Comments by beanson

Comment #286894 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:24 pm

He's courting the misconception and to what end- where does using the word 'god' or 'sacred' get us if you just redefine them to take the place of more useful words

52. God enough

Comment #286892 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Steve

No, but he's surely courting that misconception

53. God enough

Comment #286888 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Steve

But don't you see that he's just obfuscating with the word 'sacred'?

54. God enough

Comment #286879 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Steve Zara

He must be intending to say somehing other than just: the universe is amazing because otherwise what's the point of him baiting Dawkins?

55. God enough

Comment #286875 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Basically this guy is dealing in ambiguity- he just wants to call the universe 'God'- to redifine 'God' to mean just 'the universe'

I don't hink it's gonna satisfy the faith-heads and it sure as hell annoys the shit out of me

56. God enough

Comment #286872 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Agency is real, so meaning is real in the universe. Value is real, at least in the biosphere. And these things can't be talked about by physicist

Oh- he's just stipulated that by fiat. Thanks mate, I guess we can all go home now, it means theres a god or like something else out there man

what a twat

57. God enough

Comment #286859 by beanson on November 19, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Is this man saying anything other than 'the universe is awe-inspiring'? if he isn't then I'm happy to agree with him.

If, however, he means something supernatural or transendental by the word 'sacred' then he's a twat.

Emergent properties are entirely material- nothing supernatural there.

Is he just saying consciousness is difficult to explain? No proof of 'sacred' there

58. I am Darwin

Comment #286199 by beanson on November 18, 2008 at 9:53 am

I am Beanson

59. I am Darwin

Comment #285623 by beanson on November 17, 2008 at 11:53 am

wtf

60. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285614 by beanson on November 17, 2008 at 11:39 am

Instead of escalating the billboard battle, Downey and company asked those who put up the pro-belief sign to join forces and volunteer with them for a Philadelphia charity. The people from the Light Houses of Oxford Valley congregation accepted the offer and teamed up with the atheists to spend a half-day sorting and packaging food for the needy.

hey- atheists can be holier than thou as well

61. Hitchens v Albacete - Excerpts

Comment #285020 by beanson on November 16, 2008 at 2:17 pm

In the interest of clarity I understand that it is still possible to get tolerably drunk though

62. Hitchens v Albacete - Excerpts

Comment #285008 by beanson on November 16, 2008 at 1:47 pm

That size of wine glass is now banned in British pubs

63. Uncertain times for US Religious Right

Comment #284997 by beanson on November 16, 2008 at 1:20 pm

You'll have Palin in 4 years

64. Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed

Comment #284987 by beanson on November 16, 2008 at 1:04 pm

So the prophet didn't exist and the koran wasn't written by god- what the fuck is left?

oh...

the philosophy presented in mohammed's name.

what: kill, burn, rape and brutalise your way to world domination?

I think I prefer Machiavelli

65. Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'

Comment #278782 by beanson on November 5, 2008 at 7:28 am

Of course our fuck-witted Archbish wants to selectively introduce elements of Sharia.

That's like actively condoning and promoting elements of Fascism

what a bearded CUNT

66. Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'

Comment #278642 by beanson on November 5, 2008 at 12:50 am

Ahh- good ol' Islam

A heart-warming story of traditional religious values

67. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278018 by beanson on November 4, 2008 at 10:45 am

response to Steve Zara

If you vote for Obama because he's black that's exactly like voting for Blair because you think he looks nice- it has fuck all to do with the issues

68. Fred Phelps's son is an atheist: Running from hell

Comment #277277 by beanson on November 3, 2008 at 10:16 am

Fred Phelps just puts into practice what most Christian men would like to do- bully, dominate those physically weaker, sow hatred and fear, promote prejudice...

Old Testament Goddy would love him

69. Beware - creationism's march will go on

Comment #276656 by beanson on November 2, 2008 at 9:53 am

Weird article- seems a bit rambling, central point obscure.

[creationism] is evolving and its opponents must evolve, too, if they want to defeat it.

What evolving into Yahya's silly book?!

