Comments by beanson

101. Brunswick school board to consider creationism teaching

Comment #256195 by beanson on September 29, 2008 at 12:12 am

"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"

just 'wow'

btw- who polices the classrooms?-
If these neanderthals are so dogmatic in their beliefs don't you think that just a little bit of bias, just a little bit of snide commentary, just a little bit of distortion will creep in to the evolution class?

I've no doubt but that creationism is still being taught in these classrooms- they're just looking for official ratification

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

Comment #255864 by beanson on September 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm

I thought Vic Stenger was a rather dull, unclear and hesitant speaker, I assumed he would be the star- very ineffectual. And he went on way beyond alotted time

The Jewish woman was a total clown, nothing at all of substance, just scripture, terrible speaker (and hair), nervous and boring and what was that thing about Eve's apple at the start

Second atheist was good though

And that first faith head was the pits, WTF was he on?- the debate was supposed to be about 'Are we better off without religion"- so after invoking the anthropic principle for a couple of mins he goes off on one about environmentalists- bizzare

John Lennox- good speaker, undoubtably- full of BS though in the form of wishful thinking. What kind of argument is it that posits the existence of god on the basis that if there were no god then Hitler would have got away with it? Usual cannrds re Stalin/atheism, usual jokes- blimey, come up with something new why don't you.

103. Pope: Religion has a place in politics

Comment #254558 by beanson on September 25, 2008 at 11:11 pm

But he added that societies must also be "more aware of the irreplaceable role of religion for the formation of consciences and the contribution which it can bring to -- among other things -- the creation of a basic ethical consensus within society."

Religion promotes basic ethical consensus!!!!!
How can he square this statemant with for example, Islamic demands for the subjugation of women. I can't imagine that many in the west would form a "basic ethical consensus" with certain core aspects of Islam.

Or does he only mean Chiristianity when he speaks of religion?- well of course it is just as morally bankrupt.

Speaking of which I was scandalised to see the two highest twats of the the Church of England make pronouncements about how evil was the practice of short selling in the stock market- fucking HYPOCRITES- as if the church does't make investments on the stock-market. words fail me...

104. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254087 by beanson on September 25, 2008 at 10:40 am

I only have a DPhil in ethics / political philosophy from Oxford. I taught ethics at a university for 10 years. I have many peer-reviewed publications in the field, both theoretical and applied. I'm qualified to grade your essays.

Jesus86

I guess it's all a bit above our heads.... (sigh)

105. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #253805 by beanson on September 24, 2008 at 11:43 pm

I only have a DPhil in ethics / political philosophy from Oxford. I taught ethics at a university for 10 years. I have many peer-reviewed publications in the field, both theoretical and applied. I'm qualified to grade your essays

Oxford isn't in the business of handing out DPhils to "clowns.

Alister McGrath has an Oxford bauble to his name too, I believe the description 'clown' adequately covers him

106. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253756 by beanson on September 24, 2008 at 10:39 pm

10. Comment #253398 by JAMCAM87

I found Carl Sagan's book Contact so boring that I gave up.

The problem is that Sagan seemed to think he was creating a sci-fi 'Great American-Novel" (tm) and so chose to interfill the really good alien plot with reams of absolutely dire 'relationship' stuff about the protagonists mother and love intrests. In the end I got completly impatient with this element and just skipped it when it came up- it adds nothing to the main plot.

Thankfully the rather excellent film has none of this extraneous guff

107. It Takes Just One Village to Save a Species

Comment #253748 by beanson on September 24, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Still, those who would like to exploit the scenic beauty of the park remain. One recent proposal included a five-star hotel that would turn the would-be education center into a gambling hall and cockfighting pavilion.

This article illustrates the beauty and folly of our kind

108. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253389 by beanson on September 24, 2008 at 11:45 am

Religion scholars are the caretakers of our most precious knowledge

WTF

109. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #252932 by beanson on September 23, 2008 at 10:49 pm

I think this could be rather productive in the sense that most clergy have, I expect, not actually read any of the "New Atheist" (TM) books or seriously engaged with any of the cogent arguments against their irrational stance. I am inclined to imagine that most would prefer to bury their heads in the sand believing that others have the logical arsenal to demolish the atheist position.

