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

Comments by Szymanowski


51. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162901 by Szymanowski on April 17, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Anyone know how to help this go viral?
Sex is good at spreading viruses, even though it blatantly doesn't cause babies.

(anyway... er I guess the answer is to blog it, perhaps with the text "Expelled" in any link to it like this: YouTube - Expelled trailer XD )

52. Beware the Believers

Comment #162465 by Szymanowski on April 17, 2008 at 2:30 am

I assume this has been posted already, but just to keep everyone informed of the origin of this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGdXAjlmG1I

53. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162444 by Szymanowski on April 17, 2008 at 1:37 am

j.mills - your italics have stuck! argh!

54. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162337 by Szymanowski on April 16, 2008 at 4:24 pm

So the Catholic church hierarchy goes like this?

God
Jesus
Holy Ghost
Pope
Bishop
Cardinal
Rook
Knight
Priest (pedophile & non-pedophile)
Laymen
Don't forget the other ones with special powers: Mary, the Saints, cherubim and seraphim...

55. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #162193 by Szymanowski on April 16, 2008 at 9:52 am

AmericanGodless

Edit: What's the connection to the news article that started this thread?

The "relativism" discussion was started by this comment:
You commentators here are being very naive: you cannot judge another culture from your own culture's perspective.

'Human rights' is just a western notion that, like 'God', cannot be proven.

In other words, you're all acting like frenzied religious nutcases pushing your unjustified perspective on others.

56. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #162190 by Szymanowski on April 16, 2008 at 9:49 am

Except when he states quite bluntly that he wants to KILL religious faith. Here he is overshooting his runway.
Why?

57. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #162138 by Szymanowski on April 16, 2008 at 8:13 am

ft77

Thanks for posting this Josh.

The Quicktime versions did not work for me on Linux (Ubuntu 7.10) like they usually do though. I tried with mplayer, vlc and Totem.

They worked fine for me, using Kaffeine (a xine GUI). I don't know anything about Ubuntu but perhaps there were optional codecs to install when you last upgraded your multimedia packages?

You could always download the .mp4 versions from Google Video though it's more hassle.

Thanks for the subtitles Josh.

58. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #162074 by Szymanowski on April 16, 2008 at 5:58 am

This is Mark Ravenhill's page - yes, the "comment" version of the article has disappeared.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/mark_ravenhill/index.html

59. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161999 by Szymanowski on April 16, 2008 at 1:50 am

But if we dishonestly deny the ultimately subjective and local nature of all human knowledge, if we allow the local meaning we have built from our personal and collective scientific judgement to become locked into dogmatic certainty, we will risk joining forces with those who "aspire to the knowledge of gods."

That's verging on the side of paranoia. With all due respect to the very poetic J Bronowski, "aspiring to the knowledge of gods" (whatever that means) had very very little to do with the atrocities of Auschwitz; the main cause was undeniably the cult of hostile racist nationalism. It is intellectually dishonest to claim scientific knowledge as absolute, yes, but it doesn't turn people into Nazis! And it's easy to confuse a pragmatic or relative "this is true" with an absolutist or 'dogmatic' one.

60. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161849 by Szymanowski on April 15, 2008 at 7:28 pm

If anyone can really be bothered to add to the derision of ASMarques's twaddle (#161825), do so on the other thread where he thinks he has the last word:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2443,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Questions,BBC,page9#comments

61. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161814 by Szymanowski on April 15, 2008 at 5:59 pm

THIS video is not a debate, it's a chummy conversation. Plain and simple.

It is a "public discussion". RD described it as a "conversation" at the beginning of the video, and derided the concept of the classical "debate". I like "debates", but in my opinion they should be reserved for politicians, and teenagers practising public speaking.

62. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161811 by Szymanowski on April 15, 2008 at 5:53 pm

AmericanGodless

It is not "post-modernist drivel" to acknowledge the fallibility of all human knowledge. I learned it from Jacob Bronowski 30 years ago...
Lol. I learned it from me.
But human knowledge is approximate. Scientists invest their efforts to do what can be done to improve it, not to pretend that it is perfect as it is.
Right. So what was your problem?

63. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161772 by Szymanowski on April 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

why not put up a free online edition of The God Delusion?
It is available for free online, unofficially - I've seen it in a PDF English version and a couple of translations. Google is your friend.