I don't thing we really need to finesse our counter-arguments too much to deal with him

70. Teaching hate in UK schools

Comment #275765 by beanson on October 31, 2008 at 2:50 pm

hey- she's hot

71. Religion: Bound to believe?

Comment #275757 by beanson on October 31, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I don't see why religion is difficult to explain at all- in the dawn of society when we lacked knowledge of natural forces religion was a usable explanation. Religious thought became dogma and was inculcated to all at an early age effectively brainwashing the next generation

What's so hard to explain? You don't need to invoke complicated evolutionary, pschological causes

72. Somalia: Rape Victim Executed

Comment #274647 by beanson on October 30, 2008 at 9:15 am

The good ol' muslim way

tolerate them in this country and we'll be heading this way soon

73. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272352 by beanson on October 27, 2008 at 9:24 am

Even if a research program (how it could possibly be constructed ......?) found that reading myth, fantasy and fairytale had a detrimental effect on the childs rationality what would be the appropriate response?

By Restricting such books, at least self-restriction???

But that would mean restricting Shakespeare, Dante, Winnie the Pooh, all children's TV, all Novels

74. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #272338 by beanson on October 27, 2008 at 8:59 am

The idea of restricting fantasy, myth and fairytale from childhood strikes me as horrible.

Where could the detrimental effect lie? In perhaps enhancing the childs credibility- hardly: no one is telling them that they might suffer eternal damnation if they don't belive them, no adults swear allegiance in serious ceromonies to the hobbits of TOlkien etc.

It does smack rather of killjoyism. Plus where does one draw the line, do novels distort reality, must we restrict Shakespeare-

It seems to me on the whole (anecdotal alert) that the biggest fantasy fans are the science nerds anyway

(BTW, I know RD isn't suggesting banning these books)

75. May your god go with you

Comment #272028 by beanson on October 26, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Interesting article, re: 'fear of anihilation", some people attempt to project a kind of vicarious imortality through leaving silly comments on RD.net (hello zappi)

76. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #271173 by beanson on October 25, 2008 at 11:26 am

She's hot though

77. Dare we stand up for Muslim women?

Comment #269779 by beanson on October 23, 2008 at 10:18 am

It is here, in our open societies, that the freedom of Muslim women is slowly being born. Last week, Amina Wadud became the first ever woman to lead British Muslims in prayer. All over Europe and the US, Muslim women are pushing beyond a literal reading of the Koran and trying to turn many of its ugliest passages into misty metaphor.

Don't they realise that their patriachal religion is the major cause of their subjugation

78. UCSB study finds physical strength, fighting ability revealed in human faces

Comment #269400 by beanson on October 23, 2008 at 12:04 am

I can read stupidity in peoples faces

79. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #268378 by beanson on October 21, 2008 at 6:59 pm

He doesn't give a catalyst for his doubt- what did he read, who did he talk to - did he have a Damacene deconversion-

I'd be interested to know (eg did he read TGD?)

80. Faith Attack

Comment #266169 by beanson on October 18, 2008 at 7:03 am

Children do need to be taught something about themselves, their origins, and their destiny, right? The new atheists, then, would teach their children what? That we're created by chance, with no ultimate purpose or destiny, and that more conscious thought went into someone spray painting graffiti on a wall than went into our existence? Children who lose siblings, friends, or parents must be taught that these people are gone forever, with no hope of ever seeing them again. The children will also learn that they themselves, and all their hopes and dreams and desires, will also one day be forever gone with no hope of redemption, no hope of having the hard questions answered, no hope of anything but the pain and suffering of this life, followed by the eternal blackness of a cold and dead universe.

Child abuse, Dr. Dawkins, can come in myriad forms.

That's a pretty disgusting insinuation

81. Cross purposes

Comment #262993 by beanson on October 10, 2008 at 2:34 am

Archbishop, on his new book:

Here is a form of Christian engagement with the world and with the complexities of human experience that may be radically wrong but is not cheap or glib and any critique has to deal with this just as much as it has to deal with a southern baptist.

