Comments by notsobad

Comment #262091 by notsobad on October 8, 2008 at 1:33 am

"So, there was a feeling that there needed to be some people alive that would somehow be able give an alternative witness to what really went on."

He let his wife and mother burn and ran away to save his deluded life and made up this stupid excuse.

102. Two new fleas are discovered!

Comment #262084 by notsobad on October 8, 2008 at 1:17 am

Someone needs to tell Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker that the word "Dawkins" is not a plural. The cover of their book should read "...Dawkins's case against God".

I wonder if there's a correlation between stupid beliefs and stupid grammar.

Actually, both versions are correct and Dawkins' reads better anyway.

8teist

http://theedger.org/2008/08/13/how-to-criticize-the-new-atheists-a-seven-step-guide-to-writing-the-perfect-reactionary-hissy-fit/

excellent

103. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #262079 by notsobad on October 8, 2008 at 1:06 am

His language makes him sound like a raging xenophobe, not like a rational critic of religion, and it frankly makes me wonder what his motivation is. Whether he is just upset about religion and Islam (so am I and probably many here) or whether he simply doesn't like foreigners.

Are you one of those politically correct types?

He criticizes Christianity too and harshly at that. Maybe he doesn't like white people and the British too. Or maybe he just criticizes their religious behaviour.

Ad hominem or not, he is missing the point and putting atheism in a bad light

He addressed this point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb

104. Engineer, Entrepreneur and Philanthropist Hansjorg Wyss Gives $125 Million to Harvard to Create Hansjorg Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering

Comment #262075 by notsobad on October 8, 2008 at 12:59 am

funny name but it sounds promising

105. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261694 by notsobad on October 7, 2008 at 8:22 am

Can some vegan explain to me what is wrong with honey?
Veganism sounds like dogma to me.

106. Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

Comment #261565 by notsobad on October 7, 2008 at 3:57 am

It's not. And genetic engineering will make up for natural selection.

107. The rival to the Bible

Comment #261559 by notsobad on October 7, 2008 at 3:42 am

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

No. That's why they are fundamentalists: they live in their own reality ignoring things like logic and facts.

108. Dawkins: a theologian's perspective

Comment #261405 by notsobad on October 6, 2008 at 7:44 pm

He makes a decent fist of the point: however it is hamstrung by his lack of knowledge of the subtleties of Christian theology. This is one of the frustrating aspects of the book.

This was dealt with in The Courtier's Reply from Myers.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

For example, several philosophers have pointed out that it is hard to imagine human language appearing through a simple process of genetic evolution. Evolutionary process would normally expect a new ability to have appeared one individual first: however, it is impossible for language to be individual - it has to involve at least two people who converse together.

Because people are the only animals that communicate ... NOT.

The Big Bang is of course one possible solution to this argument, but even that does not provide an answer because it still leaves open the question why there was something to go 'bang' in the first place?

And inserting an imaginary friend in there stops this endless regression how?

Christian faith is not so much about telling us what is right and wrong as about enabling us to do what it is right and to avoid what is wrong.

...???

For Dawkins, love is purely an accident.
For Christians, it is the very centre of all that we are.

So that's why they have the highest divorce rates, eh?

He fails to see that in Christian theology there is a clear interpretative criterion for reading the Old Testament, and that is that we read the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ.

Like in Matthew 5:17-18?

The character of Jesus reflects the core character of the God of the Old Testament - patiently kind, endlessly loving, achingly compassionate, angry at evil, fiercely loyal.

...

We worship God not because he needs it but because it is good for us.

I never thought otherwise.

faith involves personal risk, and only those prepared to take that risk can find God.

Or death if it's a different kind of faith.

He is not obvious, but waits to be found by those who are serious enough to stake everything on him 'sell everything they have' to follow him.

What kind of an insecure bored god do you worship?

Of course it is possible to look at this world and miss God altogether. Jesus Christ said 'those who seek will find'

Yes, if you were born during the 98 000 years before he cared to appear or if you lived somewhere with no information about Christianity.
Those bloody Indians, Africans and others just didn't seek hard enough!

God is searching for us and is there to be found but only by those who risk everything to do so. Those who do find him find love, adventure and satisfaction beyond what they imagined possible.

Is this an ad for a Disney film?

