom bombs. Putting to one side whether a scientific achievement is a beneficial one or could be misused, I think it would be very hard to deny that science kicks ass, so to speak. It's predictive, powerful, useful, reliable. The method is pretty simple actually - go off and do some experiments, document what you are relying on as a basis, record and interpret results and let the community see if they can repeat what you have done - a sort of quality control if you like. If what you have done holds up, it gains credibility and may lead to further understanding and knowledge and may form the basis of more experiments. As soon as something happens that may discredit that, OK - then maybe we need to abandon or review the conclusions and think again.

This is what modern science has been doing since it was conceived by the Royal Society and the prevailing facts or consensus is what counts. The overwhelming consensus, among respectable, credited scientists (astronomers, physicists, biologists, geologists and so on, some Christian, some Jewish, some Muslim, some as atheist as Jim the Atheist's brother, Jim) is that evolution has taken a thorough pounding and bashing due to its sensitive (for some) nature and it has held up magnificently. For you and me, my dear, dear fellow, it is as factual as the theory of gravity. However hard this is for you to take, it is the established scientific consensus and as time goes on, it becomes more and more sound. For sure, the theory is not complete but then neither is the theory of gravity and should we one day observe things falling "upwards", I doubt we will quickly abandon gravity as an explanation. The same can be said of the "gaps" in evolution - they are being filled in and questions that are not yet answered are not worthy in demanding that we seek alternative theories.

Scientists - religious or not - don't give a hoot about finding a creator in their discoveries. They just want facts. If someone were to discover religious tracts from the Koran or the Bible encoded in our DNA, they'd be jumping over themselves to publish their findings and all the scientists would be getting our their mats and praying to whichever God wrote it. Either that or scientists are telling us porky pies and there is a Satanic conspiracy at hand. Plausible?

My advice to you is to investigate where you should put your faith. Take a walk on the wild side. For the time being, avoid creationist sources and immerse yourself in acknowledged sources which publish peer-reviewed literature and have brought us scientific advances. Try to answer for yourself the reasons why scientists would want to hoodwink you about common descent. What on earth would they want to do that? Try to learn what a theory is and why the theory of evolution is as "factual" as the theory of gravity. Go to the forum and ask someone to help you along.

If you are not willing, then that's fine, but you will have little success here trying to convince people that the earth is 6000 years old. You will, however, evince a level of derision as I am afraid your ignorance is astounding in a day and age where science has been triumphant in spite of the backwardness of religion. And in a country so supposedly advanced as your own.
I am sure, however, that Steve "Gentlemen Jim" Zara will, as always, be more than courteous in answering your remarks and observations.
Regards, Galactor

79. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121750 by Galactor on February 4, 2008 at 4:30 am

hes2@usa
I'm sorry about that previous outburst, I didn't mean to offend or anything of the sort, it's just that I'm not used to this kind of claim made in earnest ...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
OOOOHOOH. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
HAAAAHAAAAAAAAA! OOH! AHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!
OOH! OOH!

"Dinosaurs and human footprints, together, side by side. Taking the dog for walk!"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

Sorry, please forgive me, AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!

80. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121748 by Galactor on February 4, 2008 at 4:26 am

Comment #116508 by hes2@usa
You said

A dinosaur footprint and a human footprint side-by-side in Texas is evidence of a young earth ...

which I would like to AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. OOOOHOOH. I'm sorry, I just need a minute ... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA! HAAAAHAAAAAAAAA! OOH! AHAHAHAHAAAAAH "dinosaur and human footprint" AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA! OOH! OOH! "side by side" It hurts! AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA! I'll come back AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA in a minute ...

81. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121742 by Galactor on February 4, 2008 at 4:05 am

Comment #116585 by al-rawandi

Your remark (my emphasis) that

It's [San Francisco] one of the gayest cities in the world, and a lot cooler climate than hell

has actually been refuted in a private revelation to revcort, another creationist fruitcake to have visited these internet shores, shortly after his demise. See

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page13#73597

for details.

'lactor

82. The Pagan Christ

Comment #120270 by Galactor on February 1, 2008 at 11:26 am

Albondigas, thank you for your response.

