51. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #86760 by Buddha on November 10, 2007 at 5:16 am

Though I have the greatest respect for David Attenborough, he does get on my nerves sometimes. There have been a couple of occasions when myself and Mrs Buddha have been taking a quiet weekend out in the bush for a bit of a rest, when he turns up with a bloody camera crew. We're minding our own business and he just crouches there whispering to himself then expects a cuddle.

52. Internet used to target extremism

Comment #84086 by Buddha on November 1, 2007 at 6:19 am

On my way to work this morning I walked past a young muslim girl in a hijab who was wearing a poppy. I felt quite moved at this. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope for the future after all.

For those of you not from the UK or Commonwealth the significance of the poppy is best explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day

53. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83907 by Buddha on October 31, 2007 at 3:44 pm

This is one of the best articles posted here in a long time. I was almost wincing at the end of each sentence. I'm glad I'm not Rowan Williams - it would have been awful to have been on the receiving end of that intellectual kicking.

54. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #81736 by Buddha on October 25, 2007 at 5:45 am

A quick google came up with this potted summary on the biochemical basis of "love":http://people.howstuffworks.com/love6.htm

Even if not 100% correct it shows that there are many avenues of scientific endeavour on the subject

55. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81284 by Buddha on October 24, 2007 at 2:31 pm

"It's not possible to be a true scientist and believe in the supernatural"

This was Craig Venter's response to being asked if he was religious on BBC Newsnight the other day in a piece about his work on synthetic lifeforms.

56. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81257 by Buddha on October 24, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Hitchens did OK, his only real stumbling is that he's not able to tackle D'Souza's science based strawmen head on. Methinks Prof Dawkins would be a more formidable opponent.

BTW the poll on D'Souza's site (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/bloggers/dinesh-dsouza/) has Hitchens in the lead:

Christopher Hitchens 77%
Dinesh D'Souza 16%
There were no winners 7%

57. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70180 by Buddha on September 14, 2007 at 9:00 am

I wouldn't have expected an impartial review from Peter Stanford. He's a former editor of The Catholic Herald.

58. Griffin's 'offensive' Emmy speech to be censored

Comment #69698 by Buddha on September 12, 2007 at 8:54 am

Does anyone really believe that this kind of childish, petulant behaviour convinces anyone to be more rational? Does anyone here really think that cheap, pointless shots thrown at a religion will convince its adherents that atheism is a sensible position?

59. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66559 by Buddha on August 30, 2007 at 12:12 pm

The way I read it is that this is a bit more evidence that indicates that 99.9999% of the genetic scaffolding and processes that it takes to make us mammals was formulated in the slime-ponds of the primordial earth. Makes sense as the majority of our planet's history has been ruled by single-celled organisms - still is in some respects.

I don't think there is any need for paranoia about the use of the word "design". I think it's just the usual inadvertant teleology that creeps in with sloppy journalism.

60. A Daddy Longlegs Tells the Story of the Continents' Big Shifts

Comment #66247 by Buddha on August 29, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Did you hear about the agnostic biologist who had twins? She baptized one and kept the other as a control.

Baddum-tshh!

61. Researchers find fossils of 10-million-year old ape

Comment #65172 by Buddha on August 23, 2007 at 4:57 am

DADDY!!!

62. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61856 by Buddha on August 7, 2007 at 6:27 am

Here's my comment I posted at the Daily Mail site...

Can I suggest that Ms Phillips enrols on a geological or biological sciences degree course, which can be found at any decent university? She is obviously wallowing in her own ignorance.

If she does so, she may learn that the Cambrian "Explosion" took place over a period of up to 30 million years. Consider that most of the radiation of mammal species, including ourselves, has occured in the past 2 million years, the Cambrian "Explosion" was more of a slow burning candle.

She may also learn something about the scientific method, unlike those "distinguished scientists" who promote "Intelligent Design", who have yet to provide a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence to support their ludicrous distortion of plain reason.

63. The Out Campaign

Comment #60032 by Buddha on July 31, 2007 at 2:54 pm

I'm in! ...or out!!

I must say that I'm rather humbled by some of you having so much bother over being openly atheist due to local attitudes. I'm in the deeper darkest reaches of Britain and it's never something I've felt I've needed to worry about.

Be strong, and revel in the fact that you are on the side of sense and reason!

As well as wearing the T-shirt, you should also broadcast an atheist slogan as your WiFi SSID. I've got "Smile, There is no Hell!" permeating the air waves around the Mosque next door.

:-)

64. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59691 by Buddha on July 30, 2007 at 8:23 am

Personally, I'll be sticking to wearing my "Pirate Fish" t-shirt that I got through the FSM Web site.

I actually had a bloke come up to me in the pub the other day who recognised it's noodly origin. It was heart-warming to get a friendly greeting from a total stranger.

65. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #51231 by Buddha on June 22, 2007 at 2:43 am

Russell's Teapot: Buddha created the universe? Really Bill?

66. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48052 by Buddha on June 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm

I would recommend that you all go straight to the comments section on the Guardian site. The cavalry are already sticking the boot in to this poor fellow good and proper.

I almost feel sorry for him...

67. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43630 by Buddha on May 22, 2007 at 6:36 am

Quetzalcoatl: I'm afraid I stopped taking Michael Crichton seriously when he started putting Cretaceous species in the Jurassic.

68. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43626 by Buddha on May 22, 2007 at 6:25 am

"However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively."

Well from those figures and my rough calculations that gives us a man-made contribution of 0.052 of a degree to average global temps, therefore AGW has been proven conclusively (and from a skeptic scientists own figures)!!!!!

Where do I need to queue for my Nobel Award? :-P

69. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43464 by Buddha on May 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Yeah, I can't wait for those malarial mosquitos to start heading North!

70. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #43458 by Buddha on May 21, 2007 at 2:07 pm

"The atmosphere's composition during the dinosaur era was vastly different as well. Carbon dioxide levels were up to 12 times higher than today's levels."

Correct. The very high CO2 levels during the Cretaceous were in part due to the increased soil erosion from the newly arrived and prolific spread of flowering plants and also the enhanced rifting from the break-up of Laurasia and Gondwana. This CO2 was eventually removed by the formation of limestone over many millions of years in the extensive shallow seas that were created from the associated 200m higher sea-levels than today.

The point is that when CO2 arrives in the atmosphere it takes a VERY long time for it to get removed because it takes a VERY long time for the various carbon-cycle feedbacks to kick in.

Regardless of the root cause of present day global warming, increased levels of CO2 will amplify the warming effect. This is well established science and has been for over 100 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius).

6 billion petrol-heads today just might be causing as much harm as angiosperms did in the Cretaceous.

71. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41360 by Buddha on May 16, 2007 at 2:10 am

Newton30: I agree with you to an extent that sections of the environmental movement are hysterical and prone to un-scientific propaganda, but this is also true of the PR machines belonging to the abject deniers.

I'm currently studying for a degree in Earth Sciences, which I hope has exposed me to the more balanced and sober thinking on the AGW issue. What I have come to appreciate is that the climate is a very complex beast with hundreds of tightly interacting feedback mechanisms, which are still very poorly understood. However, mankinds rapid short-circuiting of the one of the carbon-cycle's long-term sinks by digging up oil, coal and gas is unprecedented in the history of the Earth.

72. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41197 by Buddha on May 15, 2007 at 3:50 pm

chbg21808: How many of those signatories on those declarations were real climate scientists? A study in Scientific American (2005) on the most recent declaration, the Oregon Petition:

"Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community"

73. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #41072 by Buddha on May 15, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Brian: The one thing that you missed off your list that would have the quickest and easiest impact on reducing climate change would be for every family to not have more than 2 kids. The average family has 2.2 children. By not having that extra .2 of a child the global population would eventually decrease as well as its corresponding carbon footprint.

I think that all your other suggestions for preventing climate change will be just pissing in the wind if the projected population increase isn't addressed.

74. The Encyclopedia of Life

Comment #39410 by Buddha on May 10, 2007 at 2:38 pm

I think the easily navigable taxonomy that was demo'd in the video would be fantastic - it would have made "The Ancestors Tale" really come to life if it had been available when I read it.

I did make the suggestion when I registered on EOL that they should use Cameron Diaz as the subject for the Homo Sapiens page. Mmmmm

75. The Damned

Comment #37059 by Buddha on May 3, 2007 at 9:57 am

I've just placed an order for one of those "Smile! There is no Hell" t-shirts from the cafepress.com site that Admin posted earlier. Please come over and say hello if you see me wearing it in the street.

I have both a church and a mosque less than 50 yards either side of my house, so I'm going to see if I can configure my WiFi router to broadcast "Smile! There is no Hell" as my SSID.

76. Army to EO Reps: 'Discrimination Against Atheists OK'

Comment #36357 by Buddha on May 1, 2007 at 1:42 am

I too came across discrimination during a short stint in the Royal Navy several years ago. Whilst undergoing induction at Britannia Royal Naval College I dared put "Atheist" as my religion on one of the many forms. I was duly threatened with the wrath of Commander 'such-and-such' and forced to "fill it out correctly" with Christian/Church of England.

Needless to say, I managed to dodge church service every sunday during my officer training by hiding in the attic of the divisional mess block with a motley bunch of lapsed catholics and lazy buggers!

77. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #29703 by Buddha on April 4, 2007 at 8:34 am

Nrvous asked:

"A question: is there some alternate, bizzarro (perhaps Catholic?) website on which people are posting comments like, "Oh yeah, Andrew really nailed him there!" or, "It's only a matter of time before Harris throws in the towel"?

Well I found one fairly easily:

http://iamachristiantoo.org/?p=351

Quote: "I too have been watching this debate with interest. Sullivan is holding up well, especially considering he's a journalist and not a theologian. Harris is quite bright, but his world view is also quite narrow."