51. The Selfish Gene Turns 30

Comment #18421 by seals on January 20, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Yes, maybe it's time I find out if I can make any sense of this book, a mere 30 years after I heard everyone talking about it when I was 19 yrs of age. A retro edition would be most fitting...

Given that natural selection for selfish genes in that sense tends to favor cooperation, we then have to admit that there are some genes that do no such thing, and work against the interests of the rest of the genome, the true selfish DNA. And there's a bit of a terminological problem that arises here. Selfish DNA is DNA which works at the expense of the rest of the genome.

hmm what is this - the genes that carry hereditary conditions, or am I reading too much into this? the "black" gene that undoes all the other good genes you may have?

52. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18300 by seals on January 19, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Funerals again! trying to cheer us up eh?

It's a pity the question of god's existence has got so mixed up with religion...

Why does the earth (and presumably, the universe) have a propensity to life which seems so superfluous. There's an argument to be made that there must be some reason for life's existence that isn't apparent to us, simply because we're here, otherwise wouldn't that Occam's Razor thing have ensured that it never existed in the first place. Whether we occupy one of many hotspots, or just a lonely planet - if there was no life in the universe, how could it be missed? In effect, the universe would not exist.

53. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18123 by seals on January 18, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Y'know this article might be giving someone ideas - it should be banned ;)

54. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #17905 by seals on January 17, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Made me feel like reading the book all over again... I had forgotten the bit about Kurt Wise. I can't understand how he managed that mental feat - he ate from the tree of knowledge and threw up!

55. The Only One in Step

Comment #17690 by seals on January 15, 2007 at 2:21 pm

125. Comment #17676

The Bible says 'In Him we live and move and have our being'...

In short, I believe God set the whole creation in motion and allowed it to diversify within certain boundaries. I believe certain changes occured at the Fall of Man (Genesis 3).

Who cares what the bible says? It's only a work of fiction. Why is it okay to accept the bible contains any scientific truth whatsoever, purely on faith, but in spite of the evidence for it, evolution is "wishful thinking" unless total scientific proof is produced - isn't this a double standard?

Where is the scientific evidence, let alone proof, supporting the bible's apparent claim that the earth is only a few thousand years old? "Apparent", because that's what people who read and believe the bible come away saying it claims - why it should be important that the age of the earth is only 6000 or 10000 years or whatever, is a mystery to me. Without this evidence, surely all the rest of the theorising goes out the window... natural selection would have no time to produce results in just 6000 years. But there must be a flaw in this argument or Mcintosh would have noticed it, would he not?

56. 10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald

Comment #17491 by seals on January 14, 2007 at 4:19 am

Awesome! I like what she says. I don't know what else she may have said, but she has hit the nail on the head with these arguments about the inconsistency of god, must be a bit disconcerting for her non atheist associates...

Maybe she could find out from Bush, who revealed in October 2005 that God told him to invade Iraq, God's explanation for the current situation there?

"In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq." - Bush address 11/1/07 approx.

57. Federal Way schools restrict Gore film

Comment #17392 by seals on January 13, 2007 at 8:03 am

If only this was one of those Onion funnies... has the ironically named Frosty twigged that whether or not climate change is occurring, it's not like fossil fuels will last forever. So why the debate about reduction in their use - how long will their/our heads stay buried in the sand?

58. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17344 by seals on January 13, 2007 at 1:56 am

While being somewhat distracted by RDs very pleasing bone structure in those photos (what great teeth as well! All the better to - )

Er, sorry about that.... I still find time to feel relief at what he has said about theology - fairyology, or angelology as it seems to be called in all seriousness. How wonderful if it could be heard when the pressure is being piled on in those mind bending religious education classes, for a bit of balance. How bad would it be to come home and find the same pressure to be religious minded? Suspension of disbelief should always be voluntary, it seems to be natural enough without being encouraged in school.

As a scientist I am only interested in the simple scientific question: "Is there a God?"

This is what I'm not sure about, is it entirely a scientific question or is there another aspect to the question, without and apart from the angels-dancing-on-a-pin moonshine coming back to haunt us. Gross oversimplification there of theology but, it does seem to be indicative of its substance.

