101. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235496 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 6:25 am

Thanks, Brian - you're all heart. Hey - song is great. How did you record it? I like the octave parts - you might like to double track both the low and high vocals, to get a more eerie chorusy effect.

102. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235486 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 6:08 am

OK, you got me, Brian. I am so, so, sorry for my one typological error in 1469 posts!

103. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235483 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 6:05 am

Pedant!

104. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235477 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 5:57 am

It is ironic that the titles of some of your books actually befit yourself!
Selfish Gene - and it is you that is selfish
Blind Watchmaker - and it is definately you that is blind
and The God Delusion and no doubt it is you that is deluded!


Top marks for debating skills, Joe.

105. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235476 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 5:54 am

My question to you would be: what do you mean by a "relationship" between Darwinism and religion? Explain that, then we may continue. As it stands, it has no meaning to me.

106. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235472 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 5:39 am

Sorry, Meadon, I don't think you understand. I am a pedagogue, I know good teaching when I see it, and bad. Richard's method in his encounter with the students was everything one would expect from a good teacher. Certain principles pertain:
1. Students must be equipped with the critical thinking skills necessary to rationally consider issues.
2. No observance of custom, ethic, etc which contradicts rational discourse should be encouraged.
3. All beliefs are fair game in an educational environment. (Including, co-incidentally, beliefs in such things as "reason" and "scientific method".)

You are being perhaps naively confused in your second paragraph. To say that there is no no consensus about the relationship between religion and Darwinism is a non-statement. That is, it is meaningless.

Good pedagogical practice does, indeed, require that teachers inform students about alternative theories, as long as those "theories" stand the test of coherency. Creationism and ID do not, and are, therefore, not "theories" in the sense that we normally ascribe.

107. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235464 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 5:21 am

Comment #235454 by Meadon

Well, fair enough, Meadon, if you really do see the error of your ways. To charge Richard with criminal neglect is fairly far out there, and I can see how that might have occurred on the spur of the moment. A tip: review your draft posts carefully before publishing, especially when it comes to maligning the reputation of one of the world's leading teachers and scientists.

However, feel free to go to town on me; I have no reputation whatsoever to uphold. (But you'd better be good.)

108. A flea we missed?

Comment #235461 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 5:12 am

True, 8. Although, apparently, our local minister's sermon tomorrow is on "Daniel and the possibility of quantum fluctuations in the lion's den". Wouldn't want to miss that.

109. A flea we missed?

Comment #235458 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 5:06 am

Indeed, 8 - Trouble is, starts at 2am local. I'll try to stay awake, but SWMBO might make me turn the telly off.

edit: Sorry everyone, off topic, but I'll get back on now.

Steve - I think DR's homophobia is an open book. You know what a duplicitous person he is.

110. A flea we missed?

Comment #235456 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 4:59 am

Cartomance - once again thanks for putting in writing and confirming what I have been saying all along. You cannot discuss whether or not atheism is true because that is your basic presupposition and starting point. Of course it is true. Anyone or anything that disagrees with that must then self-evidently be wrong. It is the ultimate in cicular fundamentalist arguments.

111. A flea we missed?

Comment #235447 by Laurie Fraser on August 23, 2008 at 4:40 am

Carto,
"Then you are clinically insane and in need of thoroughgoing palliative therapy" - PRICELESS!

Or a cricket bat. (See, they have their uses.)

112. A flea we missed?

Comment #235311 by Laurie Fraser on August 22, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Comment #234710 by irate_atheist

Sorry about my 'tard - iness, Irate; I've been asleep. I'm actually a neo-fundamentalist 'tardologist - Whenever the great Irate says it, it must be true. Secondary sources, however, are open to interpretation.

Hope that clears that up!

On topic - Robertson's apologetics re Judas reveal that he is a literalist when he wants to be, and a scholar of christian hermeneutics at other times.

113. A flea we missed?

Comment #234675 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 9:51 pm

It's all right, Mord - she's asleep.

114. A flea we missed?

Comment #234660 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Nice to see you boys get that out of your system. (ahem)

Are we still having this stupid conversation? If people think that the cricket bat saga is the worst thing they've ever come across on this site, I pity them. I agree with Mord - we've had the fucktard running joke for ages; it's a good one, and who cares? Seems you don't have to be a christian to be a wowser.

115. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #234629 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Mate - they were begatting like buggery in those days, even Sarah had the misfortune to conceive at the age of about four thousand or something, when any respectable dowager would have given up the funny business ages before.

116. Supernatural science: Why we want to believe

Comment #234623 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Well done, Goldy - I knew that old bastard was screwing around.

117. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234251 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 3:28 am

CFL, that is the most coherent post you've ever put up on RD.net!