This may act as something of a wake up call to those clergy who are honest enough and not completely hobbled by catechism when they percieve the completly insubstantial, asinine nature of
christian apology

110. 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

Comment #252590 by beanson on September 23, 2008 at 11:39 am

Crazy name- crazy guy

Y' know, he looks a little like Ezra Pound

111. Back from the grave

Comment #250678 by beanson on September 20, 2008 at 5:59 am

I am periodically able to engage in the type of consciousness called Lucid Dreaming. In this state of mind awareness is very much like waking consciousness- there is self-awareness, memory, temporal awareness, ability to rationally cogitate. And yet one is moving through a dream state, in a dream landscape. One can wake straight from these dreams with full awareness and it is easy to see how they can be mistaken for experiences by the 'soul' of an objective space, ie of the world, but they are really just testament to the wonder of human consciousness. I am very much inclined to view NDEs as Lucid Dream type experiences, as such they constitute no kind of evidence for mind survival after bodily death.

One should properly be more sanguine about death on purely materialistic grounds along these lines:- If we are truely a product of matter then our perception of separation from everything else is appearance only- if I am not separate from all else then I needn't be biased toward my own viewpoint. It is a little like the Budhist who says that what was never born can never die. The 'I' never was, it was just appearance. They say that statistically everyone on the planet should have a molecule of Julius Caesar in their body- this says nothing about Julius Caesar's importance, everyone else who has ever been is here within you too.

Also if conciousness isn't emergent then each molecule has something aware in it

112. Back from the grave

Comment #250560 by beanson on September 19, 2008 at 11:12 pm

For anyone who has had a Lucid Dream (and doesn't ascribe it an "Out of Body Experience"- fuckin' idiots) NDE is easily explained, after all no one who has a NDE dies.

If human consciousness can really leave the body and operate without a brain then everything we know in neuroscience has to be questioned. If people could really gain paranormal knowledge then much of physics needs to be rewritten.

This quote is the knockdown point- giving grants to these 'researchers' is really just a manifestation of an ignoble and desperate wishful-thinking, an inveterate irrational mind set that someone in the grant-bestowing dept. has not been able to escape

113. Does faith have a place in medicine?

Comment #250554 by beanson on September 19, 2008 at 10:43 pm

"The courts have generally ruled that the freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs does not include the right to interfere with the rights of others," he says.

that small word 'generally' frightens the bejeebus out of me in this context

114. Scientists Behind 'Doomsday Seed Vault' Ready World's Crops For Climate Change

Comment #250313 by beanson on September 19, 2008 at 11:31 am

Traits, such as drought resistance in wheat, or salinity tolerance in potato, will become essential as crops around the world have to adapt to new climate conditions.

What about traits such as resistance to nuclear warhead explosion?

or:
Resistance to rats getting into the doomsday vault and gobbling up the stash?

115. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250062 by beanson on September 19, 2008 at 12:16 am

Banzaib

Why should we move on from the God/No God question, why should anyone of us wink at superstition, turn a blind eye to willful ignorance. This is the 21st century, it's laughable and extremely sad at one and the same time that these delusions persist. We must continually look at how to diminish the grip of these ruinous ideologies

116. Creationist Britain (would you Adam and Eve it?)

Comment #250053 by beanson on September 18, 2008 at 11:48 pm

"If God is God and truly God, and worthy to be worshiped, then He's not truly worth it if He couldn't do creation- He'd be a weak and inadequate God."

Oh, that makes he real does it- sort of a trancendent argument from stupidity

"You hear on TV the world is millions of years old- they just say it!"

Yes, without any good reasons whatsoever

"It changes your view of society around you: to believe in literal creation will make you the most tolerant person in your community."

I wonder how tolerant he'd be if his son wanted to marry a man?

