101. The Flea Circus moves to your iPod!

Comment #67420 by BicycleRepairMan on September 3, 2007 at 11:35 am

Tags customers associate with this product (What's this?)
Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
Check the boxes next to these popular tags or enter your own tags in the field below
boring (2)
crap (2)
trash (2)

wrong (2)
god delusion (1)
ipod (1)

richard dawkins (1)
waste of time (1)
› See all 11 tags...

102. In God we doubt

Comment #67412 by BicycleRepairMan on September 3, 2007 at 10:57 am

1. Believers are mostly naive or stupid. Or, at least, they're not as clever as atheists.

I stopped reading here. NONE of the so-called "new atheists" that I know of have ever claimed anything even remotely like this, its a COMPLETE strawman, there just is no reason to go on reading after someone make such an absurd statement.

What you can possibly accuse some of the atheists of, is claiming that the CLAIMS of the various religions are so absurd that it SEEMS like you'd have to be a bit dim, or crazy, to actually believe in them, but obviously, 80-90% of the world are not stupid and crazy, thus something is making them believe this stuff all the same, and that thing, is what I call Religion.In fact thats the #1 argument against religion, that it can actually make otherwise intelligent, well educated 20 year-olds with their entire life ahead of them, believe, without a shred of doubt that piloting a passenger plane full of people into a skyscraper with even more people is something you just have to do, and will get you eternal life and 72 virgins..

Yes, thats the extreme end of it, but unlike your first point, its not a strawman, because it actually happened, and religion did it.

The fact that the outcome can be extreme in the violent sense, isnt even that relevant. intelligent people is conjoured, by religion, again, to believe in nonsense like transubstantiation, assumpltion of Mary and Virgin births, all equally nonsensical as the crashing-planes-gets-me-pussy-forever belief, although mostly alot less harmful(at least these days..)

103. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67386 by BicycleRepairMan on September 3, 2007 at 7:35 am

If you want to hear about how certain, dogmatic, one-tracked and what a rigid fundamentalist Richard Dawkins is, I suggest you have a go at his book "Unweaving The Rainbow", and/or take a look at his TED speech from 2006:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-TED-The-Strangeness-of-Science-22-min

Come back when you're done. Thanks

104. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67178 by BicycleRepairMan on September 2, 2007 at 1:22 pm

There is no morality.

Not quite true, there is morality, because we are moral, social creatures.

What I suppose you mean is that there is no ultimate, final answer kind of morality to reach for ie: "God's rules"

So...?

Would you feel more comfortable if there was? so? does that in any way make it more likely to be true?

A more fitting question would be "Where does morality(the self evident altruism found in most human beings) come from?"

Answer: Not from religion, not from God. It is here for the same reason we are here, for the same reason you have 2 legs instead of none, a big brain rather than a small one, why you developed the eye; it is simply more beneficial to be an altruistic, kind and moral little monkey, than a mean, self-centered one.

105. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66896 by BicycleRepairMan on September 1, 2007 at 12:41 am

perhaps so that they can be censored?

Yes, mainstream sites get hundreds of spam messages, poker/casino/porn viral advertisers etc. just look at the comments at the more popular YouTube videos. As much as I want your campaign and this site to succeed, lets secretly hope it doesnt come to that over here as well.

106. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66886 by BicycleRepairMan on September 1, 2007 at 12:02 am

Well, atleast this flea has a slightly more inventive and original title than the previous fleas, maybe I'll have a go at it, but it sounds as the same pseudo-abstract nonsense that basically defines god all but out of existence and explains that God is just everything we feel when we're standing on a mountaintop and voila, the two testaments are both true, but only half the time, of course, and only in the metaphorical, symbolic sense, of course.

107. The importance of doubt

Comment #66677 by BicycleRepairMan on August 30, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Surely another critic who has never read TGD, or read it with some mean religious eyes. How many times does Dawkins repeat that MOST religious people are just ordinary, decent people, who is no violent or repressive towards others? I dunno how many times, but I almost got tired of hearing it.