59. The Only One in Step

Comment #17190 by seals on January 11, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Re 104. Comment #17178 by gimlibengloin

Sorry just thinking aloud... it just looks like you are trying to have it both ways. If the workings of the body can be deduced from engineering, if the engineer is the expert on design, why does anyone bother with the study of biology, I wonder. Maybe we should consult Terence Conran too. (However if I understand it, the debate is not design versus no design, its design by god versus design by natural selection)

You'd think the engineer would try to make out the body is purely mechanical, not the creation of god?

Anyhow - Unbelievers go to hell. Those who have faith go to heaven. There's a lot at stake here... so, when someone has faith why do they then go seeking evidence, try to reason things out? if evidence is needed, isn't that like cheating to shore up faith, but actually ends up adulterating that faith? Once evidence is accepted as a valid criterion in establishing the truth, it can only weaken faith. IMO if faith is god's test to determine those worthy of heaven, no god worth his salt would be leaving clues in the design of animal bodies.

60. The Only One in Step

Comment #17175 by seals on January 11, 2007 at 12:47 pm

100. Comment #17156
... The fact is that MacIntosh and Burgess are more qualified to judge the viability of evolution because they are engineers. CS Lewis said that when Bible scholars refer to something in the Bible as a myth what he wanted to know was how much myth they'd read not how long they'd spent studying the Bible. The reason being that it was only by obtaining a wide familiarity with myth that anyone could be capable of determining anything in the Bible as myth. The same principle applies with MacIntosh etc. Because they know what design looks like and what is required to create it they are more qualified to judge the origin of living organisms than Richard Dawkins who has no such background.

Hmmm its not clear what CS Lewis meant by that - are we supposed to regard it as true in some way, if so which way? too vague. I guess it depends how you define "myth". Maybe someone dreamed it all up ... there is a dreamlike quality about the bible, or maybe nightmare would be more accurate.

The theory of evolution was suggested by Charles Darwin, not Richard Dawkins. It doesn't say there is no design in living organisms - it maintains they are designed by a force of nature, natural selection, with no need for a god in the biblical sense. Heh, if you were god, would you want to spend time designing pests like cockroaches, those hideous wee bugs that live in the carpet and appear on Dyson adverts, flies that crawl around on dogs excrement, etc.

Ever heard the saying "At first I couldn't spell engineer, now I are one" - maybe more truth in it than I thought... I reckon McIntosh may be "no quite the full shilling"!

101. Comment #17159
... So at least in the area of this little criter (ie the Beetle not McIntosh ho, ho) McIntosh does have biological expertise

- but doesn't that make him actually less qualified to "judge the viability of evolution" as you stated in comment 100?

61. The New Atheists

Comment #16325 by seals on January 6, 2007 at 4:41 am

Prof. COX: It's when they step over and scientists say, "There isn't any God because, look, we can't prove him." Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved.

The existence of god will always be a moot point, since "he" cannot be disproved.. but it's quite clear that he has no concern for the human race. Isn't that a worse situation than no god?

A god out there somewhere but not on our side, as the debacles of history demonstrate. Maybe we'll have a pleasant surprise later, but relying on god right now seems distinctly dodgy.

62. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16300 by seals on January 6, 2007 at 2:09 am

There's a lot of pot and kettle in this article. Where to start? Ignoring the totally false accusations and slurs - in Victorian times, they simply didn't know any better. They believed the world was created in 4004 BC. Religion seemed to explain a number of eternal mysteries and provide a sense of security, but especially after Lyell and Darwin, doubts arose in some and were no laughing matter. Later, atheism became much less controversial. Who would've dreamed that today for whatever reason, this past decade or three, we find ourselves in the ludicrous situation in which religion has bounced back flagrantly and flamboyantly, an artificial cocoon, and we as a society no longer have the excuse of lack of scientific knowledge that the Victorians did, for this strange adherence. It's seemingly more irrational than it ever was, though there must be a reason for it. At present at least, the extremes seem to be polarising so maybe that's why the response is perceived by some as being more strident. IMO justifiably, where so much is at stake.

63. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15876 by seals on January 3, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Well, on the face of it, there doesn't seem to be much hope for planet Earth either, in this situation. Either earthly life is all just a rehearsal for the afterlife, no problems with climate change there. End of the world - do not dismay. Or death is complete annihilation, for the individual and all species eventually, we cannot see outside ourselves - once again no need to protect the planet.

(Devils advocate!)

64. Do galaxies follow Darwinian evolution?

Comment #15677 by seals on January 2, 2007 at 1:17 am

They suggest that galaxies as we see them today are the product of their inherent genetic information, evolved over time, as well as complex interactions with their environments, such as mergers.


Hmm this is so unreal. What is meant by inherent genetic info - I think they need to provide a glossary with what these terms mean in an astronomical sense, since they can't be taken literally. Or is someone having a laugh?

65. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #15571 by seals on January 1, 2007 at 11:19 am

Re: comment 42 by JohnC: Thanks. Why am I not surprised... so much for gospel truth.

66. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15400 by seals on December 31, 2006 at 2:01 am

I find this area, and the whole history of paranormal investigations, intriguing; if the price of being interested is to be regarded as a gullible, irrational half wit, that's just too bad. *shrug* (I have nothing to lose!) And where regular scientists have been involved in the research, as mentioned in the article, that's an indication surely, that the methods used are the same as for any other science they were involved with.

IMO there is room for debate when some of the cases are considered, like this example from Afterlife, Colin Wilson -

[Professor James] Hyslop himself finally abandoned the 'super ESP" hypothesis through an experience that has become known as the 'red pyjamas case'. He received a communication from a medium in Ireland to the effect that a 'spirit' calling itself William James had asked him to pass on a message asking him if he remembered some red pyjamas. Now William James, who had died in 1910, had agreed with Hyslop that whichever of them died first should try to communicate with the other. But the message about the red pyjamas meant nothing to Hyslop. Then suddenly he remembered. When he and James were young men, they went to Paris together, and discovered that their luggage had not yet arrived. Hyslop went out to buy some pyjamas, but could only find a bright-red pair. For days James teased Hyslop about his poor taste in pyjamas. But Hyslop had long forgotten about the incident. As far as he could see, there was no way of explaining the red pyjamas message except on the hypothesis that it was really William James who had passed it on.

Twenty-six years after Hyslop's death, he was quoted by the psychologist Carl Jung in a letter. Jung was discussing the question of the identity of 'spirits' who communicate through mediums:

"I once discussed the proof of identity for a long time with a friend of William James, Professor Hyslop, in New York. He admitted that, all things considered, all these metapsychic phenomena could be explained better by the hypothesis of spirits than by the qualities and peculiarities of the unconscious. And here, on the basis of my own experience, I am bound to concede he is right. In each individual case I must of necessity be sceptical, but in the long run I have to admit that the spirit hypothesis yields better results in practice than in any other."

67. How the Great Atheist got polite society standing

Comment #15337 by seals on December 30, 2006 at 1:24 pm

Oh I dunno. It's not that bad (nothing seems bad after Rod Liddle). At least he can't be accused of surrounding himself with sycophants.

Jordan-tastic I assume refers to the pneumatic model and not anything biblical?

What he said about the BA woman with her cross! that would've been funny on video...

68. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15226 by seals on December 29, 2006 at 6:29 pm

I am not arguing for the existence of god. I am saying that god's non-existence has some wonderful, liberating consequences that RD and his disciples are afraid to accept. Or, just maybe, RD is smart enough to understand, but, cunningly won't admit this publicly. He, after all, makes his own choices and seeks his own fulfillment. Perhaps I have underestimated this clever fellow after all. (comment 87)

Dostoyevski and Nietzsche both understood that "If there is no God, all things are permitted." Dostoyevski concluded that there must be a God. Nietzsche concluded that all things are permitted. Dawkins pretends the dilemma does not exist. (comment 81)


In my garbled message, this is what i think i meant to say - There is no dilemma because no-one gets to decide whether there is a god or not. RD came via evidence based reasoning to the inescapable conclusion that there almost certainly is no god. The possible consequences of this conclusion, such as whether we have a nihilistic attitude or see opportunities for boundless hedonism, just follow on automatically for those thus inclined. The alternative that we continue to believe (or pretend to believe) in a god that almost certainly does not exist, to avoid the consequences of not believing, is like the tail wagging the dog and simply not an option.