117. The real difference between liberals and conservatives

Comment #250044 by beanson on September 18, 2008 at 11:23 pm

So liberals are fairer and less authoritarian- I could have told him that, but isn't it a chicken/egg scenario and wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that ones innate feelings of justice led one to being politically liberal rather than viewing the correllation between liberality and fairness as novel data?

But we need the right wing- it's a yin/ yang duplicity apparently- well thanks for making that assertion- I see no evidence or even sound reasoning to back it up, just a diffident falling in with wishy-washy semi-religious notions-

this 'lecture' sounds to me like so much guff

118. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249570 by beanson on September 18, 2008 at 9:49 am

lol

119. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249561 by beanson on September 18, 2008 at 9:33 am

Christ Jesus 86- why on earth do you imagine anyone would read the above post- you are one DULL poster- please FO

120. God, Evolution and Charles Darwin

Comment #249532 by beanson on September 18, 2008 at 8:54 am

The articles author has simply confused Darwin with Darwinism and then has sought to undermine the natural thought that Darwinism leads to atheism by undermining Darwin's own atheism.

A simple, sad mistake made by a twat

121. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249274 by beanson on September 17, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Why should the Vatican appologise- they have an infallible spokesman for the highest authority in the universe, whatever they say IS truth, if God is still sulking about Darwin blowing his gaff then he can take his ball home and there's no point any of us crying about it

122. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #249264 by beanson on September 17, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Another reason not to allow Turkey full accession to the European Union, repressive Islamic regimes don't deserve any favors from the enlightened west

123. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248953 by beanson on September 17, 2008 at 8:47 am

Peter Hearty 64 says

"I think he's simply saying that if you're trying to convince someone that your point of view is correct then you have to show respect for their opinions and beliefs. That doesn't mean you attribute any validity to those beliefs, only that you refrain from appearing insulting or superior."

If he were just saying this why would he feel the need to say it, "give respect to other people when they express a view" is pretty uncontrovesial, BUT: "give repect to someone when they express a specifically creationist view" is rather too close to special pleading on behalf of creationism.

Any way all that is beside the point, my second point in 63 above is that he is speaking on behalf of the premier scientific body of England, any sympathy towards creationism from this quarter is not to be tolerated.

124. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248944 by beanson on September 17, 2008 at 8:23 am

I find it difficult to imagine why some posters here are saying that Reiss has been treated harshly. He clearly was arguing for a relaxation over creationism, he used phrases along the lines of 'we must show respect for...' and 'competing worldviews'.

Now these sentiments might have gone un-noticed if he were just speaking in his capacity as a fuckwitted religious nut, but NO, he is representing the premier scientific institution of the country, he is speaking FOR their education policy.

This is simply NOT acceptable, in this day and age science MUST be watertight.

As far as I'm concerned he can fuck off and good riddence

125. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248779 by beanson on September 16, 2008 at 11:22 pm

Quite right too

no surprise to hear Winston being soft on this issue:

"I fear that the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science" something that the Royal Society should applaud."

The man is a religious appologist and wants us all to accomodate his nutty views into our rationalist picture of the world. But no, for the Royal Society at least a line must be drawn:

Mr Willis said: "It is appropriate for the Royal Society to have dealt with this problem swiftly and effectively, rather than provoking continued debate. I hope the society will now stop burying its head and start taking on creationism."

And this is the point, the RS, in these uncertain times, must be seen to be as watertight and impervious to the influx of bullshit as possible.

It seems to me that the mistake was made primarilly when the decision was taken to appoint someone who wears the badge of superstitious nonsense, in the form of a clerical collar, to the position of education spokesperson for the premier Scientific institution. WTF were they thinking!!

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

Comment #248008 by beanson on September 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm

"Have not money, the thirst for possessions, for power and even knowledge, diverted man from his true destiny?" the pope asked.

...of giving it all to the Catholic Church so that we can continue to run the world's biggest paedophile ring

127. Robert Winston criticises dangerous 'science delusion'

Comment #248000 by beanson on September 15, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Winston is a Jew and allows his fuckwitted religious views to intrude on his sanity.

