101. Fleabytes

Comment #142253 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 7:38 am

It isn't a stuffed bunny, honest! It is a real live bunny, seen at Easter and therefore the Easter Bunny

102. Fleabytes

Comment #142247 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 7:31 am

Quetzalcoatl - I don't like to disagree with a diety such as yourself, but the bunny is definitely the Easter Bunny, taken Easter 2005. And as the photo was taken of a bunny at Easter, I can't see what more evidence is needed to prove the Easter Bunny exists. I am sure that all the theists on site would agree with me, seeing as they rely on just a book to prove God exists....

103. Fleabytes

Comment #142239 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 7:18 am

The Easter Bunny was obviously hiding from me to test my faith in its existence (it surely can't be anything to do with me being thicko girl...)
The Bunny may not be up the the 72 virgins bit, but at least I have proved its existence in a way that no one could possibly dispute.....

104. Fleabytes

Comment #142221 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 6:51 am

Hmm, the Easter Bunny pic didn't show - proves the Bunny works in mysterious way - let's try again.....

105. Fleabytes

Comment #142213 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 6:46 am

Richard Morgan - the Easter Bunny is now my avatar pic.
What other evidence is needed??
:)

106. Fleabytes

Comment #142188 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 6:11 am

I have evidence that the Easter Bunny does exist. I have a photo I took last year at Easter of a rabbit. Well, we all know that rabbits are also called bunnies, so therefore my photo proves the existence of the Easter Bunny without a shadow of a doubt, in exactly the same way that the Bible proves the existence of the Christian God.
I am more than happy to supply said photo to anyone so that you can all see this undoubted proof of the Easter Bunny's existence.
Anyone disagree with me?
:)
An

107. Fleabytes

Comment #142114 by ForestMist on March 12, 2008 at 3:01 am

Clearthinker - you misunderstood what I was trying to say. My point was that when you originally made the comment, it came across as something RD said himself - you did not say that when RD said that, he was quoting someone else. To me that came across as misrepresentation. If you had said, RD repeated what Gore Vidal said "......" then fine, but not saying that it was a quote seems wrong to me.
I am not saying that you have to restrict yourself to commenting on what RD wrote himself, you are more than free to comment on quotes from others that he has used, but you should always have the honesty to attribute the words written/spoken to the correct person. RD managed to do this in TGD, so I can't see why you also can't manage to do so.
Despite your assertion, I was not wiggling out of anything, I was not even saying whether RD has said religion is evil or not, I was saying that you misrepresented him by attributing the quote to him.

108. Fleabytes

Comment #141910 by ForestMist on March 11, 2008 at 11:26 am

Clearthinker - re comment 4433
Your nice little quotation that apparently proves that RD has said religion is evil (the "great unmentionable evil...." bit) is, I have to inform you, not something that RD ever said.

As anyone who has read TGD would have spotted, and especially you would think, someone who has written a rebuttal of TGD, this was actually said by Gore Vidal, and it is attributed to him (it begins one of the early chapters, but I can't tell you which one as I left the book at work, ooops)

I take it that you will be apologising for this misrepresentation?

109. Fleabytes

Comment #141726 by ForestMist on March 11, 2008 at 6:29 am

I'm a bit confused here, maybe someone could help me out. Clearthinker - you seem convinced that there is an atheist creed. Wouldn't that suggest some kind of worldwide atheist "church" with a written creed that all atheists sign up to? Well, I certainly can't remember joining anything like that when I was 11 and realised the sheer daftness of religion. I also fail to remember signing up to any "creed" when I joined RD Net. Either I am suffering from worrying memory loss, am lying through my teeth or else neither of these ever happened. Well, I know I am not lying, I very much doubt I am suffering from such acutely specific memory loss, and so think that the later is the case.
Clearthinker - atheists really are just people who share in a lack of belief in a supernatural sky daddy. No doubt lots of atheist share views on other issues, but that does not mean that there is an atheist creed. I, for example, think clowns are scary but I am sure that there are lots of atheists who don't agree with me, and I am equally sure that there are lots of theists who do agree with me. All you are doing is cherry-picking the bits that a lot of atheists tend to agree on but that you do not, and using that as a daft argument for an atheistic creed being in existence. It just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

110. Fleabytes

Comment #135585 by ForestMist on February 29, 2008 at 5:39 am

Steve - I have since discovered that it wasn't, in fact, either the ether or anything quantum that made my post vanish, it was that I was being incredibly thick and not seeing it on the page in front of me.
But thanks for the advice - and I will indeed take it next time :)