What he does argue, is that this mild, wishy-washy religion has little to actually do with the myths from the first century, and perhaps it would be better to simply refer to yourself as a deist? or someone who finds the poetry and beauty within the bible and parts of the overall biblical message (I believe Dawkins admits to this himself)

Cornwell seems to ignore the fact (as most critics do) that the very first chapter of TGD is called "A Deeply Religious Non-believer"

Perhaps he should try actually reading the book, and take it for what it is, and not just a "scathing attack on faith", which is the oft-repeated, and slightly off, "synopsis summarized in 4 words"

108. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66570 by BicycleRepairMan on August 30, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Fail to see the relevance??? whaaaa?? isnt this bloody richarddawkins.net????!! You know his LATEST book is called "The God Delusion" but, you know, he's known to have written some other stuff to.. like, I dunno, an 650-pages long backwards history on all this gene-stuff called "The Ancestor's Tale" pictured on the right hand sider here.. He's also written 4 or 5 other books almost entirely related to this article, but maybe that doesnt count?

109. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66560 by BicycleRepairMan on August 30, 2007 at 12:18 pm

One is almost tempted to accuse Harris of beating the dead horse, (with me cheering at the side), but only because after reading Sam's Books and previous articles, the horse ought to have been buried already. Unfortunately, someone's playing Weekend-at-Bernies with that horse like there is no tomorrow. Hopefully this article will make a few more people see the strings they use to drag its stiffening limbs around. Swing it, Sam.

110. Another view

Comment #66203 by BicycleRepairMan on August 29, 2007 at 9:11 am

it still wouldn't make homeopathy invalid. Under the right circumstances, people get great results. I was in practice for 20 years, and I wasn't treating idiots.

Well, if you think the placebo-effect is a result of the patient being an idiot, then you are the shallow, close-minded one here, not Dawkins. Homeopathic "medicine" is PURE WATER, it cant, in principle, have ANY effect other than placebo(and perhaps relieving some thirst.) If the water has "memory" then every bottle of homeopathic "medicine" would also "remember" that it once was dog-piss, hippo-womit, saltwater, beer, coca-cola , acid rain, bathwater for the a T-rex and a billion other things with probably limited positive effects on peoples health.

I'd perhaps speculate, that a patient recieving homeopathic medicine from a "doctor" who also believes in homeopathy, might have a BETTER placebo effect than one who gets sugar pills from a doctor who knows he is lying., it might be that patients who recieve placebo might, conciously or not, suspect the doctor of lying, because the doctor IS actually lying. When somebody gives you something, and they themselves GENUINELY THINKS it has some effect (as opposed to a placebo-administering doctor)then the placebo may be more effective Its sort-of like a double-blind test..

111. Anger over 'blasphemous' balls

Comment #65924 by BicycleRepairMan on August 27, 2007 at 11:37 am

Give me an R!, give me a P!, give me an E!

Sing with me : Religion Poisons Everything.


The more I see of such utter nonsense, the more I like Hitchens American undertitle, if he's going for "build up that wall!" as his slogan, I think I will borrow this as my slogan.

112. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65276 by BicycleRepairMan on August 23, 2007 at 12:51 pm

The successful meme strikes again, religion poisons everything, everywhere, at all times. it will use any opportunity to infect its victims, and thus secure its own memetic life. It has always disgusted me how it exploits the vulnerability of the desperate, the grieving and the ignorant. All clergy should be locked up under martial law, because they, like all criminals, have the potential to do even more damage than usual.

113. Enemies of Reason

Comment #64970 by BicycleRepairMan on August 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Seriously I cant stop laughing at the part where that loony woman explains the 12-strand DNA from Atlantis to RICHARD DAWKINS, thats so far, far beyond priceless. And that "Oh, Really...?" look on Dawkins face as he patiently listens, you just cant fake that.

114. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #64935 by BicycleRepairMan on August 22, 2007 at 12:39 pm

I dont really see the point of these tactics-debates, in my view, there is both room, and need, for both "reason" approaches, both outright hostile Hitchen attacks and subtle Dennett'ing, also throw in the comedy approach for good measure (George Carlin kicks ass) Not one of these approaches will deconvert the faithful, but in the fullness of time, they all play their little part. A devotee needs sometimes to hear that its possible to take the completely opposite view.