Reading through your answers, I get the distinct impression that you need to apply purpose to evolution. You say

Could we also add unaware to that list?

and I'm wondering what on earth is the relevance of the question? Yes, we could add anything that describes the process us unthinking and unconscious and the word "unaware"; as long as we don't mean "looking the other way for a moment or two while God popped in and fiddled around with a few chromosomes"; is certainly applicable here.

You then state (my emphasis)

the question is why it [and I presume you mean sex] started?

For the scientist, the answer is the one I have given you: chemical compounds doing their stuff and being selected for fitness. For you, I think the question has a more theistic nature and I am afraid it is misplaced as a question. There is no "why". It evolved and passed the test.

The example of the bacteria - as Mark Smith points out - is meant to answer your question as to why sex would be "developed", i.e., what evolutionary gains or benefits or advantages does it provide. I now think that you were posing the question from a perspective of "how could non-thinking organisms possibly come up with the idea let alone go and do it? There must be a designer."

This is - if I understood - again misplaced. I do not mean to trivialize what is for us humans with consciousness and limitations a mind-boggling mechanism but to the biological components and chemicals involved - it's just that - trivial. It's what they do. Science at this level (microscopic and smaller) is weird and wonderful but that doesn't make it impossible. It just makes it difficult for us humans with a very limited evolutionary history to understand and comprehend.

Of course, there is no cognizance on the part of the organisms "developing" sexual mechanisms and if you find it all so incredulous that you must fall back on a supernatural explanation, then that is your prerogative.

Imagine a few hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms whizzing about in a jar. A catalyst is introduced and water forms. For me, you are asking a question like "how do these atoms know how to bond together and form something that I could drink? God must be providing me with sustenance."

Finally, the creationist nonsense about the Cambrian period. Go and read some non-creationist books about evolution or go and politely ask some people in the forum to enlighten you.

83. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118039 by Galactor on January 30, 2008 at 9:10 am

Comment #118026 by Artful_Dodger
Good gravy! Theists just can't grasp the notion of what atheism is.

Your statement

The result is an atheist regime ..

does my head in. The word atheism is not operative. It has no function or workings. A correct understanding of what you mean is something like "the result is a regime that is not guided by a religious belief". So what? And how does the question of morality answer for the existence of a God? There are perfectly plausible evolutionary reasons that (wo)mankind is equipped with morality without the need for the man upstairs otherwise we would expect aborigines for example to be cutthroats.

84. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118030 by Galactor on January 30, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #118020 by Artful_Dodger

morality does not exist and when you scold or praise anyone for behaving "indecently" or "decently" as the case may be you do so in spite of, not because of, your materialism - you do so because you are all, like George Eliot (and the good professor Dawkins), "cultural Christians".

Were we all immoral swine before Christianity arrived on the British shores?

85. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115345 by Galactor on January 24, 2008 at 3:56 am

For me, it all went belly-up in the first paragraph:

Many who support the separation of church and state say that the intelligent design theory of creation ought not to be taught in public schools because it contains a religious bias. They dislike its suggestion that the evolutionary development of life was not the result of natural selection, as Charles Darwin suggested, but was somehow given purposeful direction and, by implication, was guided by God.

It's not at all reflective of my understanding of the "debate" around ID "theory" at all. Firstly, the statement that people don't want ID to be taught in public schools because of any religious bias is wholly misplaced. The correct assessment is:

many people (the majority) don't want ID taught in public schools as a science (because it isn't science)
and consequently, what merits are there in teaching ID (as a non-science) at all when you could be giving equal time to teaching alchemy, voodooism, etc.?

It's not the religious bias - it's the misplacement of the subject matter within the curriculum, surely? Atheists don't necessarily require that religion not be taught - they want the understanding that it is open to scrutiny and scepticism as any other subject matter.

Then the statement concerning "dislike of the challenge of ID to natural selection" as an explanation of life. This kind of misunderstanding makes my blood boil - people don't mind any challenge to Darwinism at all. It's not some holy grail and there's the rub - religious people see it as a creed of some sort. It ain't! It just fuc*ing ain't. It's just our best bet, the best way we can describe nature. If a challenge of any kind, whether ID or anything else holds up to scientific scrutiny and destroys the ToE so that we have some explaining to do, fine and fuc*ing dandy. If we found a message from God in DNA, the scientific community would go along with it if that's the evidence we are presented with.