109. Abortion bill's rights 'breach'

Comment #260941 by notsobad on October 6, 2008 at 7:55 am

Dear catholics,

how about we took care about the living people first?

110. Dying of the Light

Comment #260940 by notsobad on October 6, 2008 at 7:54 am

I would like to see a chart showing correlation between fear of death and what these people heard (or didn't) about death in their childhood.

I remember my dad telling me when I was a kid that most likely death is the final state and I will be no more. I never feared death and probably never will. I may, however, regret that I won't live any more.

111. New Rules for Sarah Palin and Her Witchdoctor

Comment #260493 by notsobad on October 5, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Great as usual.
He is the best substitute for Carlin there is at the moment (IMO).

112. Bill Maher's Religulous Opens Today

Comment #259476 by notsobad on October 3, 2008 at 12:01 pm

accompanying interview:
Bill Maher vs. the "talking snake"
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2008/10/02/maher/

113. Catholic priests cane YouTube over blasphemous vids

Comment #259475 by notsobad on October 3, 2008 at 11:59 am

Couldn't agree more. They're disgusting people for trying to equate the two.

not really
In both cases, the damage is mostly imaginary (considering the piss doesn't leave a stain).

114. Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

Comment #258432 by notsobad on October 2, 2008 at 2:54 am

I have a bridge for sale!

Scientists? More like sensationalists...

115. Texas university scientists criticize attempts to water down evolution instruction in public school science classes

Comment #257755 by notsobad on October 1, 2008 at 4:28 am

"We're certainly not interjecting religion. Not at all."

Well, that's the problem!
(but he meant 'injecting', didn't he?)

116. Respect for religion now makes censorship the norm

Comment #257750 by notsobad on October 1, 2008 at 4:19 am

The idiocy increases:

Devout Muslim sues Tesco for making him carry alcohol

117. Sherri Shepherd, Bill Maher Spar Over God: Bill Tells Sherri She Should Go To Psych Ward

Comment #257712 by notsobad on October 1, 2008 at 1:56 am

The clips are swapped.

Maher was right about the hospital call. If it wasn't for religion, most people would send you to a psychiatrist if you hear voices in your head.

118. Which science book should the next US president read?

Comment #257709 by notsobad on October 1, 2008 at 1:46 am

U.S. Bailout May Set Back Science Funding, Experts Fear

119. Texas university scientists criticize attempts to water down evolution instruction in public school science classes

Comment #257701 by notsobad on October 1, 2008 at 1:29 am

"I'm getting sick and tired or people saying we're interjecting religion," he said. "We're certainly not interjecting religion. Not at all."

McLeroy says he supports restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" language and said working groups left some form of that language in the proposed standards for chemistry and astronomy.

What irate would say.

also:
U.S. Bailout May Set Back Science Funding, Experts Fear

120. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #257486 by notsobad on September 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm

J.C. Samuelson:
You can be a Christian and accept the theory of evolution through natural selection, but my statement is still valid. The theory is incompatible with the idea of evolution being god-guided and planned.
Even as a clergyman, he doesn't need to believe a word the bible and his church say. But that would make him a dishonest man, a hypocrite.

This reminds me of the episode 'The Bishop's Gambit' of Yes, Prime Minister.

Jim Hacker: Is there anyone in the church who doesn't believe in God?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, most of the Bishops.
--
Sir Humphrey: The Church is looking for a candidate to maintain the balance.
Master of Baillie College: What balance?
Sir Humphrey: Between those that believe in God and those that don't.

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

Comment #257137 by notsobad on September 30, 2008 at 5:19 am

irate's comments needed here :)

122. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #257114 by notsobad on September 30, 2008 at 4:37 am

the teachings of Christianity with acts of christiandom.

The teachings are actually worse than today's general behaviour of Christians.
It's funny how the religion of death and fear is suddenly believed to be religion of understanding and love.

there really ARE examples of aggression and violence motivated specifically by an atheist ideology.

No such an ideology exists.
They were against religion, which is different from just not believing in something.

123. Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Comment #257110 by notsobad on September 30, 2008 at 4:32 am

I hope you're not implying that therefore no theist believes in evolution, because that's just false.

People are very inconsistent.

No, I obviously don't. But god-guided evolution is not evolution through natural selection.
And yes, there probably are people that label themselves Christian and accept evolution through natural selection, even though the two are incompatible. People are indeed very inconsistent.

124. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #257109 by notsobad on September 30, 2008 at 4:27 am

His "sin" is being a theist, which most here (including Prof Dawkins) see as incompatible with accepting evolutionary theory

He is not just a theist, but a clergyman. The requirements on what you are supposed to believe in such a position are higher.
Christianity is incompatible with evolution through natural selection, even if you are not a young-earth creationist.

125. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256565 by notsobad on September 29, 2008 at 8:35 am

To take as an example Isaac Newton's religious beliefs do not make his mathematics less than any atheist's mathematics.

His religious beliefs limited his inquiry, however.
(starts at 6:30) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365

126. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256422 by notsobad on September 29, 2008 at 5:58 am

brainsys:

Surely it is a disingenuos semantic arguement to say that believing in creation of the universe 14 or so billion years ago by some god has anything to do with the creationism in question here - which is to deny evolution is responsible for the diversity of life today.

God-guided evolution is not evolution through natural selection.
Or is Reiss a deist that believes that the creator started it but didn't interfere?
I'll repeat myself:
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.
Maybe he doesn't believe in those things and maybe he is not interested in promoting that world-view, but then he is a dishonest man.

127. Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Comment #256412 by notsobad on September 29, 2008 at 5:43 am

The assumption that Atheist = evolution, theist = creation, is astounding. Astoudingly stupid.

Every theist that believes in an all-powerful being is a creationist, albeit they may not be young earth ones.

128. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256292 by notsobad on September 29, 2008 at 3:33 am

I'm confused here. Did I miss something in Riess's original article about him being a creationist or supporting creationism?

He still believes that universe was created by a supreme being, hence a creationist, just not the young earth one.
The author said it well:

It really does not matter whether one believes a mystical entity created the universe 5,000 or 10,000 million years ago - both are equally irrational unsubstantiated claims of no fundamental validity.

129. Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Comment #256254 by notsobad on September 29, 2008 at 2:35 am

The problem is that these idiots won't have to pay for the lawsuit they will lose soon after it's implemented.

And how is creationism supposed to be taught anyway? Does the teacher give a 30-minute scientific explanation of something and then, to represent creationism, say 'Or god did it!'?

130. Blinded by a divine light

Comment #256252 by notsobad on September 29, 2008 at 2:32 am

justaminute:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic'."
[Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.]

In other words 'if it doesn't fit my paradigm exclude it.'

Did you really not get the joke?

131. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #256241 by notsobad on September 29, 2008 at 2:17 am

Now of course you need to have someone to expose them to the religion, but that is not *childhood* indoctrination because usually missionaries work with adults.

Adults with child brains.

132. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #255903 by notsobad on September 28, 2008 at 2:23 pm

And could someone inform John Lennox that freedom and democracy existed before Christians? Or that when Christians took the reigns, freedom and democracy existed only for the elites?
And the ending that men and women are equal because of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" sounds like satire. Has he actually read the Bible?

133. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #255884 by notsobad on September 28, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Ian Plimer's arguments are fallacious and unoriginal. Was this about environmentalism? No. Is the universe really so kind to life and paticular beings and species, or even more specifically, the earth, as he suggests? 99.99% of all species that ever lived would disagree.

134. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #255857 by notsobad on September 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Yes, we would because there isn't a single positive thing that cannot exist without religion while there are many negative things that exist because of dogmatic religious beliefs.
And even if someone argues that religion doesn't cause wars and violence because there are more fundamental reasons, such as greed, it certainly doesn't stop them.

Less religion in the world = no difference

I can't think of a single argument against free choice of women, homosexuals, teaching of evolution or contraception that is not either directly religious or of religious origin (puritanism etc.).
And, of course, organizations that try to promote these ideas are either religious or have religious background, even though some try to hide it (e.g. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform) to appear more relevant (speaks loads about their own opinion on their beliefs, eh).

135. Conservative Pastors to Break Law by Endorsing a Candidate

Comment #255848 by notsobad on September 28, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Tax them and let them officially say whatever they want. They do it anyway.

136. Mathematics and faith explain altruism

Comment #255846 by notsobad on September 28, 2008 at 12:00 pm

If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, then why have humans evolved a sense of altruism and cooperation?

Anybody who writes this has little understanding of evolution and the meaning of fitness here.

137. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #255729 by notsobad on September 28, 2008 at 4:39 am

Hitchens exaggerates Russia's ambitions and, more importantly, their abilities.
Russia has enough nukes to destroy the world many times over, nothing new here.
Russia is a threat to its small ex-Soviet Union neighbours, nothing new here.
Sure, they have earned tens of billions in the recent years thanks to the significantly increased price of oil (ironically partially caused by the greed of the US elites). That allows them to fuel a few 30-year old bombers to fly them over international waters, but that's that.
More dangerous than communists? Please.

If anything I'd be more worried about a country that spends roughly 50% of the world's total military spending and is lead by people who think they are told by imaginary friends to go kill other people.

138. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #255706 by notsobad on September 28, 2008 at 3:39 am

Regius Professor of Divinity

Where? At Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry?

"What is the point of being a materialist when we are not sure exactly what matter is?"

I don't need to call myself a materialist. I just don't accept things there is no evidence for and don't accept the god of the gaps bullshit.

139. Hadron Collider halted for months

Comment #255373 by notsobad on September 27, 2008 at 11:56 am

Was it insured? ;)

140. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #255371 by notsobad on September 27, 2008 at 11:52 am

Irreligious people can indeed be highly irrational.
But when was the last time one denomination of palm readers bombed another?

141. Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

Comment #255343 by notsobad on September 27, 2008 at 10:29 am

Don't go to countries with stupid laws.

142. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Clive James

Comment #255339 by notsobad on September 27, 2008 at 10:27 am

very enjoyable

143. Pope: Religion has a place in politics

Comment #255335 by notsobad on September 27, 2008 at 10:25 am

the 150th anniversary of apparitions of the Virgin Mary to a local 14-year-old, Bernadette Soubirous.

Why is this mental illness reported as a fact?

144. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #255302 by notsobad on September 27, 2008 at 9:10 am

Controversy is good advertising for RD.net.

145. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248296 by notsobad on September 16, 2008 at 3:31 am

Julius Morche:
maybe somebody else here can explain to me why we should be worried about a clergyman doing the job of Director of Education at the RS.

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.
Maybe he doesn't believe in those things and maybe he is not interested in promoting that world-view, but then he is a dishonest man.

146. Pope condemns 'pagan' love of money, power

Comment #247983 by notsobad on September 15, 2008 at 11:57 am

Hey everyone, lay off the old man! He doesn't really 'own' any of the stuff he has,

You say it's sarcasm, but I've read this from a Christian apologist.
And they say delusion is not an accurate term...

147. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #247981 by notsobad on September 15, 2008 at 11:52 am

They must be ready for the brigades of religious people whose main occupation is to get professionally offended.
This sentence, "We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome." will make them busy.
And as it usually is, some deists/agnostics/atheists will get worried and offended on their behalf too.

148. Pope condemns 'pagan' love of money, power

Comment #247467 by notsobad on September 14, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Pope condemns 'pagan' love of money, power

"Christian love of money and power is all right, he added."

149. Robert Winston criticises dangerous 'science delusion'

Comment #247465 by notsobad on September 14, 2008 at 1:13 pm

The science populariser and fertility expert said that the more bombastic arguments of atheist scientists were making dialogue between religion and science more difficult.

What dialogue? If religion makes a scientific claim, it gets treated like one. So far, all scientific claims have either been false or are in the Russell's Teapot category.

"I would argue that the 'God Delusion' approach is actually very divisive because it is the one way surely of not winning over opposing views

So what approach does he suggest?

"Far too many scientists including my good friend Richard Dawkins present science as the truth and present it as factually correct. And actually of course that clearly isn't true."

Actually, that's what religion does. Dawkins said he is always willing to change his mind provided there is new evidence.

"What Dawkins says is, 'if you don't believe in the fact that religion is a nonsense then you're deluded'.

[citation needed]

150. Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

Comment #247447 by notsobad on September 14, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Alert me when there won't be anything to apologise for because their bucket of claims will be empty.

'But while it is not difficult to see why evolutionary thinking was offensive at the time, on reflection it is not such an earth-shattering idea.'

One of the proofs that the apology is as pretentious as it gets.

'Why bother?' he [Andrew Darwin] said. 'When an apology is made after 200 years, it's not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.'

so true