In large parts of the Islamic world, a popular method of indoctrination is simply "Denial of Existence" Homosexuals dont exist, atheists dont exist, sexual abuse doesnt exist, and so on, it may sound absurd, but its actually quite common. One guy on national TV going "Nope, there is no God, sorry" wont convert, but it may spark a fuse or two somewhere.

Its all trickle trickle, like evolution, it might take a few generations longer than we expect, but before we know it, atheism will flourish.

115. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64930 by BicycleRepairMan on August 22, 2007 at 12:18 pm

actually they usually use 21:30 for the Big bang "revelation":

Creation [21:30-33]
Have not the unbelievers then beheld that the heavens and the earth were a mass all sewn up, and then We unstitched them and of water fashioned every living thing? Will they not believe? And We set in the earth firm mountains lest it should shake with them, and We set in it ravines to serve as ways, that haply so they may be guided; and We set up the heaven as a roof well-protected; yet still from Our signs they are turning away. It is He who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each swimming in a sky.

This is claimed to refer to the singularity that exploded. And again, as in nearly every verse the disdain and contempt for the unbelievers are again repeated..

116. God's Still Dead

Comment #64911 by BicycleRepairMan on August 22, 2007 at 10:20 am

"God's Still Dead"

Is suddenly Nietzsche's choice of words not so histrionic and self-contradictory as Hitchens points out in God is Not Great?(an equally "fallicious" title,by the same standard)

I was shocked by Hitchens write-off and ridicule of Nietzsche's "God is dead":

The decay and collapse and discredit of god-worship does not begin at any dramatic moment, such as Nietzsche's histrionic and self-contradictory pronouncement that god was dead. Nietzche could no more have known this, or made the assumption that god had ever been alive, than a priest or a witch doctor could ever declare that he knew god's will.

In actual fact, Nietzsche put the words in the mouth of a MADMAN, running around screaming at science for having "killed God". What Nietzsche means, is of course that the idea of God is dead, and furthermore, he more than hints that only a madman will see this as a tragedy, thus placing himself as perhaps the closest ally Hitchens could ever hope to find in the history of philosophy, hell it could probably serve as an even better undertitle to his book than "How Religion Poisons Everything.

I also dislike how Hitchens consistently refers to God as god, it makes no sense to remove capital letters just because someone happens to be a fictional character.

These things, and the whole Iraq war thing, is my rant on Hitchens, other than that, he's really cool, IMO.

117. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64523 by BicycleRepairMan on August 20, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Gravel is the man here, the only honest, decent person on stage.

And he will be elected as soon as clinton, obama and possibly 3 or 4 of the other candidates are dead, the Niagara falls has catched fire, and Sahara is covered in 40 feet snow. Good luck America, you'll need it.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Mike-Gravel-at-SC-Debates-042607

118. Bill Maher Making New Documentary Movie, 'Religulous'

Comment #64313 by BicycleRepairMan on August 19, 2007 at 2:10 pm

I'm looking forward to God's Warriors as well, but I half expect it to take the "Most faith and religion is good for people, but there are some exceptions"-type of view, that I find to be unhelpful so far. The problem is the unhealthy amount of respect awarded to meaningless terms like "faith"

119. Bill Maher Making New Documentary Movie, 'Religulous'

Comment #64291 by BicycleRepairMan on August 19, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Perhaps, but I think its an interesting idea, and if it reaches the big-screen (I hope it will) it will reach a much greater audience, and hopefully stir up some debate.

120. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63651 by BicycleRepairMan on August 15, 2007 at 8:05 am

and there's no excuse these days because with the internet they could order Armistead Maupin novels on Amazon and they'd be out to the caves of Tora Bora within a fortnight

Does this lack of communication to arguably large parts of the world mean we should just sit back an not say anything? If we held the same standard when we discovered germs, an argument against washing your hands might be: "Alot of people doesnt have access to clean water?"

There is really no excuse not to keep the world updated on scientific progress and break down these ancient superstitions. 150 years from now, Afghanistan might be among the worlds richest countries, and that Tora-Bora peasants grandson may sit at a coffee-shop in Kabuls hottest shopping district, counting the passing mini-skirts.

121. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63461 by BicycleRepairMan on August 14, 2007 at 12:21 pm

-Did you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your brain? Its true, look it up.

-Now, I know some of you are gonna say "I did look it up, and its not true", But thats because you looked it up in a book. Books are elitist. Try looking it up in your gut, thats were the truth is. -Stephen Colbert.

122. Science and the Islamic World

Comment #62746 by BicycleRepairMan on August 11, 2007 at 6:49 am

I agree with Giskard on this one, surely the invention of algebra was important and all, as is naming stars, but if we say tha the Islamic world, has been millions (now billion) of people going about their business for 1300 years, then statistically, they OUGHT to have come up with some discoveries, some Newtons, some Darwins, or Einsteins out there. The fact that the collected discoveries done in the islamic world are so relatively small, would suggest to me that _something_ has been preventing progress, intellectual enligthenment and science, and I think I know what that something is: Islam.

And how could it not, the belief that one book holds the inerrant, unreformable, final word of God, really pulls some of the excitement of discovering something new out of it all, doesnt it? It really seems as if there really is no point in even trying; after all, God has ALL the ultimate answers, and he's even been kind enough to write them all up in a convenient book for all to read (well all experts on ancient butchered arabic, that is)

123. Dissing Deism

Comment #62640 by BicycleRepairMan on August 10, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Dawkins can be really funny sometimes, I recently read the Ancestor's Tale, and it mostly pretty sober,(But NEVER boring, mind you) and when I got thru like 600 pages, Dawkins brings up that chain letters only need a "steady supply of idiots", I dont think I've ever laughed so hard at a book, I had to take the longest pause, just to finish the sentence... Now that I rewrite it its not nearly as funny, but it was one of those you-had-to-be-there moments iguess

124. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62111 by BicycleRepairMan on August 8, 2007 at 7:50 am

Looks like the metaphors have gone off the boil a bit here. So long as we all know the difference between Beethoven, Metallica, or "nothing", we stand a fairly good chance of reaching a consensus on the contents of the CD (which is close enough to "objectivity" for our purposes). However, if the discussion turns to the relative merits of Beethoven or Metallica, we have ourselves an altogether different type of discussion.

I dont think thats what he meant at all, let me try to put it more plausibly, if you will: lets say you and some friends are lost in the woods, its dark, you're all tired, hungry and a bit scared; suddenly one guy says "hey did you hear/see that? sounded like a wolf!" and then the next guy says "Do you mean that snake-like sound?" third guy thinks it was a bear, and so on. If you heard nothing yourself, what would you make of their claims? Wouldnt you be wisest to past judgement when everyone does hear something, and it sounds to everyone like a specific animal??

The metaphor is meant to represent the different religions, every major religion make mutually incompatible claims about the universe, but as long as its just ignorance talking, none of them are really likely to be true. Without evidence, its just baseless assumptions..

125. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61859 by BicycleRepairMan on August 7, 2007 at 6:45 am

Science cannot explain the origin of the universe.

There is no evidence for this whatever and no logic to it.

These two sentences should be right next to eachother, what evidence does this writer have that science will not ever be able to explain the origin of the universe? None at all. So if we still, for the sake of argument, accept this as true: "Science will NEVER answer that" then what will? A hell of a guess? Scripture?

Thought so. Science doesnt have all the answers spelled out for you, but its the best effort so far.

126. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61717 by BicycleRepairMan on August 6, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Ok, it might be getting out of hand, I chicken out, its a bit mean

127. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61714 by BicycleRepairMan on August 6, 2007 at 1:20 pm

This is gonna be the best thread ever

128. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61709 by BicycleRepairMan on August 6, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Pic1: Darwins Rottweiler
Pic2: Jesus' Poodle


I am sorry, it needed to come out

129. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #61661 by BicycleRepairMan on August 6, 2007 at 7:31 am

WONG!, this doesn't prove that there is no God. Logically this doesn't rule out an incompetent God who guided evolution with a shaky hand and screwed up royally and often along the way.