RD has not disproved the existence of god although he has demonstrated pretty convincingly that there is not a shred of acceptable scientific evidence, but actually i feel that a miss is as good as a mile. Like that other guy says, we don't know what we dont know.

69. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15063 by seals on December 28, 2006 at 3:49 pm

You have not heard the last of Me
- I expect Richard's quaking in his boots!

The point is, no "letter" exists.

70. A Christmas thunderbolt for the arch-enemy of religion

Comment #15057 by seals on December 28, 2006 at 3:31 pm

Hmm isnt this the nihilism debate in another guise? if there is no god, nothing matters, life is meaningless, we are all ultimately doomed, whatever. As has been said many times it doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of god however, so there is no dilemma. These things would all be true if god does not exist, which cannot be proved, so it's always gonna be a gamble. Just something we have to learn to live with, it seems...

71. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14970 by seals on December 27, 2006 at 3:25 pm

Re: post 35

Ah you're right, just fell into the trap. It is I know, useless to attempt discussion with the type of person who may well believe he's scoring brownie points with god by coming to this den of vipers to have his faith tested... if you believe in the validity of faith, everything that's said, every setback or disaster becomes just another test, en route to the big payoff at the end. It's like a weird obsessive game involving interpreting bible verses. I had friends who do this stuff, they were nice folk... although I'm not 100% an atheist, I lacked the wherewithal to join their circle.

72. 10 myths - and 10 truths - about atheism

Comment #14957 by seals on December 27, 2006 at 9:20 am

" "From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. " This is a neat trick. But one that only works if you downplay the glory of biblical Christianity which magnifies the beauty and immensity of the universe and does not limit it to human understanding, or what 'science' can explain. "


I haven't had the time/perseverance to plough through David's reply (comment 22) properly, but picking out this para from (8) at random, I'm wondering how, in what way does biblical christianity "magnify" the beauty and immensity of the universe? (as if it isn't beautiful and immense enough already). Is the word universe actually mentioned in the bible - wasn't it a flat earth scenario? In what other sense could it possibly be meant, as "world" would otherwise be adequate?

I have to confess, while Sam's article is clear and easy to read, even for me, David's comes across as so much waffle, of which the above is an apparent example. I'm baffled by the waffle and can't figure out if there is anything behind it (but I doubt it...)

73. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14941 by seals on December 27, 2006 at 2:45 am

Duh! never thought about it before, but why do they give these genealogies for Jesus via Joseph etc in the bible, whilst claiming a virgin birth? Surely any genealogy given should be for Mary?

If James was Jesus older half brother, maybe Mary then "became" a virgin a bit like Doris Day ;)

74. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14899 by seals on December 26, 2006 at 2:39 pm

"(Does anyone really believe that the Church's dreadful dealings with the Nazis were motivated by its theism?)"

I dont know what happened, but accepting this is true ie. the church was not motivated, in some dreadful dealings with the nazis, by theism. The church is an organisation whose responsibility and raison d'etre we are led to believe is to provide help/consolation in times of need for the vulnerable, which they failed to do. And supposing that stalin and hitler were both atheists, although this doesnt seem clear cut either.

So both atheism and the church failed to do the right thing... but whereas atheism has been shown not to be a magical shortcut to morality, the church has failed in its higher moral aim. It just seems that whether morality is present is irrelevant to religion or its absence, so why do we need religion.