People like this should be stripped of academic title

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

Comment #247992 by beanson on September 15, 2008 at 12:10 pm

With the world currently seeing a huge resurgence of irrationality and anti-science superstition in the form of fuckwitted religious zealots the Royal Society really needs to appear whiter than white in it's Rational credentials.

Why on earth they suffered a religious fuckwit to hold such an exalted position within their ranks in the first place is baffling enough but really it's beyond the pale that they should stand by while he pontificates on the 'respect' that fuckwitted religious views 'should' command in the scientific arena.

He (and every other cheering superstitious fuckwit) needs to be shown that the 21st century will not tolerate childish innanities. He must be sacked- or the RS will have a major stain against it's reputation and we inheritors must hang our collective heads in shame.

129. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247058 by beanson on September 13, 2008 at 10:26 pm

The organisation has a motto: 'Nullius in verba' (roughly, 'Take nobody's word for it'). In other words, verify everything by experiment and think for yourself. Both are noble aspirations. It is therefore baffling how an ordained minister - a man committed to believing the word of God without question - could have been asked to play a senior role in the society.

Kick out the superstionalists- it's an absolute travesty that such a zombie could inhabit the higher echelon of what is supposed to be a bastion of rationality

130. Creationism call divides Royal Society

Comment #247055 by beanson on September 13, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, has since alleged he was misquoted.

He's kacking it

131. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #246908 by beanson on September 13, 2008 at 2:04 pm

fuck, who wrote that Jeremy Clarkson
Some daft bits but the vituperation is fully justified

However, it's hardly news that most muslims are intellectually challenged

132. Saudi OKs Killing 'Immoral' TV Execs

Comment #246720 by beanson on September 12, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Quite funny really-

It means that the rich and powerful Saudis who in the past have been happy to corroborate and legitimise religious fuckwittery might now have an interest in curbing the mulla's influence.

ha fuckin' ha

133. Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design

Comment #246325 by beanson on September 12, 2008 at 7:23 am

The only reason for introducing 'creationism' into a science class would be to pour abject ridicule and scorn upon it, this would necessarily undermine the 'respect' the author seems to think superstitions deserve in the 21st century.

134. Origin of the specious

Comment #244663 by beanson on September 9, 2008 at 9:46 am

Ouch!

135. Devolution in Education

Comment #244221 by beanson on September 8, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Jesus, that's a long article, where the hell was that published, come on own up did anyone read it to the end??!!

136. In the know

Comment #243784 by beanson on September 7, 2008 at 10:54 am

The 'scientific dogma' charge is often bandied about blythely but what can it mean?

The principles of scientific investigation are those of common sense writ large based on the law of induction. If some effect invaribly proceeds from a given cause and there are no known counter examples then we count it a law of nature.

There's nothing esoteric in science, no counter-intuitive leap of faith that one has to make to justify the method, only the sort of tacit acceptance of induction that each one of us must make just to get out of bed in the morning.

The phrase "scientific-dogma" is disingenuous, obscurantism and an example of the sort of mendacious word manipulation that unscrupulous faith-heads often indulge in to scare their dunded-headed associates.

137. Gay support group gets straight 'no' from Brethren

Comment #243744 by beanson on September 7, 2008 at 8:33 am

Jesus wants us to use our genitalia in the correct way, there are certain orifices that one must not put a penis in.

Yea for Jesus!

138. Faith schools may be Blair's most damaging legacy

Comment #241619 by beanson on September 2, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Polly hits the nail on the head again, the rise of faith schools is obviously a serious concern for those who percieve that the indoctrination of the young is the most effective way to ensure long term dogmatism in the masses

By the way are Satanists allowed to run schools now?

139. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #241012 by beanson on September 1, 2008 at 2:20 pm

How can 150 years of Darwinism not have impeded this man's consciousness at all.