In the real world TGD would quite possibly reach a wider audience as a published book (i.e. independently approved) than as a website. Websites are ephemeral whereas books can permanently reside in libraries throughout the world. The publisher probably wouldn't be happy with making the book officially free online.

64. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161549 by Szymanowski on April 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Awesome, very interesting.

Minor gripe: I can't hear any of the questions in the Q&A - they all sound like "blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah".

I suggest using a torrent if the server is being overloaded.
Perhaps - not for me (torrents are banned at my university).

65. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161045 by Szymanowski on April 14, 2008 at 5:27 pm

#161040 by clearmind-

Was any of that supposed to make sense?

66. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161037 by Szymanowski on April 14, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Simple error there - assertions of fact can be proven; assertions of value cannot. So therefore I can judge others' assertions of value to be meaningless whereas you cannot judge my assertions of fact as being so.
Hang on. Your judgement of others is itself an assertion of value, not of fact.

I myself think that assertions of value are fine: you are the one who thinks they oughtn't be made, and you are the one who insults strangers over the Internet using cod philosophy.

My quite slim and wholly British sandwich was lovely, thanks.

I shall simply end tonight by writing that any criticism leveled against me will be wrong: Pre-emptive strike.
Ridiculous.

67. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161012 by Szymanowski on April 14, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Henri Bergson

You commentators here are being very naive: you cannot judge another culture from your own culture's perspective.
1) Why not?
2) Do you not see the glaring irony in that comment?

'Human rights' is just a western notion that, like 'God', cannot be proven.
Nothing can be proven - including Eastern notions. Taste cannot be proven but I am almost certainly eating a really good peanut butter sandwich at the time of writing.

In other words, you're all acting like frenzied religious nutcases pushing your unjustified perspective on others.
Wrong. The "piss off atheists by comparing them to the religious" thing has been done to death. It's irritating. And to turn your own words against you:

You are being very naïve. You can't judge other people's posts from your own perspective. Your position is just a western notion that, like 'God', cannot be proven. In other words, you're acting like a sad sixth-form student who, having read more than two of Nietzsche's works, believes in his philosophical superiority over all others, and takes great pleasure in constructing and destroying absolutist/positivist/objectivist straw men.

68. A New Flea

Comment #160378 by Szymanowski on April 14, 2008 at 2:17 am

Isn't this the generic description for every flea's book?

[Insert name of flea here] demonstrates not only how Dawkins' arguments are flawed, but that a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God


Someone should buy it, read it, and see whether the publisher can be reported to Advertising Standards :)

69. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160369 by Szymanowski on April 14, 2008 at 2:07 am

... guh

Obviously there's no need for Dawkins to respond. The offended straw man could write an angry letter though.

70. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159884 by Szymanowski on April 13, 2008 at 10:37 am

BFKate: If representative davis has done more than express a silly point of view then she should be brought to account. But she is entitled to say what she did and even how she did it.


Of course she is entitled to say what she did, but you should remember that by the very same token, everyone else is entitled to rip the shit out of her for saying it. Freedom of speech takes no sides.

71. Fleabytes

Comment #159476 by Szymanowski on April 12, 2008 at 9:07 am

@Bonzai (I'm jumping late in to this conversation)

Tyrannical?
Running society?
Control?
Classification?

I have to say I'm confused. Science is egalitarian, not tyrannical. It doesn't "control" any person or any society.

Or were you thinking of communism? Or the feudal system? Neither are particularly rational or scientific!

Everything would be measured and classified and controlled in a "rational" way.. when we actually know very little about what we are measuring and classifying.
Eh? Rationality doesn't claim to know everything; irrationality (a.k.a. religion) does.

72. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159338 by Szymanowski on April 12, 2008 at 1:33 am

Richard was very funny, but the clip will just add to the theist argument that atheists are smug and arrogant.

Since that's not an "argument", I couldn't care less!

Seriously. Anyone can see through the 'arrogance' thing. What atheist wears a three-foot-long hat and gold-trimmed robes?

(before any smart-arse pipes up - it's a rhetorical question...)

73. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158222 by Szymanowski on April 10, 2008 at 8:26 am

"the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.