But we all know, that the more the ToE is "challenged", the firmer it becomes.

When you start an article with this kind of tripe, you know that the rest is going to be as misplaced as a nun in a brothel. It even begins badly: "Many who support separation of church and state". "Many"? Are there serious numbers of people who support a coalition of church and state? Is this writer seriously suggesting that there is a question being raised as to the separation of church and state? What a strawman!

86. The Pagan Christ

Comment #113909 by Galactor on January 21, 2008 at 1:40 am

albondigas
Reading a few of your posts involving evolution it seems fairly obvious (crashingly, creakingly, grindingly obvious to paraphrase Dawkins) that you do not really grasp the fundamentals of the theory at all. Comment #111711 is a point in case

... why don't we put ourselves back in time when the only living things were prokaryotes which reproduce asexually and look forward. (Actually this is a huge head start because evolutionists can't provide an adequate explanation for the beginning of life, but we'll just skip over that for now and start at prokaryotes for the sake of this discussion).
So there they are happily reproducing asexually, or maybe not so happily who knows. Given your view, over 'vast amounts of time' they would develop the ability to reproduce sexually. Why? Did they gaze into their crystal ball and see that sexual reproduction would be beneficial millions of years down the road? Why would an organism that began spending energy on developing and maintaining the ability to reproduce sexually (millions of years down the road) be more fit than an organism that used it's energy in passing on its genes (I think I can hear the mantra 'The process must have conferred advantages but what they were, we have no clue'). That is the name of the game right, pass on your genes and do it efficiently.

I actually cringed when I read this; it's so incongruent with how we actually understand the theory itself.

The first thing is the common "mistake" of using abiogenesis in arguments related to evolutionary theory; it's just not done old chap. If abiogenesis was demonstrated as being impossible or incredible or implausible, this would have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the ToE. Nor would positing God or proving God to be the instigator of the first replicator. Conversely, providing evidence against or in favour of the ToE would not impact on abiogenesis. You "skip" over abiogenesis as though you're making a great concession to the "debate". I'm afraid not.

Secondly the verbiage of DNA or organisms having knowledge, emotions or predictive capabilities whereas you (should) know that evolution is a blind process. Groan! It's just chemicals doing their stuff with mutating replicators being put to the test by the environment and sifting out those that aren't fit. Blind, uncaring, unpredictive, selfish.

Thirdly your questions concerning the arisal of sex as a means of reproduction (I would prefer the use of replication). The simple answer is that it works and has helped separate organisms pool their means. Take a look at bacteria that can exchange DNA (i.e., have sex); one bacterium mutates to be resistant to a specific environmental threat (an antibiotic, say). It then aligns itself with another bacterium, they open up a channel between each other and the resistant bacterium injects the "how to be resistant" instructions to the other one. Maybe now you can start to intuitively grasp why sex is beneficial and has found a niche in evolution.

I wonder what your purpose is in raising evolution and sexual reproduction in this thread but I suspect it is mischievous rather than a desire to understand it. If you want to find out more about it, read the forum section. There is a number of experts in the field who would happily point you in the right direction if you genuinely want to know.
The fast track to enlightenment is that Evolution is pretty much fact. If you can start to understand it, it all fits in and it all makes sense. Here, on this site, when you start to misrepresent it or use it to support theistic viewpoints you are in danger of being held in contempt.

Now, as regards Goldy's sexuality, it's clear that he's long since found his feminine side and I suspect that he probably wears his missus' clothes from time to time.

87. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113703 by Galactor on January 20, 2008 at 11:13 am

Well, I'm going to be buying the Dutch edition of this book for my mother in law who for a long time has been after a good way of responding to the theists in her circle of friends and colleagues. Titled "God als misvatting", it has been well reviewed by the majority of the Dutch who I suspect have also been looking for the plain and simple, no nonsense reasoning that will allow them to stand up to the religious with more rationale than they perhaps had.