111. Fleabytes

Comment #135565 by ForestMist on February 29, 2008 at 5:15 am

And by the way, can this nonsense about "Dawkin's followers" be stopped? I had realised the sheeer daftness of religion long before I read "The God Delusion" or any of his other books (in fact I've only been reading his work since last year). I knew about evolution before I read his books (although not in anywhere the depth that I do now). What Richard Dawkin's science books have done for me is make me appreciate much more the sheer wondrousness of evolution, in the same way that Brian Greene's books have magnified the wonder of the universe for me. What the TGD did for me was make me breathe a sigh of relief that there is someone who can put a lot of what I feel into much better english than I could hope to, and put it to a much greater audience than I could ever hope to. The fact that religious people seem to think that all atheists "follow" RD says something about their mindset, that they need soemone to tell them what to believe rather than being able to make their own minds up, rather than anything about atheists. The only time I follow anyone is if I am physically lost and they know how to get to where I want to go, or if I'm out walking in the Forest and then I'll follow my boyfriend as he's better at finding the least muddy way through the muddy bits than I am.
Think I have lost track of what I was trying to say, so apologies if this makes no sense - but I do hope the gist of it comes across!

112. Fleabytes

Comment #135552 by ForestMist on February 29, 2008 at 4:55 am

Artful_Dodger - too late for what?

113. Fleabytes

Comment #133990 by ForestMist on February 27, 2008 at 5:53 am

Comment #133975 by irate_atheist

Oh aye, that makes much more sense.
Sometimes I am indeed a bear of very few brains...

114. Fleabytes

Comment #133972 by ForestMist on February 27, 2008 at 5:18 am

Irate-Atheist - you haven't given up saying "the word" for Lent have you? :) :p You just sound like someone who really wants a piece of cake but isn't "allowed" to have it!

115. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133965 by ForestMist on February 27, 2008 at 4:57 am

Tis very hard to choose favourites, but based in what books made an impact on me at the time and which books I would happily re-read, my five favourite fiction books would be (not in any order):

The Tombs of Atuan - Ursula Le Guin
Dune - Frank Herbert
The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
The Owl Service - Alan Garner
Weaveworld - Clive Barker

My five favourite non-fiction books would be:

Krishnamurti's Notebook - Krishnamurti
The Elegant Universe - Brian Greene
The Fabric of the Cosmos - Brian Greene
The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins
How the Mind Works - Steven Pinker

116. Fleabytes

Comment #131223 by ForestMist on February 22, 2008 at 4:39 am

Clearthinker - on what basis are you saying that the BBC and C4 would not allow a Bible-believing Christian? Have you approached them and been refused? Or is this assertion without evidence?

117. Fleabytes

Comment #130828 by ForestMist on February 21, 2008 at 10:56 am

Clearthinker - you ask what we are scared of. Well, I personally am scared of clowns but I don't think that that has anything to do with why you are so against posting a response under your current name. If your response is going to be abusive etc, then your fear of being banned is probably well founded. If your response is not going to be abusive, then I see no problem in posting your response as clearthinker. And why would responding to Paula be any more a waste of your time than responding to "The God Delusion" was in the first place? Maybe the problem is that you have no response so you are throwing up this smoke screen of refusing to respond unless you can do so as Wee Flea to hide the fact that there is nothing you have to say.

118. Fleabytes

Comment #130745 by ForestMist on February 21, 2008 at 8:22 am

Clearthinker - I am able to read your posts so I am unable to understand why you think you are banned. Is there any reason why you cannot post a response under your latest pseudonym, or would it only have any weight or meaning behind it if it were posted under one of your previous names? It could seem that by refusing to post a response under "clearthinker" that you are just avoiding the issue.

119. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130689 by ForestMist on February 21, 2008 at 6:54 am

Irate_Atheist - what kind of god would be daft enough to not have sparklyness and joyous-glitteriness? That just seems to be a waste of being a god if you don't sparkle and glitter

120. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130677 by ForestMist on February 21, 2008 at 6:34 am

Isn't the something that is made out of nothing a different type of nothing to that which is nothing made out of nothing, despite the fact they are both nothing and therefore the same nothing?

MPhil - you missed out the sparklyness and joyous-glitteriness there I think

121. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130664 by ForestMist on February 21, 2008 at 6:09 am

The Bishop,

If god is spirit, how does it have effect on the physical world? Surely a purely "spirit" god would not be able to have an effect on anything that is not "spirit" and therefore wouldn't have been able to make the universe or anything therein (which appears to be physical), and this would make the bible a load of old tosh. If this "spirit" god can have effect on the physical world, and therefore was able to create the universe and everything therein, then surely we are entirely justified in asking for physical evidence of this to be provided.
Also, if god is "spirit" then how do you explain the whole Jesus business? If Jesus is also god, he would therefore also be "spirit" and the whole dying on the cross business was also a load of old tosh - if you are only "spirit", how on earth can you die? If Jesus was not "spirit" but was in fact physical, then again I think that asking for physical evidence is entirely justified.