Critic, in response:

I wondered whether I was struggling through the worst prose ever written by a poet... Sometimes the thought disintegrates entirely, like a jellyfish dropped in a jacuzzi."

anyone who has listened to the tortured obfuscation that issues from the lips of this mawkish bishop will recognise the criticism is apt- he is so wooly a full congregation of sheep could be cut from his wholecloth

BTW

It can only be a matter of time he goes on the lash with Hitchens.

lol

82. The camp that 'cures' homosexuality

Comment #262260 by beanson on October 8, 2008 at 7:54 am

"I've been through all the arguments, like 'If it's love, how can it be wrong?'" says Michelle the next day. "And if I'm being honest, I'd love to be openly gay and have a completely satisfying relationship with God. But I don't know how that can be done. All I know is that it makes more sense to listen to the God who created the Universe than to my puny human emotions."

pretty sad

83. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261849 by beanson on October 7, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Have just got round to reading Point 5- the author's criticism of a naturalistic explanation of moral value as given by Dawlins is:

How are we to take seriously an argument that has as little evidential basis as this?

He then goes on to give a biblical acount: God's mystical powers come into us and enable us to do what's right. He must implicitly assume that this has more evidence than the biological theory.

He then goes on to compound this amazing assertion by claiming that the natural explanation of love is random

For Dawkins, love is purely an accident

one can only laugh at this persons naivety

84. Two new fleas are discovered!

Comment #261612 by beanson on October 7, 2008 at 6:19 am

wow- great pecs Richard

85. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261180 by beanson on October 6, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Just follow the first argument- why is there not more evidence for god?- well we've been looking in the wrong place...

1. No Sign of God?

...there simply should be more obvious evidence for him...

...[Dawkins] does not really appreciate a Christian view of miracles...

...God usually achieves his purposes indirectly, through human agency.

Ahh... so on a christian view anything nice that a 'special' person does can be considered a miracle and therefore eveidence of god.

makes sense now...

thanks.

86. Catholic priests cane YouTube over blasphemous vids

Comment #259781 by beanson on October 4, 2008 at 12:15 am

The message we should send is one that has convincing content about why their belief is wrong,

05. Comment #259544 by Steve Zara

Steve Zara thinks that host desecration is an empty and gratuitous attack- needlessly provocative.

Actually I think it has some point- the act of outraging a Catholic sensibility by 'desecrating the host' might well lead some to question what it is they are supposed to be outraged about. After all it IS just a biscuit- can we really sustain a belief that this wafer is Christ- No, after all it is just a wafer and I have been deluding myself.

Apart from that, it is incredibly funny to think that we can actually (in their eyes) kidnap their god and flush him down the bog.

Mind you they eat him and then shit him out- WTF- what pranny came up with this idea in the first place

87. 'Space elevator' would take humans into orbit

Comment #259775 by beanson on October 3, 2008 at 11:16 pm

In Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars" series the Elevator was brought down twice by terrorists destroying large parts of civilised Mars along the equator- it wrapped itself around the planet three times

23. Comment #259773 by pyjamaslug

I think the only feasible solution would be to grow a cable downwards from the anchor point to earth, which explains why the article refers to the base being in orbit rather than on earth, but how would we get the materials up there in the first place? How much energy is needed to elevate 33,000 km of cable to geostationary orbit?

Robinson's idea was to capture an asteroid in geostationary orbit and manufature the cable from its contituent parts- the asteroid shrinking as the cable grows

88. Why I left Young-earth Creationism

Comment #259331 by beanson on October 3, 2008 at 9:12 am

I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things.

As every 'thinking' christian must do- compartmentalise the mind. The Critical faculty must never be suffered to enter the arena of irrational belief

'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.'

So why does he not become an atheist...

...his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture

one must bend over backwards mentally to accomodate the christian worldview. Instead of looking at data and applying hypothetical theory one brings prior belief and shoehorns available fact to fit

89. Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Comment #258416 by beanson on October 2, 2008 at 2:17 am

'In honour of Pat Condell'

lols

what a martyr

don't really think I can do without google or youtube- sorry

(did sign petition though)

90. Have-a-go deaths are never a waste

Comment #258399 by beanson on October 2, 2008 at 1:46 am

These days if you intervene and attack the attacker you are more than likely to be prosecuted- something to do with denying the human rights of the attacker.

91. Respect for religion now makes censorship the norm

Comment #257663 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 10:59 pm

If someone wrote a book supporting white supremacy, raping women and bashing homosexuals would you buy that book because people were protesting/banning it and to support their freedom of speech?