75. The Only One in Step

Comment #14675 by seals on December 24, 2006 at 5:37 am

This is worse than atheist bishops by a long way. Maybe it is all down to their upbringing but it must've been something pretty drastic they went through surely. From what I've seen at least, speaking as a non parent, kids are not so easily indoctrinated by their parents - they're more inclined to rebel against parents' values. I was sent to sunday school before age 7 and a catholic primary school for a couple of years. The other kids would say things like, why should good silk be used for dead bodies in coffins? It's a waste of good silk. Just normal kids not holy joes. They seem more influenced if anything by the world around them, hence the fuss about thin fashion models, having the latest gadgets and games, drinking culture, etc. It could be that religion is on a rising trend because of a prevalence of atheism among the older generation, there does seem to be a fad for religions of all kinds nowadays, celebrity religion culture!

I wonder if their motivation is more to do with the original objection to darwinism about humans not being the same as animals? A whole lot does follow on from thinking humans are special... like the precious religious world view. Although why it should affect some and not others is a mystery.

76. The Only One in Step

Comment #14465 by seals on December 22, 2006 at 2:56 pm

Wow, I didnt realise they are genuinely cuckoo - truth is stranger than fiction.

77. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14464 by seals on December 22, 2006 at 2:51 pm

"then in the same paragraph I wonder if there is a mistake:
[quote]... but if the two haploid cells that 'mate' have been formed by one haploid cell splitting into two, they will be identical to each other.[/quote]

If a haploid cell splits in two (I don't know what you call half a haploid cell) and then comes together it is not going to be diploid--it will be haploid....maybe what is meant here is if the two haploid cells that mate have been formed by on diploid splitting into two-..but then that would not explain the identical part."

A picture is worth 1000 words, it might be better in diagramatic form. I took it to mean that the haploid cell chromosomes double (mitosis? meiosis?) as it divides to make two haploids both identical to the original, and so when the two cells come back together, they create a diploid? i could be very easily be wrong though... anyways, fascinating about ZZ/ZW and XX/XY. I always wonder why bird chromosomes are the other way round ( in the same way as i wonder why most 4-legged animals walk with the diagonally opposite legs moving together but for some, eg the camel if i recall, it's the two legs on the same side that move together - why?)

Would xxy be a woman? surely that should contravene athletics rules!

selling/selfing - it sounds like the spellchecker has put in the more common word.

78. The Only One in Step

Comment #14427 by seals on December 22, 2006 at 11:50 am

It's a funny old world isnt it! Puzzling. It's not april 1st, so have the 2 guys been somehow "swayed" to support ID, and if that's their motive, why don't they just say so? I assume they haven't made the link, as it's not mentioned here. Or... maybe they've been visited by space aliens. All sorts of weird things can happen after that, I've heard. Surely they can't be, er, that thick...

I know - it's a test to find the most gullible person on this website, and I've won! I claim my £10.

79. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13774 by seals on December 19, 2006 at 11:14 am

Liddle has quite a sleight of hand when it comes to implying things and he's also quite good at putting words in other peoples mouths. Maybe it was my imagination but I thought his face looked different (more animated) when he was interviewing someone he agreed with, i.e. a non-atheist.

It seems he's trying to give atheism a history or reference where none exists, to make something out of nothing. If you are an atheist, suddenly you are associated with hitler, stalin, eugenics, the holocaust. The old chestnut of where do atheists get their morality from was aired again, implying religion has a monopoly on morality. At the end he concluded that we don't know whether god exists, why not leave it at that - well what does he expect - a big booming voice from the sky? he's just making hay while the sun shines. Can't say I'm surprised though.

80. 20 Million Years and a Farewell

Comment #13438 by seals on December 17, 2006 at 5:08 pm

Another nail in the coffin. So predictable, it's depressing. I dread seeing wildlife programs now.

81. Richard Dawkins on The Sunday Edition

Comment #13382 by seals on December 17, 2006 at 10:43 am

Respect is due, how does RD stay cool in the face of the same obtuse questions... the presenters were highly irritating and smug, and Tony Benn seems to be turning into an old sweetie wife - you would feel bad to disillusion him!

82. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #13316 by seals on December 17, 2006 at 2:05 am

Ha! In my ignorance i didn't realise they were thinking about ecosystems when the bible was written. It's a pity that the bible did not contain some practical predictions of dangers awaiting the human race since it seems to be such an all encompassing book. It goes into such detail about lineage, who begat who, the relevance of which escapes me, but make no mention of the new strains of flu virus that emerge every year or so, these must also have been on the ark surely - alongside the superbugs maybe. How were they stored, as so many strains would not be required for a few centuries yet - is there no word about this? (unfortunately i dont have a copy to hand). I'm surprised too if there is no mention of the "almost unicorn" Synthetoceras, and other fascinating extinct creatures, together with explanations for their demise, I'm sure it would have helped their cause no end to explain all this overtly.

*sigh* For ID to be right so much else would have to be wrong.

83. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #13100 by seals on December 15, 2006 at 12:04 pm

I would've thought that the theory of evolution is not an isolated bit of science but is in accordance with other data like carbon dating, geology and fossil records, the adaptation of species to their environment etc. If this is so then in order to disprove the TOE (which would have to be disproved for ID to be valid, or are they playing safe and saying that both theories are in operation?) they would have to show that all the science supporting TOE is wrong too. eg. carbon dating, arent they going to have to show why that should not be a valid method of measuring time? And wouldn't the speed of light have to be wrong...

I mean the stories in the bible don't apply to a spherical earth billions of years old, are they trying to say noah's ark had all the different species that exist on earth today plus all those now extinct like dinosaurs, mammoths, mastodons, smilodons etc? Surely there should not be any new species, even at the microscopic level, if evolution is not happening. How to explain the sudden appearance of antibiotic resistant superbugs, after antibiotics have been in use for a few decades?

This is scary, there does seem to be a lot of ramifications, and who knows where will it lead.

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

Comment #12745 by seals on December 13, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Hmmmph. The fact that we know this disquiet/dismay about death and dying is the result of our instinct-for-survival genes unfortunately, does nothing to dispel it... somehow I find it difficult to imagine that we would we all be indifferent or welcoming to death if reproduction wasn't necessary. Surely there would be some trepidation regarding the event, even without the evolutionary conditioning we're all subject to whether or not we have offspring. Not to mention the fear of loss of others - friends and relatives, until we end up say, like the WW1 veterans, a dwindling number alone with our memories.

Religion consoles us in the face of the unknown but it's all a big con which people unconsciously collude with because the truth is too painful to bear. And it inflames people to do crazy things, or at least, is an excuse for people doing crazy things which they would have done anyways with some other justification?

It seems like all the evidence for the afterlife, or the so-called evidence, depending on your point of view, can be dismissed as being "all in the mind". It isn't amenable to the scientific method. Or is it that science just hasn't got that far yet? CG Jung described his mother's death as in a way, as a not entirely sorrowful occasion - a disaster for the ego, but a rebirth for the psyche. I can't see him making it all up, and I wonder if the words baby and bathwater might spring to mind?

(Ooops - sorry, that turned into a slight rant)

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

Comment #12266 by seals on December 11, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Re what the grey suited guy in part 2 said - death seems wrong to us all, RD explained by saying that the genes of people who wanted to die aren't inherited by later generations because natural selection favours those who live as long as they possibly can, if I understand correctly what he said, in order to pass on as many genes as possible I guess.... but would it necessarily follow that, having lived a full lifespan, we should still see death as being "not right" i think the other guy's words were?

Having said that, although the afterlife sounds an interesting idea, if it doesn't exist, there is nothing to regret. It's dying, not death, which is the problem!

86. A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God

Comment #12062 by seals on December 10, 2006 at 2:20 am

Hmm ... bit of a slimeball this guy - insidiously patronising: RD is a timelord battling daleks of religion, like this is some kind of Dr Who adventure, and has a "simple and touching faith"...

Re the "commandments" - "But they are terribly ephemeral things, unintentionally hilarious — the sort of stuff that might be dreamed up by Polly Toynbee after someone had slipped an ecstasy tablet in her San Pellegrino after a long day in the Guardian offices". Makes a change from "acres of rhetoric" at least...

And snide. ("his latest wife"??)