(goes back to lurking)

122. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125802 by ForestMist on February 12, 2008 at 4:46 am

I think Dr. Hugh Montgomery would be a very good choice for this - his Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (2007) were fantastic, he has done some amazing work in gene research, he was heavily involved in the recent scientific expedition to Mount Everest, and on top of that is a thoroughly nice man. Although whether he would be able to fit anything else in is a different matter!

123. The Out Campaign

Comment #60873 by ForestMist on August 3, 2007 at 3:43 am

Weeflea, for some reason (can't think what it might be) I am not surprised that you once again didn't respond to my questions.
I know that you stated clearly that "human beings are not born a blank slate" – however you still have not told me on what evidence you base this assumption. I would appreciate a proper answer to this, and it not just answered by another question.
You also completely ignored my question about what age do you believe a person stops going to heaven automatically. Fine, you believe that all children who die in infancy go to heaven, but I would still like you to clarify for me what you believe to be the cut-off point for this automatic heaven-going. And logically there would have to be a cut-off point - if there are some people who will automatically go to heaven (i.e. children who die in infancy) and some people who will not automatically go to heaven (in your belief, I would guess that would mean most of those who post on this site), then where is the line in the metaphorical sand drawn?
It seems to be that so far the answers you have been giving to everyone just boil down to "because". As an adult, I would have thought you would have gone past such childish responses, and therefore I look forward to a more considered, rational and evidence based response.
Or maybe I should just go straight off to feed the cuckoos who live in the clouds.....

124. The Out Campaign

Comment #60467 by ForestMist on August 2, 2007 at 2:42 am

Weeflea – it would have been nice if you had answered my points, but unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. I do not believe that I had made any mention of children being born with predispositions to homosexuality/alcoholism/a bad temper/heterosexuality/intelligence, merely to whether children are all born corrupt. I therefore feel that your comment in anyway is responding to my question. I was putting a specific point and I would like you to answer this specific point. It seems to me that you are basically completely avoiding the question I put, and I wonder if you are doing this because you are not able to answer it in any meaningful way.

It is also most kind of you to suggest that I am absurd for mentioning the fact (and I say fact because this did actually happen) that an unbaptised child was not allowed to buried in a churchyard as they had not been cleansed of the corrupt nature they were born with. Surely it is what happened that is absurd, not me for having mentioned it.

Could you also clarify for me at what age children who die unbaptised stop going to heaven? You mentioned your belief that all children who die in infancy go to heaven – so does this mean that once a child reaches the age of two, which I think most people who agree is out of infancy, that they would no longer necessarily go to heaven? At what point, in your opinion, does the automatic going to heaven end?

125. The Out Campaign

Comment #60284 by ForestMist on August 1, 2007 at 1:19 pm

SWRB - I'll let you off this time ;)

And I'm wondering, does it matter as to which Jesus' body weeflea sees? I believe that Jesus is a reasonably common name, so there's bound to be quite a few bodies out there which would change his mind...

126. The Out Campaign

Comment #60269 by ForestMist on August 1, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Hi
I'm late into this discussion too (mainly because I don't have time to post anything whilst at work), but I have to admit I'm slightly confused on a couple of things. Firstly, I am totally flummoxed by the assertion by weeflea that "human beings are born with a corrupt nature". How on earth can anyone possibly say that a baby is born corrupt?? I would like to know on what factual basis weeflea bases this view, seeing as he seems keen on evidence. Perhaps he could point us in the direction of a scientific paper that outlines the basis of this viewpoint. I would hope that he isn't of the ilk who believe that babies who die unbaptised should not be buried on consecrated ground due to their inherently corrupt nature (and before I am accused of basing this on hearsay, a work colleague of mine a few years ago was not allowed by her local church to have her baby buried in the churchyard as he had not been baptised), but perhaps I am being too kind there.
Weeflea also states that, in regard to Quetzalcoatl's question as to whether people would go to heaven if they are good but not Christian, that "I am not in a position to make that kind of judgement. However I do know that God will judge justly and fairly". How can he not be in a position to make that kind of judgement but somehow be in the position to say that God will judge justly and fairly. I presume that he has records of previous judgements to back this claim up. I would be very interested in seeing the evidence for this.
Also, and I'll shut up after this, I would love to know how weeflea would define a "consistent atheist". I, and many others, may very well happen to be one, in which case he should be questioning his beliefs very seriously.
Ta lots :)