I never said "proved". But in my view, even an incompetent God is self-evidently not present. because we KNOW who is doing the selection: the environment. a "guiding god", no matter how incompetent, would mean that species would be picked, modified or whatever BEFORE natural selection kicks in, and there is nothing to suggest such guidance.

130. The Out Campaign

Comment #60996 by BicycleRepairMan on August 3, 2007 at 9:26 am

And by the way the Bible says nothing about the time the universe was created

Ah, You've opened my eyes! now that I read these 10 different translations of the Bible, with the Christian delusion glasses firmly on, I know exactly what you mean!! Thanks!
NASB: God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (NASB ©1995)
GWT: And God saw everything that he had made and that it was very good. There was evening, then morning-the sixth day.(GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
ASV: And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
BBE: And God saw everything which he had made and it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
DBY: And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day.
ERV: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
JPS: And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
WBS: And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
WEB: God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
YLT: And God seeth all that He hath done, and lo, very good; and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day the sixth.

131. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #60991 by BicycleRepairMan on August 3, 2007 at 9:13 am

I've got an mp3 of Dawkins talking at the Edinburgh Literary festival a couple of years ago, before the GD came out. How do I post it on this site?

Attach it to an email and send it to contact@richarddawkins.net . alternatively, you can post it on a place like http://www.yousendit.com and put a link to it in a post here..

132. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #60659 by BicycleRepairMan on August 2, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Josh keep an eye on your mailbox. Email from me in the next 30 mins. I'm just running off an mp3 conversion of the .ram file posted.

Thats cool, If anyone could post this on YouTube (or google video, or dailymotion) as well, it would be much appreciated. Yes, I know it sounds counter-intuitive to post an audio-file in video format, but there is actually alot of good audio there(on YT) and I can also post it on VideoSift, which by the way, is an excellent site, a sort of Youtube for mature people who doesnt want to waste endless hours on video diaries.. Its a video democracy/natural selection site where only the strongest survive :) http://www.videosift.com

133. The Out Campaign

Comment #60612 by BicycleRepairMan on August 2, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Atheism is not a choice? That's an interesting one. So none of you chose to be atheists. You are brainwashed? Or are you really saying that atheism is so right that anyone who is intelligent will be an atheist and therefore, because intelligence is not a choice, atheism isn't as well. Its difficult to know what to do with such arrogance – other than to file in along with the other proofs that fundamentalism is alive and well in atheist circles.

Atheism is not a choice because you cant choose what to believe in, either you believe it, or not. I I told you "I have a pink elephant" You cant "choose" whether or not to believe me, Either you do or you dont.

A man can do as he will, but not will as he will.

Again the old request for evidence. You will of course need to define what you mean by evidence.

No it doesnt. Evidence is evidence, and thats it. Either you have it or you dont. Evidence doesnt have to be "Measured with an instrument" Thats a strawman-argument against healthy skeptisism. Evidence is something that shows, convincingly, and for all to see, that X could be true. In some ways, its completely pointless of me, or anyone else to argue with you, for example, because you show no evidence that you understand the concept of evidence. Get it? We didnt need instruments to conclude that did we?

As for unbaptised babies – don't be absurd.
Whether a baby is baptized or not has nothing to do with their salvation.

No, of course not, its not like we believe silly old books here, now, is it.

Personally I believe that all children who die in infancy go to heaven.

Yeah, because surely, that isnt absurd at all.

134. The Out Campaign

Comment #60528 by BicycleRepairMan on August 2, 2007 at 6:31 am

I know he can, but I was just curious as to when he last did some serious science, as opposed to atheistic propaganda.

Imagine a meteorologist, writing books and articles about weather, maybe he mentions, as a curiosity, that vikings used to think the rumbling of thunder was Thor's sleight, roaring over head, and the lightning bolts were his giant hammer hitting iron. "We now know better, of course", he writes, not realizing that 500 axe-wielding bearded norsemen is waiting outside his door, -How dare he, we are looking forward to eating that undead pig every night, and as much mjoed as a man can muster, when we get to Valhalla! Silly meteorologist, who does he think he is?! Facing up to the mighty Thor! Get back to predicting the weather, you scum, and stop spreading that Anti-Thor propaganda!!