:)

118. A flea we missed?

Comment #234249 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #234245 by irate_atheist
Thank you, David - gee, you look remarkably like a blasphemer who hangs around on this site.

But then Cain went off and married the "daughters of Canaan". WTF?

119. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234244 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 3:21 am

Or, in Steve's case: "I don't exist at all just look at my avatar." :)

Ah! Got it, Steve - you ARE god!

120. A flea we missed?

Comment #234242 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 3:17 am

Quetz - coretemprising has already got my core temp rising once or twice, but no, I won't mention the bat.

Edit: Macabre, 8.

121. A flea we missed?

Comment #234241 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 3:15 am

I think the story of the Fall is brilliant, in fact. Read at a metaphorical level, it is a superb rendering of the cognitive/affective disjunction between humans and other animals. The point is that Eve had no choice but to eat of the fruit - and the serpent as knowledge-bringer is a wonderful metaphor that had already cropped up in, for instance, Egyptian mythology. (The symbol for medicine - the serpent wrapped around the stick, etc.)

122. A flea we missed?

Comment #234236 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 3:10 am

Comment #234233 by Vaal

Or the WACA, Vaal. He's pretty tall, too, isn't he?

(Sorry, everyone else - that was off topic. Will go and quietly flagellate now.)

123. A flea we missed?

Comment #234232 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 2:57 am

When I was a young evangelist, at about 10 or 11, our minister (not the one whose daughter had breasts) told us that evil was allowed in the world by God so that we who were saved could combat it. I remember thinking, even back then, why did he bother?

124. A flea we missed?

Comment #234194 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 1:14 am

Quetz - you blasphemer. Constrained by the laws of logic? I don't think so, buddy - what do you call sending a pack of bears out of the forest to horrifically dismember a bunch of little kids? It's hardly a punishment that fits the crime. Ergo, God transcends logic.


QED

125. A flea we missed?

Comment #234192 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 1:02 am

Irate - I, too, have had a revelation. God is no-one other than the Candy Man!

Who can make the sun shine,
Sprinkle it with dew...

126. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234191 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 12:56 am

My sentiments exactly, Gordon.

P.S. The slogan should have read, simply: "Australia: love it or leave it." I'll edit.

127. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234187 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 12:45 am

Comments by Diacanu and Steve;

In Australia we, too, have this redneck phenomenon, where Australians (white) pepper their cars and shirts, etc, with slogans shouting at other Australians (different colour/religion/food groups, etc) things like this: "Australia: love it or leave it!"

Morons.

128. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234185 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 12:34 am

Comment #234182 by rod-the-farmer
This was Australia, Rod - naturally, everyone laughed the religoids out of town and the "event" was a crashing disaster.

129. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #234179 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 12:08 am

At the Federal Elections last year, I was campaign manager for our local Greens candidate. We were invited to attend a "meet the candidate's night" organised by the local association of evengelical churches.

We were OK to attend, until we found out that no questions without notice would be allowed from the floor; the debate rules included "No blasphemy" (I kid you not); and that guests of candidates would only be admitted if they would write down the name of their regular church in the sign-in book. How good is that?

130. Life Is Short...

Comment #234177 by Laurie Fraser on August 21, 2008 at 12:01 am

Hahaha - nice one, Philip!

131. Life Is Short...

Comment #234173 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Yeah - I think I heard about a project to actually put a lot of healthy devils on one of the islands off South Australia - can't remember the reference, though.

132. Central Texas Man's Death Sentence Upheld Despite Bible In Jury Room

Comment #234172 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:50 pm

14. Comment #234145 by vijaykrishnan

And what's wrong with being a hippy, man? At least we don't believe in waging war on other nations. Or sanctifying revenge murder, as does the United States of Barbarism.

133. Life Is Short...

Comment #234168 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Sad about the devils, though, Brian. The facial tumour business could wipe them out very quickly.

134. Scientists Create Blood From Stem Cells

Comment #234167 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Comment #234009 by BigJohn
The real problem is that you, and others, think that it is the business of the Federal Government to provide funding. It is not!


Oh, yes it is, mate. That's what government is for, inter alia - to make available to all people the benefits that flow from research, and if the research isn't properly funded, or haphazardly funded, those benefits don't come. Enough of this fake small government, libertarian nonsense, please!

135. Life Is Short...

Comment #234165 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Yep, they are a marsupial "mouse". Cool, huh?

136. Life Is Short...

Comment #234162 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Tell THAT to David Robertson - he'd probably say that death is their punishment for promiscuity.

Edit: P.S. New blog up on the subject of chiropractors, B.

137. Life Is Short...

Comment #234160 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Ah, of course, Brian - I'd forgotten all about the little bastards scurrying around in my pantry at night. Programmed to shag themselves to death. What a way to go! (But the bio-chemistry of all that is nevertheless intriguing, don't you think?)