Some have not been so generous however. One reviewer on BOL wrote "Don't read this. God simply exists! If that isn't the case then why do I feel his presence and guidance every day? He clearly shows that he's there in the smallest of things. It's time that people open their eyes and stop believing in their own lies".

Maybe my mother in law can tackle this kind of idiocy.

88. The Group Delusion

Comment #111972 by Galactor on January 16, 2008 at 6:03 am

Comment #111971 by The Reverend Dark

Wooter you are an utter ignoramus. You would be described as thick as pig shite, but even after we fed a pig a steady diet of toffee and eggs, it was still not able to pony up a turd whose fecal density approached your particular level of tragic stupidity. You would be hard pressed to find your own arse without the assistance of both hands, a flashlight, a highly trained arse sniffing dog and a team of dedicated spelunkers

Am I to understand that you don't value wooter's opinions?

89. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111920 by Galactor on January 16, 2008 at 2:34 am

Can someone familiar with American politics please throw a blanket of comfort over me and assure me that the actual amendment of the constitution along the lines that Huckleberry advocates would be a very, very hard thing to do indeed?

The one thing I fear about the current uprise and upsurge of atheist lobbying is the backlash it will effect by galvanizing the religious moderate community to side with this kind of nutcake. If someone like Huckabee gets into office, it'll be disasterous.

90. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111532 by Galactor on January 15, 2008 at 12:24 am

Dear George,

As an avid amateur military historian, I have countless books on the Normandy operations which upon reading, fill me with a shocking awe as to the bravery and courage of our young men and women from that generation asked to give so much for mankind. Clearly, you thought then that it was worth doing and after more than 60 years your benefaction demonstrates that you must still feel that there is a lot yet to fight for. What a fantastic feeling of hope this brings.

I wish you a speedy recovery.

91. The Group Delusion

Comment #111223 by Galactor on January 14, 2008 at 4:27 am

Wooter: are you "Latka" from the 80's hit television series Taxi?

92. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110372 by Galactor on January 11, 2008 at 4:08 am

The Bible has nothing to say about masturbation per se ...

I'm no authority on the baabull but isn't there some mention of "spilling seed" alluding to masturbation being wasteful and sinful? I think that's why they used to make us all wear boxing gloves at night and I conclude that masturbation is biblically acceptable for women but not for men.

Any thoughts from our more biblically educated forum *members* (ooh er, missus, pardon the pun)?

93. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110368 by Galactor on January 11, 2008 at 4:02 am

Comment #110354 by The Reverend Dark

Sex. Any sort of sex, relies on exactly the same fantasies found in masturbation. If it doesn't you are doing something terribly wrong.

Are you seriously telling me that I have to think about the washing up, picking the kids up from school AND England while I masturbate?

94. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109572 by Galactor on January 9, 2008 at 7:52 am

Um, is it not obvious that wooter is a hoax?

95. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108940 by Galactor on January 8, 2008 at 2:05 am

Comment #108766 by Paula Kirby

But I don't think "nuke 'em" describes RD's approach at all. RD is just forthright and direct, never personally abusive.

I agree with this but I use the term really as a way that people themselves perceive Dennet or Dawkins. One of the strangest reactions I find to TGD is how people find it to be abusive, attacking and threatening. I have not been able to draw this conclusion myself and I am forced to draw the conclusion that people just don't like to be confronted with factual, constructive criticism of their hallowed beliefs. Is it then at all possible, I wonder, for us to avoid being "abusive" as perceived by the recipients of our comments regardless of whether you (Paula Kirby) measure a particular comment (spasticism for example, which in my opinion could well be a perfectly legitimate word to use despite its usage with physically handicapped people) as being offensive? Clearly, some comments are out and out offensive but of course, it remains difficult to define where the line should be drawn and we all have our own comfort zones.

My original response was partly tongue in cheek - I wouldn't really use a nuclear device on a theist even if I had one.

96. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108556 by Galactor on January 7, 2008 at 7:47 am

The debate about the approach to take with theists is of course one that Dan Dennett (softly softly) and Richard Dawkins (nuke 'em) have had. While I would wholeheartedly agree that it would be much more efficient and effective to channel the responses - I am against arguing with biblical reasoning as it's just meat and beer to the average theist and gets us nowhere - I think the main problem with the proposal is to manage it in terms of a "policy" on this, a public forum. What do we do when in a month's time, Roger throws a few grenades before spraying hot lead at some "cretinist" as he oft is observed to say?