140. The New New Atheism

Comment #241008 by beanson on September 1, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Similarly, Mr. Hitchens heaps scorn on the biblical story of Abraham's binding of Isaac, in which, at the last moment, an angel stays Abraham's hand. What kind of barbarian, wonders Mr. Hitchens, would prepare to sacrifice his son at God's command, and what kind of morally stunted individuals would honor such a man, or the deity who made the demand? Yet Mr. Hitchens's categorical claim that religion poisons everything is undermined by the common interpretation according to which God's testing of Abraham taught, among other things, that the then widespread practice of child-sacrifice was contrary to God's will, and must be put to an end forever.

Jesus Christ, this is a fucking embarassing bit of apologetics

141. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #241003 by beanson on September 1, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Apparently Hitchens is:

Unencumbered by serious theological or biblical knowledge

Can the author really think this?

Then again God is Not Great suffers from

tired cliches that pad out the book.

...really? And...

Hitchens ignores the moments of transcendence that make up human existence.

...can this be right? I thought he quite specifically mentioned the role of the numinous.

"God is a verb"

well I've heard this wanky statement before but is the author really conceding that the word 'God' signifies nothing concrete, I imagine he'd sit in a congregation of one there.

Hitchens' simplistic assault is itself a dangerous kind of fundamentalism

... has this man actually read the book I'm wondering, probably not, what an anus

142. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #240696 by beanson on August 31, 2008 at 10:59 pm

"Don't [assume] that religion is an irrational form of explanation," Williams said

OK, let's not assume that and take a non-partisan look at his example of a 'rational' christian argument

"If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."

Positively irrefutable logic all we need to do is add the premise that god WAS there before the big bang, Yippee!

Perhaps you're not totally convinced by this sylogism, but don't worry christsuckers for he goes on to say we don't actually need rational reasons to believe

But Williams said religion cannot be accurately viewed as hypotheses, because belief in God comes with no conditions attached. For believers, he said, God is real and existed before the universe did.

Well that seals it, thank fuck for that!

143. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240469 by beanson on August 31, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I thought the Irish were supposed to have a way with words, this clumbsy article is a struggle to read

144. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #240436 by beanson on August 31, 2008 at 1:32 pm

NewEnglandBob

The Old testament has 5 books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There is no book of Joel.

You're thinking of the Pentatuch

145. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #240231 by beanson on August 31, 2008 at 5:52 am

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Teach both- I take it she means christian creationism AND evolution-
but surely there are some others we could add-

Musulman creationism, Ancient Greek creationism, Nordic, Aztec, Zulu, Native American, Australian aboriginal... so on, not to mention some ideas I cooked up t'other day.

Come on, no reasons to be exclusive are there, bring on all the fairy tales- kids love 'em.

146. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #240227 by beanson on August 31, 2008 at 5:37 am

The problem for Jews is that the only scripture they have is the revolting O.T.

The modern insipid christian (such as that insufferable drip Alister McG.) can at least spin the story and maintain that christ somehow ameliorates the OT's deathly message.

Poor old Jews- stuck with the stink of torah on their boots

147. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #240134 by beanson on August 31, 2008 at 12:28 am

The Rabbi says:

"...none of the most important truths can be proved"

and what are these wonderful truths?

"...that right is sovereign over might, that it is better to be loved than feared, that every human being however poor or powerless is worthy of respect, that peace is nobler than war, forgiveness greater than revenge, and hope a higher virtue than resignation to blind fate."

BUT- these are all philosophical/ethical statements not factual truths in the way that "There is a god" would be (if it were true)

148. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237233 by beanson on August 26, 2008 at 8:36 am

The man's long dead- he's dead, his relations are dead- no living fucker remembers him

Why does anyone give a shit what they do with his bones

149. Michael Coren: Stéphane Dion finds God

Comment #237104 by beanson on August 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Wanna be ruler of Canada?

Suck jesus cock

150. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233461 by beanson on August 20, 2008 at 12:51 am

Unfortunately I never get invited to dinner parties so my options qua 'social isolation by calling someone an idiot' at these functions is limited.

Rowland F,
can't quite make out your position- is English a second or third language or are you just over excitable? You seem on balance acceping of some 'alternative medicine' claims- is this based on evidence from personal experience or from reputable clinical testing?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next