34. Comment #257610 by Daniella

A telling point, I won't be buying this book- it sounds shite, and if the Telegraph quote is correct a tad sickening.

92. Artist Builds Temple of Science

Comment #257124 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 4:53 am

Keats: I'm deeply sympathetic to both sides of a schism that doesn't need to be

Heard all I need to know- dismiss the twanner

93. Pullman defiant over US protests against Northern Lights

Comment #257119 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 4:44 am

All three were a terrible morass of flabby, divergent storylines, badly written, pretentious, wooly-minded sanctimonious twaddle. I hated most of the characterization as being one-dimensional, unsympathetic and deeply uninspiring.

6. Comment #257073 by AllanW

...and yet you read all three, one has to admire you steadfast resilience

94. Debate erupts over proposal to teach creationism in Brunswick schools

Comment #257047 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 1:25 am

"It just amazes me some of those responses, how venomous they have been," said Fanti

The response has only been in proportion to the enormous stupidity of the proposal

95. Pullman defiant over US protests against Northern Lights

Comment #257042 by beanson on September 30, 2008 at 1:20 am

Does anyone agree with me that the Amber Spyglass was a terrible morass of flabby, divergent story-line- a desparate effort to tie up the inconsolable threads- which completely destroyed the singular clarity and perfection of the first two books?

96. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #257003 by beanson on September 29, 2008 at 11:50 pm

if you admit that it is possible to do good science while believing in a god then you have to allow that it is possible to teach good science as well

76. Comment #256892 by Ian H Spedding FCD

um, no, not at all actually- I don't think I need to go through the illogicality of the above statement, suffice to say that the one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

Professor Reiss was the subject of a witch-hunt of which Sir Harry Kroto was one of the most vocal leaders. What had he done to deserve that? He recommended that when a student raised questions about creationism or intelligent design in the science class they be treated with respect.

76. Comment #256892 by Ian H Spedding FCD

um, no, actually- he said that the 'competing worldview' of creationism should be treated with respect- that is a significantly different ballpark and raises very pertinent doubts concerning Reiss' ability to separate his absurd superstitions from his commitment the principles of the RS

97. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256487 by beanson on September 29, 2008 at 7:13 am

I'm sure Reiss has got some strange mythological views. He may even think David Cameron would make an excellent prime minister or that he prefers boys to girls. But in science terms these do not matter - as long as he keeps these strange beliefs out of science.

[54. Comment #256452 by brainsys]

er, are you equating strange views with Conservatism and homosexuality?

notsobad said "As a clergyman, he is supposed to believe in anti-scientific claims. As a clergyman, he is supposed to promote a rather narrow world-view"

By whom?

[54. Comment #256452 by brainsys]

well, by anyone who considers the doctrines and dogmas of the particular deluded club he ascribes to

98. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256210 by beanson on September 29, 2008 at 1:07 am

I can certainly imagine him as a priggish young, upperclass twit, what I find more difficult is to imagine him sans relligion during his 'rebellious' stage

99. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256204 by beanson on September 29, 2008 at 12:37 am

Let me clarify the fundamental philosophical issue: the scientific mindset.

Yes- This is what must pervade in any rational inquiry

'[Reiss, and all religious people] fall at the first hurdle of the main requirement for honest scientific discussion because they accept unfound[ed] dogma as having fundamental significance.'

This is the reason that religious scientists are not full scientists and can only be compartmetalising their minds, sometimes to excruciating degrees. Their refusal to apply the strict criteria of acceptance that holds sway in one area of their life to the other area is an act of supreme denial only explicable by the fact of an early brainwashing.

For example: Alister McGrath maintaining he was an atheist when younger- BOLLOCKS. Unless one is brainwashed in early youth one would never compartmentalise ones mind in such a tortuous way in later life.

In AMs case I imagine that he was raised Catholic, was brainwashed and a staunch believer until perhaps his rebellious teen years- a slight aberration of perhaps 4 or 5 years then- back into the fold like a zombie, true to his early programming.

100. Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Comment #256199 by beanson on September 29, 2008 at 12:27 am

Could be it's North Carolina (NC?)- Why 'Bolivia' , dunno, but USA like to pinch other countries' names, lack of imagination or something :)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next