"I say, Roger, that's not done old chap."

I would advocate an approach whereby the debating is left to a limited number of members who might receive input somehow from the rest. That way, more questions would be answered and a balanced, consistent debate could ensue. Sometimes it seems we lose the sight of the wood from the trees. Again, I see issues with the procedural nature of this.

Failing all, I say: nuke 'em.

97. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108175 by Galactor on January 6, 2008 at 7:11 am

Comment #108169 by epeeist

One of my daughters has heavy period pains, I wonder whether he knows what that is like?

Of course he does and your daughter should know who she can blame.

Damn! If only Eve hadn't been so gullible. Damn that snake! Oooh it makes me so angry that she bit that apple and now all of mankind has to suffer.

98. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108153 by Galactor on January 6, 2008 at 6:01 am

More evidence of a lack of design and the inate imperfection of a designer. It now seems, given Veronique's avatar, that even cats require their vision to be corrected. How's that for perfection?

99. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108104 by Galactor on January 6, 2008 at 3:18 am

21. Comment #108061 by ADH

I wondered how anyone could be remotely "compelled" by these arguments. You need to do some serious study in science and logic and make sure you understand what it's all about. I am sure that you would be compelled to draw other conclusions. Your arguments are somewhat lacking in any foundation or substance. There's this gem:

The paradigmatic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - not only a one-off event but a declaration of God's intent for the whole of creation.

Talk about declaring something by fiat. I would agree that it would add much credence to the bible if it could be shown that this event actually took place but if any real evidence was available, we (atheists) wouldn't be concluding that it's a crock of dogs doo-doos, now would we? ADH's statement is fatuous. "JC is bone fide because it says so in the bible. The bible is factual."

You really haven't gotten very far with your powers of reasoning if you feel that this is a "compelling" argument. Surely you realise that atheists are those that have drawn the conclusion that God is highly improbable for reasons that your "argument" is devoid of - the lack of any evidence?

100. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108078 by Galactor on January 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

21. Comment #108061 by ADH

Two compelling reasons for believing in God

I suppose that makes it 7 - 2 then.

there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible

Yep, there is tons of the stuff. All those people going to church and buying bibles for one thing. However, you probably meant "evidence for the existence of God" as opposed to what you actually wrote and it is this with which I disagree. There is a paucity of evidence. Your argument:

... the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself ...

does nothing to link the existence of (any) God - and certainly the one that you believe in - with the fact that the origin of matter is not factually known. No, we don't know for sure how matter came into being but so what? That hardly leads to being able to make any conclusions, does it now?

And another thing:

... the implausibility of life having originated spontaneously from inert matter

If you find it implausible then you're in the mindframe of "the argument from personal incredulity". But in fact, life didn't originate spontaneously now, did it? You've not been learning from your interchanges on this site, have you?

.. the absurdity of life if we are merely the products of a purposeless biological process of adaptation

More argument from personal incredulity. "I can't accept that we are just specks of dust on a planet in a galaxy in a universe. I'm so special that there must be a reason for my conscience. I've grown up in a world where I've been brought up to believe in a being that supervises everything. Aaah! That makes sense. There's my answer!" The scientific evidence we have makes it possible that there is no relevance in posing the question "why are we here?"

Most of the contributors on this site are, like Dawkins, "cultural Christians". You are tapping into the reservoir of purpose and meaning established through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition and/or Socratic rationalism whose aim was to gain access to the transcendent "Good" beyond nature.

Not that I fully understand or accept what you write but in much of your writing, the first thing that comes to mind is "so what?" What difference does it make what ones background is to whether this has any bearing on the existence of God? For the sake of argument, let's presume that the world abandons all religions in the next hundred years. It might well be the case that we still celebrate Christmas and take time off during the "Christian" holidays but so what? This is our culture and background but it will still make no difference to the question of the existence of God, now will it?

That all makes it 7 - 0.