Golden. Even "epic fail" wouldn't do this justice.

74. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #157884 by Szymanowski on April 9, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Goldy I am in awe - how a civilisation can drain itself away from the world stage by seeking points for an afterlife that evidence suggests isn't there.


Seconded. Well said.

75. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157211 by Szymanowski on April 8, 2008 at 5:20 pm

The Christian questioning at the end! is a Scottish incarnation of Alister McGrath! His voice goes up! at the end of every clause! like he is constantly surprised!

(sorry, this is totally off-topic... I found all the female Scots accents very sexy btw!)

76. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #157205 by Szymanowski on April 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Argh the guy asking about the LHC in part 2 has a verbosity issue! I'm still waiting for him to finish...

... aha :)

77. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156421 by Szymanowski on April 7, 2008 at 2:11 pm

It is no small error - it is equivalent to someone believing, despite the evidence, that the width of North America from one coast to the other is only 7.8 yards.

7.1 METRES! Richard, don't turn into an American!

78. Upside-down church sculpture on hit list

Comment #155230 by Szymanowski on April 4, 2008 at 8:53 am

I'm from Dublin, I never heard anyone say much about the 'Tart with the Cart' or the 'Hags with the Bags.'
Always hated the floosy in the jacoussi though.


It looks like there's a niche in the market for a strumpet with a crumpet. Or perhaps a wench on a bench (in the stench of a trench, with a wrench).

79. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155104 by Szymanowski on April 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

"Mr Dawkins is the devil's speaker..."


Not "speaker" - CHAPLAIN!

80. Upside-down church sculpture on hit list

Comment #154731 by Szymanowski on April 3, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Did anyone complain when the sculpture was created, ELEVEN years ago?

http://www.dennis-oppenheim.com/browse.php?cat=5&id=211

81. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154726 by Szymanowski on April 3, 2008 at 3:55 pm

For the sake of "balance", the Free Church of Scotland should invite Richard Dawkins to debates within its church services, instead of giving one-sided sermons...

82. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #154591 by Szymanowski on April 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades


Study shows that no society that has totally embraced Sally Kern has lasted more than a few decades.

Therefore: Sally Kern is a bigger threat to the USA than is terrorism.

83. CEAI Action Alert for Science Teachers

Comment #154291 by Szymanowski on April 3, 2008 at 4:18 am

the critical analysis of the theory of evolutions


... which can be found on the interwebs ...

84. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154285 by Szymanowski on April 3, 2008 at 4:10 am

rod-the-farmer: Imam jokes are not forbidden ? OK, show us a recent one on the BBC. No ? The prosecution rests.
That's rather unfair. By that logic, jokes about the following are "forbidden" too:
-Neuroscientists
-Structural engineers
-Tabla players
-Social anthropologists
-Opticians

...get my drift?

85. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151450 by Szymanowski on March 28, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Hmm... an institution, in which people are taught to think freely by an 'intellectual guide'...

We have those in the UK too. They're called SCHOOLS!

(though perhaps this "free thinking" doesn't apply in US education *cough* Pledge *cough* :) )

86. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150903 by Szymanowski on March 27, 2008 at 2:34 pm

If Mathis wasn't lying, he was at least 'mis-speaking' :)

Bonzai is right, of course. The content of the film (if any) is what matters.

87. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150251 by Szymanowski on March 26, 2008 at 3:59 pm

rod-the-farmer:

Some months ago I sold a car I had owned for years. The person who purchased it, possibly a muslim, came to pick it up and brought several young children. One of them was a girl of perhaps seven. She wore a headscarf. I was uncomfortable seeing her, and only after the deal was done did I consider that I might have refused to sell him the car, based on his treatment of his daughter.

Comments please. I was thinking at the time that I perhaps should have "stood up/come out" and made it clear I thought it was reprehensible to force his child into a faith before she was even mature enough to understand what he had signed her up for.
I think dressing your 7-year-old child in a headscarf is hardly "forcing her into a faith". It could just be traditional dress, with or without the religion. So (1) you can't discriminate against people purely on the basis of what their children wear and (2) a car sale is hardly the time to look to matters of religious or secularist principle. Although perhaps if he was, say, beating his daughter for making a comment, then you could express your distaste (or call the police!).