It's Liddle who is not wholly open... unless this kind of verbal assault and misrepresentation is too far out to be taken seriously, maybe prudent not to entertain these folk!

87. To be Read at my Funeral

Comment #9346 by seals on November 24, 2006 at 2:28 pm

Sorry this is a bit nihilistic, but I cant see why anyone would waste a single second of their life thinking obout death, if they believe that after death, there is nothing. Surely, well in my opinion, the only thing that makes death worth thinking about is that we don't actually know what happens to our consciousness? If there's nothing after death, there's nothing for the whole of humanity, not just ourselves as individuals.

As for the recycling, all well and good, but it's gonna happen anyway whatever we do! In fact why bother with the life that took place in between - might as well stay as star stuff all along... reminds me of an old joke about skipping sex and going straight for the cigarette...

88. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8854 by seals on November 22, 2006 at 1:12 pm

At the risk of sounding patronising - hmm maybe this is relevant?

http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/kammerer/

I dunno of course, it just seems that not everyone since Darwin has always been convinced evolution is all due to blind chance, even among scientists. (Kammerer also had a theory about coincidences, and Einstein called it "interesting and by no means absurd" if I recall. Or maybe I've got it mixed up with something else entirely!)

89. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7683 by seals on November 19, 2006 at 3:23 am

180. Comment #7497 by Glub - "Is there no atheist here who is able to show Comment maker why he is wrong?"

Why should an atheist reply to Comment maker? If s/he has no morals, that's his problem, nothing to do with atheism (or religion for that matter). Should his comment even be dignified with a reply, i don't think so.

90. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7677 by seals on November 19, 2006 at 2:58 am

RE 270. Comment #7642 by Tom C - " Where are comments #7321 and 7322? Many others are missing? ...As you weave your own version of reality on this site,... " etc

i think those missing comments may have been on other topics (down the right hand side of the homepage) - it seems that the comments are numbered within a topic (the blue header line on each comment) and also as a hash number which of course will have gaps cos it includes all topics on this site.

Hope this helps.

91. Losing Our Religion

Comment #6470 by seals on November 14, 2006 at 12:38 pm

"I have no idea what you really mean by 'something greater than ourselves'. Do you mean heavier, or taller? If so, then the elephant is certainly greater."

You guessed it - I was thinking of elephants! no no no... poor choice of words there, end of a long day...

Re: sacred - sorry! i just think its important not to use the same phrases used for religious ideas because it hides how radical atheism really is. i don't want to slip into a way of thinking that is self deception. I mean, it's not exactly a cosy idea. Really it seems beyond the pale to me, to jump to conclusions when there is so much unknown even in the realm of science - more than we can guess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can't cure the common cold, or AIDS, and we dont know what consciousness is (is that the realm of science?) I can't remember my dreams but I know that I dream...

So nobody has heard of that daft guy who sometime in the 19th or early 20th century i think, announced that humanity had discovered everything worth knowing.

92. Losing Our Religion

Comment #6314 by seals on November 13, 2006 at 3:27 pm

"If we actually held human life as sacred, religion would not dare abuse it."

To an atheist, literally nothing is sacred, because sacred means connected with god(s) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration. So we would be invoking god or religion to save us from religion.

Isn't it arrogant to rule out something greater than ourselves, whilst we don't know everything there is to know - ( hmm who was that guy who said everything had been discovered?) - but surely it's possible to acknowledge this without religion.

93. Losing Our Religion

Comment #5985 by seals on November 12, 2006 at 5:03 am

What about sitting on the fence? We simply dont know the answer to why the universe(s) is here, it's the void at the heart of everything. If anyone claims to know the truth, beware, they are only making it up ... this includes atheists when they claim no need for a god, it's all done by climbing mount improbable, to find the ultimate boeing 747, (not to imply all that is wrong you'll be glad to hear, just that it still doesnt explain everything), as well as of course the mumbo jumbo we find in religion ... science for sure makes our lives easier at a practical level - although even that has some conditions - but in my opinion, doesnt explain "the eternal question" anymore than religion does. Science has made the puzzle all the more apparent... sorry, maybe i'm stating the obvious!