135. The Out Campaign

Comment #60316 by BicycleRepairMan on August 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Please explain why. I realise that most of the book is taken up with evolution but there are still at least five pages which come make the usual Dawkins quantum leap and somehow manage to turn this into an attack on God.

Look, if I said: "The reason our brains grew so large in comparison to other animals, was a particular week 6 million years ago with some heavy rain and lightning storms"

How should an evolutionary biologist respond to such a "theory", the answer is of course: not at all. The idea is simply too ridiculous, and it goes against EVERYTHING we know about evolution and natural selection, it creates a whole bunch more questions than it provides answers, and its based on absolutely no evidence at all.. Starting to sound familiar??

However, when such a loony idea is not just commonplace, but outright the most popular of them all, and passed blindly from one generation to the next, it becomes impossible to ignore. God is genuinly INCOMPATIBLE with terms like "natural selection" and "evolution"

What you percieve as "Attacks on God" is simply a realistic , unafraid statement of the scientifically sane.

Dawkins even refers, at one point to group selection* as "a delusion", This isnt an "Unscientific Attack on Group selectionists" because he EXPLAINS WHY, thats the scientific method, you see. Nor does it mean that he thinks people who insist on group-selection as mentally unfit and delusional. Its a debunking of ideas.

TAT is 99,99% of the book ignoring gods completely, because they have nothing to do with the real world that book describes.

*IIRC, it may have been some other specific disagreement, my statement still stands.

136. The Out Campaign

Comment #59973 by BicycleRepairMan on July 31, 2007 at 9:34 am

Bicyclerepairman I've only just started reading the Ancestor's tail, so I couldn't comment. It's a sad reflection on dishonest Dave, but my initial thaought was "bet you're lying matey and you have'nt read it

To be perfectly honest myself, I'm on page 591, like 30 pages away from finishing it, just put it down to make these posts, but the reason for my rather harsh accusation is that TAT never, for one moment goes on to become "god-delusion-like" at all,but its not exactly implying that Dawkins is impressed by 6-day creation theory either. It does have some "Previously people thought the gods did this" remarks, but no more than a meteorologist might mention Thor's lightning hammer in a book about weather.

137. The Out Campaign

Comment #59969 by BicycleRepairMan on July 31, 2007 at 9:07 am

As regards The Ancestor's Tale, it is an excellent book, well written and highly informative. But where it falls down, is when you leave the science and go on to your philosophical views about the existence of God. There is no reason or objectivity in your arguments and it just seems to be the usual rant about religion in the midst of an otherwise excellent and stimulating scientific book. You keep making this equation between your science and your philosophical beliefs and yet ironically you show no absolute connection, and in so doing actually undermine both.

Ouch, I think our little flea just broke one of them commandments thingies. You have obviously NEVER read The Ancestor's Tale, and this post reveals it so obviously.

Nor have you understood the principle of natural selection, which is that God, never interfere with the process, which doesn't just make him superfluous, but actually a gigantic OBSTACLE in our attempt to figure it out.

Imagine if some people thought special "life-rays" from Betelgeuse was "guiding" natural selection, lets say a scientist claimed so, the obvious reply from any scientist, or any reasonable person, would be "thats just nonsense", and "that goes against everything we know about natural selection and evolution"* And in light of what we KNOW is true about natural selection, thats exactly what God is: Nonsense. I'm sorry, I cant think of a more polite way of putting it.

*Edit: By the way, thats not because the imaginary "rays" I just invented is so impossible or silly(they are, but bear with me) its because of the effect such "guiding" would have on evolution, if there was any kind of guide, evolution would not be the extremely wasteful, gradual and auto-correcting phenomena we know that it is.

138. Religion is Hard

Comment #59660 by BicycleRepairMan on July 30, 2007 at 4:17 am

"Put those glasses back on!"

Almost fell off my chair laughing

139. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58958 by BicycleRepairMan on July 26, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Why do we even bother trying to argue with these morons. 99% of the posts he read there was bad half-jokes and sarcasm. I guess a brain created in one day might have trouble with those of us who have evolved over millions.

140. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58785 by BicycleRepairMan on July 26, 2007 at 5:57 am

Nail soup, thats what Hedges cooks here. Nails make great soup, you just have to add ham, potatoes, oatmeal and everthing else to it, and still claim its a soup made entirely from boiling a 6-inch nail.

Wherever Chris Hedges got his verb-God from, he didnt pull it out of the bible.

Any society based on the good book alone, is an intolerant, racist hell-hole. Only when confronted with 3000 years of science and common sense, can you pull this moderate wishy-washy stuff out of the bible.

God is not a moderate. God is man-made, as is the bible, as is Hedges "faith", so lets just not play with words: You are not a Christian, Chris Hedges, and that makes you a better person.

141. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58538 by BicycleRepairMan on July 25, 2007 at 6:25 am

Interesting to hear Hitchens say he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus. I wonder why and when he came to this view.

Jesus if fairly badly documented outside the bible, and most research have been done by people who really,really wants him to be real..

My understanding is that he is a composed character, put together by one or more actual personalities, and mixed up with common myths and rumors, as well as a strong wish to believe he fulfilled the promises of the old testament Nothing was written down until long after Jesus was dead..

142. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58533 by BicycleRepairMan on July 25, 2007 at 6:16 am

Moderate Christians reminds me of an old folk tale we have here in Norway, entitled Nail Soup. the story goes like this:

The bum in the story is looking for a free meal, so he tells the farmers wife he knows how to cook soup on a nail, and nothing more.

Unconvinced, the woman agrees to let him show her, so he cooks up some water and throws in a nail. -It's nearly done, he says, It'd be even better if we had some oatmeal, but this'll do.. Wait!, says the woman, I do have some oatmeal.. And the man keeps going, "You know, some potatoes and beef would REALLY do the trick..."

And it turns out to be a terrific soup, all cooked on a single nail...

Anyway, to a moderate Christian, Christianity is like this nail! "I get all my morality from a nail!" "The nail is always right!" and so on, so when Christopher Hitchens comes along, and says "Here, eat this nail then, if its so great" then suddenly its all "I wont eat my nails without the oatmeal..."

143. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58037 by BicycleRepairMan on July 23, 2007 at 4:49 am

First he claims Paley is irrelevant with this whole silly "design" argument..

Then he attacks Dawkins for seeing design as the only God-argument , a direct lie, since Dawkins address all the known arguments, atleast 8 different ones, (ontological, scripture,bayesian etc..) That all of these arguments are rather silly and/or variations of the same, doesnt exactly make Dawkins position weaker..

Then comes the exciting moment when the Rev. prepares to present his argument, presumably a new, good one.. And it turns out to be Paley all-over. intermixed with evolution and God hiding in the gaps, badly re-phrased and he even mentions beauty.

He also shows a lack of understanding of evolution, which not only works without God, but it works precisely BECAUSE there is no God, no "guide" to it, had there been one, the process would not work, and the fossil records etc would look all together different, and less wasteful, for instance. Because of the sheer amount of "waste", non-surivors, failed and extinct species, we KNOW that evolution works without Gods interference. At best God is a wishful addition, at worst, he destroys the process itself..

Then, as a last act of complete ignorance, he attacks science for its ability to change its mind, which of course, to the reverend, mean that what you think is true is more uncertain.

For instance, if I say that "I dont think there will be a war here in Norway in the next five years, it seems extremely improbable given the current peaceful situation here now, but of course, I could turn out to be wrong" VS "I know, for sure there WILL be a war in 5 years, and even if the situation is just as stable and peaceful in 4 years and 11 months, there is no way in hell I will change my mind!"

It seems obvious to me, that the first method is almost infinitely superior, and atleast as likely to be true.

He also, as all theists, disregard the difference in certainty that exist within science, there is no way that evolution by natural selection can be wholly disregarded for instance, the evidence is in, and we know it like we know the earth is sphere-shaped. New evidence wont make the earth banana-shaped.

144. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

Comment #57481 by BicycleRepairMan on July 19, 2007 at 1:29 pm

represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory

Its again interesting to note that until-now somewhat plausable, or atleast interesting ideas are discarded with such a "final blow", and obviously no scientist would raise an eyebrow. By the same standard, when will the "final blow" to religious ideas finally show up?

Oh, wait..

145. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57380 by BicycleRepairMan on July 19, 2007 at 4:30 am

1. Lots of people are not exposed to an alternative to faith. Muslims even like to outright deny the fact that atheism even exists, just like they deny that homosexuality is real. Its not just that its wrong, it doesnt even exist to them. So nobody will get converted by a forum post, or a youtube video, or an atheist website, or a book, or five, but atleast they are shown people that seems perfectly happy with their atheist lives, and I guarantee that that has some influence on some people.

2.In a world with 21st century weapons mixed with 1st century ideology, we dont have time to "live and let live" to the extent that apologists wants us to.

146. Muslim heads stuck firmly in the sand

Comment #56753 by BicycleRepairMan on July 17, 2007 at 5:50 am

My mother (and most people) seriously thought *capitalists* were all atheists.

Interesting fact for those Americans who keeps viewing communists as the godless heathens.

Seems we atheists are the ultimate bad guys for both sides :)

147. Darwin or Design

Comment #56720 by BicycleRepairMan on July 17, 2007 at 3:34 am

PZ's atheism is held at least as dogmatically....

BEEEP!

The difference between his held opinions, is that , unlike you, he can change his mind. All he asks for is the evidence.

People like you cant, almost by definition, change your minds, even if we gave you a video of evolution happening in real-time(Which is impossible because it takes thousands of years) you would come up with some phony way to "disprove" it, and thus, by default of course, making your extremely unlikely thesis instantly The Truth As Predicted By The Bible

That, you see, is dogma, PZ Myers holds his views based on the evidence available. And the evidence for evolution by natural selection happens to be so strong, it would simply take an idiot to deny it. PZ Myers isnt any more dogmatic then you are a spherical-earth-dogmatist, if some idiot comes an claims its banana-shaped, he should be happy if you even respond to him at all.

148. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56323 by BicycleRepairMan on July 15, 2007 at 2:50 am

Peacebeuponme I totally agree, I've always thought of the "There must be some ultimate right or wrong" as a complete non-argument, along with the "We are not perfect so someone or something must be.." How these argument were ever any better than "My car is a rusty old shit, that couldnt do 60mph if hell froze over, therefore, it follows that the perfect car, capable of moving at the speed of light, must exist" But even if it ever was, evolution destroys any credibility this thinking once had, because it explains where we got "right from wrong" from in the first place, and ofcourse how our "near-but-not-perfect" bodies and minds came about.

149. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56317 by BicycleRepairMan on July 15, 2007 at 1:39 am

I wish to disagree with the idea that science is the answer to everything. In my view, it's more important to say that reasoned inquiry of the provable and demonstrable are more important, and I don't see this and science as the same things. If the scientific method is useful in that process, then good, but that method is only a subset of the act of rational discourse based on sound reasoning and verifiable facts.

Well, this is really play with words, "reasoned inquiry of the provable and demonstrable" is really what Dawkins/Atheists promotes, and it really is a basic description of the "scientific method". And the "scientific method" really is the only option on the table worth considering in my opinion, as opposed to the "Spin the bottle method" that I think is a fitting description of religion.

The problem with these faith-defenders view is that they think the "scientific method" is one that reduces everything down to cynical robotery and white people in coats. The scientific method can be applied to all walks of life, and in every thinkable case, we'd be better off for it. Anyone who can come up with a situation were "Its better if we are unreasonable right now" or "Its better if we dont think or investigate this stuff" is just flatout wrong, yet this is exactly what religion is, suspension of reason.

"I assume, without evidence, that a Palestinian virgin primate gave birth to Gods son, savior of the universe, some 2000 years ago"

Anyone who takes up completely unreasonable positions like this, is an insult to human intelligence.

150. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55730 by BicycleRepairMan on July 12, 2007 at 5:10 am

You recieve 10 internetpoints from me for that analogy, Konradius :)