For FSM's sake, pick your battles!

88. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #149852 by Szymanowski on March 26, 2008 at 9:52 am

Happy birthday!

The forum thread is here, by the way:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=39933

89. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149280 by Szymanowski on March 25, 2008 at 11:37 am

Reminds me...

90. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148851 by Szymanowski on March 24, 2008 at 3:50 am

The Times evidently rejected my online comment. I suggested, perhaps unkindly, that if Mick Hume had done at least 10 minutes of research, he would have realised that Richard Dawkins is the Honorary Vice-President of the British Humanist Association.

I then suggested that, in light of this evidence, Mick Hume's railing against Dawkins for "giving up the ghost of humanism" was, perhaps, just a little bit inaccurate.

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148836 by Szymanowski on March 24, 2008 at 3:15 am

Great writing, Richard!

I do hope that this film doesn't benefit from the "any publicity is good publicity" rule. Fortunately, when lying is involved, the opposite usually applies!

92. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147985 by Szymanowski on March 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm

A comment from someone who supposedly lost their job over ID would be followed by a clip from Planet of the Apes, with an ape water-hosing Heston and calling him a freak.

Ironic considering that the [non-human] apes in Planet of the Apes are basically a caricature of religious idiocy. But, I suppose, if you see everything through some kind of fundie filter, the world must look very different...

93. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #145808 by Szymanowski on March 18, 2008 at 6:54 am

There is an introduction by Richard of about half a page per article, plus a short introduction to the book, so close to 50 pages by him.


Alright then... I suppose it'll have to go on my wish list!

94. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145616 by Szymanowski on March 17, 2008 at 7:39 pm

I agree entirely with Petermun:

"A rigorous atheist cannot console in a time of grief" - what absolute tripe. When first wife died 6 years ago I found many of those with faith who tried to console me made things so very much worse - it was those without faith who were the greatest consolation - and the most "real".


But mostly I agree with irate_atheist:
cuntbone

95. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #145608 by Szymanowski on March 17, 2008 at 7:27 pm

100 points for effort to the tantrik.

(-1000000 points for the epic pwnage)


Still, I'm sure there'll be the protest, "It doesn't work when it's filmed for TV".

96. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #145432 by Szymanowski on March 17, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Adding to the typesetting complaints: that's a bloody big "RICHARD DAWKINS" on the cover if he's a mere editor... but I suppose OUP knows how to sell books, and I mustn't judge by covers...

How much Dawkins is there in the book?

97. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142304 by Szymanowski on March 12, 2008 at 9:34 am

squinky

I for one am getting sick of these type of "science" articles. They have all these grandiose future claims of treating disease with nanobots.
Give me a quotation from the article in which it or one of its subjects claims that disease will be treated in the future using nanobots, and I'll agree with you. The article is largely concerned with computers, and merely refers at its outset to some superficial hypotheses regarding medicine.
I'm a Ph.D chemist who is qualified to comment here
We are all equally qualified to comment - it's the internet and your authority will be revealed in your words, not your academic record.

Regarding your STM comment, did you read the whole article or not?
However, according to Professor Andrew Adamatzky of the University of the West England (UWE), making a workable computer would be very difficult at the moment.

"As with other implementations of unconventional computers the application is very limited, because they operate [it] using scanning tunnel microscopy," he said.

But, he said, the work is promising.

"I am sure with time such molecular CPUs can be integrated in molecular robots, so they will simply interact with other molecular parts autonomously."

98. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #142040 by Szymanowski on March 11, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences said: "You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour's wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos"

So now it's morally wrong to do something which is 'morally debatable'?

99. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #132880 by Szymanowski on February 25, 2008 at 11:04 am

"Disbelief" is an interesting take - is it merely for alliteration, or has it been chosen as different to "non-belief"?

It is the book that every person of faith should read--and give away.
At first I thought that said "throw away". I must be horribly biased!

Let's not judge a book by its cover...

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

Comment #132412 by Szymanowski on February 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm

This - as an argument against Dawkins's views - is hilarious. I don't even know where to begin. I'm trying to find refutations in Debate Points as it seems to be a variant on the transcendental argument, the science makes faith claims and the atheism is dogmatic claims, and the anything goes argument.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 | Next