Edit: they're actually due to invade my place pretty soon.

138. Life Is Short...

Comment #234152 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Comment #234135 by Richard Dawkins

Hahaha. This story is fascinating. I'm interested in the way the genetic coding can be so specific, in the case of both the chameleon and the Pacific Salmon. (To time the death of the animal so precisely, I mean.) Any thoughts, Richard?

139. A flea we missed?

Comment #233588 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 4:20 am

SG - love the "Aye" (my ancestors are from Nairn). For some mirth, look at the way some on a catholic apologetics site weasel their way out of this:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4075225

140. A flea we missed?

Comment #233583 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 4:12 am

Well, Bonz - the newly re-discovered (?!?) book of Judas portrays him in exactly that light. No wonder they left *that* out of the KJV!

PS Robertson says
"I'm heartbroken....maybe I should go and do a Judas?!"

Question, David: Agreed, but which version?

141. A flea we missed?

Comment #233578 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 4:07 am

SG - beat me to a post! Thanks, anyway - yes, this is a MAJOR contradiction for theists who believe in divine inspiration, as DR surely does (he's said it numerous times).

Interestingly, he answers my (rather obvious) challenge with some rubbish on the fly. The verses from Matthew and Acts are SO specific in their detail, with no doubt whatsoever that they refer to one and the same person, that it is impossible to countenance "divine inspiration" if one honestly considers them. And there's your problem: DR is completely dishonest, and treats genuine inquiry with contempt.

Flagged as troll.

142. A flea we missed?

Comment #233571 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 3:55 am

Donald - thanks for pointing that out to DR; I've been busy with other things. It's the problem you come up with with these twerps - they're not willing to offer the honest answer: "Yes, that's a contradiction - you have a point." I would LOVE to have convincing evidence for eternal life; I could think of nothing better than exploring every single detail of the cosmos for eternity, so, come on David, convince me, please!

Edit: Acts 1,16-18:. "...Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus. He was one of our number and was part of this ministry. He purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Kind of leaves no doubt about *which* judas they were talking about, eh?

143. A flea we missed?

Comment #233553 by Laurie Fraser on August 20, 2008 at 3:24 am

Or, instead, "Anonymous Atheist" is, in fact, "Anonymous Godbotherer".

Hi, boys.

144. A flea we missed?

Comment #233092 by Laurie Fraser on August 19, 2008 at 5:45 am

Well, this might be how David rationalises the whole thing:

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman who was created from a man's rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree...

Yep, David - that makes PERFECT sense!

145. A flea we missed?

Comment #233090 by Laurie Fraser on August 19, 2008 at 5:40 am

Comment #233078 by scottishgeologist

Well, SG, it's a story I remember picking up on as a kid, and challenging one of the elders of the church with. He gave me such a naff answer I thought, on the spot, that these religoids were full of shit.

I actually like that one because it doesn't relate to anything metaphysical, or doctrinal, at all. It is simply an event that is, theoretically at least, open to historical investigation. But as our David says the bible is historically accurate, and we have two entirely different versions of the same event within the bible to the extent of precisely defining the victim, in each circumstance, as one and the same man, um... come on, David - convince me, and I'm yours!

146. A flea we missed?

Comment #233074 by Laurie Fraser on August 19, 2008 at 5:11 am

Hungarian - now you're starting to play rough, boyo. Our David can't bring himself to answer a simple question like "how did Judas die?", and here you are starting him out on Genesis 1:1. The effrontery!

Vaal - last time I checked Australia had more sheep than any other country in the world. But at least it's a better *class* of sheep. :)

147. A flea we missed?

Comment #233056 by Laurie Fraser on August 19, 2008 at 4:22 am

Well said, SG.

148. A flea we missed?

Comment #233041 by Laurie Fraser on August 19, 2008 at 3:53 am

That's your problem, 8teist. You're not a real atheist; remnants of the judaeo-christian heritage still course through your synapses; otherwise you'd be a monster terrorising innocent New Zealand sheep.




Er, wait a minute...

149. A flea we missed?

Comment #233039 by Laurie Fraser on August 19, 2008 at 3:49 am

David, I'll ask again: how did Judas Iscariot die?

By the way, see that little girl on my avatar? That's my grand-daughter. She is the apple of my eye. Are you suggesting that, because I am an atheist, I am unwilling or unable to care for her well-being? That's what your ridiculous question about paedophilia seems to suggest.

150. A flea we missed?

Comment #233028 by Laurie Fraser on August 19, 2008 at 3:21 am

David, I repeat: how did Judas Iscariot die?

"on what basis does an atheist state that paedophilia is wrong?"

Because it is both physically and psychologically injurious to minors. Do you need any other reason?