










1451. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed
Comment #163099 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 1:54 am
Wonderful. That is one good way to deal with this nonsense - well-produced satire.
1452. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #163098 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 1:51 am
Comment #163094 by Brian English
Even though I have been commenting, I think we should put the Richard M business aside. It is understandable to feel a bit hurt when someone like that "changes sides" and slags us all off, but, really, does it matter that much? I don't think so. Also, it does give perhaps un-earned publicity to one person. Anyway, that is just my thoughts.
On the other hand, any subject which leads Brian to post does have an advantage!
This business of generalising about atheists is common, and has turned up in a place that was unexpected for me. I have been having a formal debate (my next response up soon) with a theologist. I assumed we were on good terms, but then he goes and blogs about "atheists sneering about faith", in the context of his wife having been ill (but fortunately fine now) during her recent pregnancy. He may choose to believe God helped his famility, but I would give all the praise to doctors. However, to leverage that for an attack on "atheists" was pretty awful emotional manipulation. In a friendly manner, I objected to this, but got back the reply that I was an unusual exception, and anyway he was talking about the "Dawkins" types.
Maybe we need some kind of classification of atheists, so we can use the "not my kind of atheism" excuse? (I am not an atheist of species Atheistus Dawkinsii) Or perhaps not...
1453. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #163093 by Steve Zara on April 18, 2008 at 1:40 am
What is macro-evolution but micro-evolution taken to greater lengths?
1454. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap
Comment #162842 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Comment #162830 by Santi Tafarella
As for the ID film, why is this an either/or proposition with you? Can't you concede that you might leave the film with a bit of fresh cultural insight, and maybe even an isolated point or two on which you might conclude, "Maybe in this regard, the makers of the film are on to something that I should stay sensitive to"?
1455. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops
Comment #162826 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Maybe if they are like... super ugly, then this becomes less of a reality. And, a friend wants to know.... what are these ways?????
1456. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord
Comment #162823 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Possibly the advent of agricultural societies made it less necessary to have non-reproductive individuals in each family, but they were still knocking around thanks to their evolved genetics and had to find something else to do to make themselves useful?
1457. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops
Comment #162822 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Comment #162818 by MPhil
What you say is true, but these are priests. They have a support network, and aren't surrounded by people pressuring them into this activity. If they seriously want to get laid, there are ways.
1458. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops
Comment #162815 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Comment #162811 by Podaar
I'm sorry to say Steve, I have some pretty compelling anecdotal evidence that suppression may lead to rape. I think the subject deserves study.
1459. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord
Comment #162813 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:49 pm
So is this kind of social structure an evolutionarily stable strategy for managing the affairs of human tribes? Might it have evolved that way?
1460. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops
Comment #162802 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Comment #162727 by Dinah
Vacuum cleaners don't have feelings, and don't suffer trama from sexual activity.
Healthy adult sex is about consent, as you have to persuade the partner. Sex with children is a form of rape. I don't think it is reasonable or acceptable to say that supressed sexual activity can lead to rape. People are, in general, better than that.
Comment #162798 by al-rawandi
I think the priesthood may well attract molesters. Attempts at celibacy may be a way to supress awkward sexual appetites.
1461. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162784 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Comment #162774 by MPhil
This is just a minor thing, but I think this could be phrased better:
1462. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord
Comment #162780 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Comment #161594 by jac12358
If you can show me the non-biological-but-not-genetic source of this "proclivity" and
how it sustains in our species, then please do.
1463. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162740 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:39 am
Comment #162739 by mesomodel
You are way out of date. We have updated our dogma. We worship Kiwis now. They are solitary birds, so the capacity for odour is probably more limited.
1464. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162738 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:34 am
Comment #162736 by al-rawandi
So I could compromise and say all morality is absolute and defined in the essence of the Kiwi bird.
1465. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162735 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:27 am
Comment #162728 by al-rawandi
I like to use penguins in this context:
The laws of logic and the foundations of absolute morality of requires penguins.
I mean, why not? Penguins are cute, and it makes as much sense as to say "Big Sky Fairy". It also might make people more concerned about global warming.. fewer penguins, less goodness and logic.
1466. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162726 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 11:08 am
Comment #162715 by thisisme
Like the laws of logic, which I believe are self-defined within God's character
1467. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops
Comment #162687 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 8:45 am
Comment #162685 by Dinah
It should be obvious that a celibate priest with no other outlet for satisfying his sexual urges may seek out young children who are powerless and unable to protest.
1468. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162668 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 7:57 am
Bonzai-
But I don't know whether he is motivated by his "moderate" religious belief or by traditional belief that the King should represent all his subjects and British styled "multi-culturalism", which is a secular idea.
1469. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162667 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 7:54 am
Comment #162665 by irate_atheist
I think what brother john may be saying is:
Being entirely reasonable is just so awful, therefore I can believe in God.
1470. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162633 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:52 am
Comment #162632 by Bonzai
True, but he is someone, and someone with, unfortunately, influence.
1471. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162629 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:48 am
Comment #162624 by Frankus1122
All I am after is a label on packets of faith:
"Warning - can seriously endanger your mind"
1472. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162627 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:45 am
Bonzai-
You can question them on what criteria they use, but no one ever makes blanket endorsement of any faith.
1473. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162618 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:22 am
Bonzai-
No, they should be classified by their methods
to believe. There are moderates who are intense in their beliefs, just that they don't think the belief should only be derived from one book and that it doesn't preclude other data.
1474. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162615 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:19 am
Bonzai-
What my smoking example was meant to show was that just because the majority of people may not be significantly harmed by something does not mean we should not consider that thing a real problem.
It was to show that it was reasonable to put forward the position that "moderates" could be empowering "fundamentalists" by claiming that faith was good. The issue of whether or not they are empowering fundamentalists is another question. Personally, I believe they do.
1475. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162612 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:13 am
Bonzai-
Sorry man, you're begging the question. By using smoking as an analogy you already subsumed that any kind of belief is not only harmful, but toxic,
I don't want to get into another endless debate with you over this here because I don't have a lot of time today
1476. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162605 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 6:02 am
Many months ago I noticed that those who seemed to be the most "well-balanced" (who am I to judge?) either posted quite rarely or didn't stay long
Honestly, Quetz, I think he's best ignored.
1477. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162593 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 5:42 am
But I can't quite reconcile that with some of the people I know and love who, although they drive me crazy with their inability to see that what they believe seems a bit silly, are nonetheless lovely people.
1478. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162553 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 4:06 am
Comment #162542 by Sargeist
The problem is when the idea of believing things that are not true is considered a good thing in general.
1479. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162535 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 3:47 am
Comment #162514 by Egomaniac
The mechanism in my mind is that a higher power manages those processes.
1480. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162497 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 3:08 am
Comment #162494 by Egomaniac
You are still confusing "hope" with "meaning".
Is there any other conceivable mechanism for such a thing to happen?
1481. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162486 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:54 am
Comment #162482 by Egomaniac
You seem to be confusing "hope" with "meaning".
Neither of these seems possible without the existence of some higher power, does it?
1482. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162472 by Steve Zara on April 17, 2008 at 2:39 am
Comment #162468 by Egomaniac
Perhaps you could explain something that has been puzzling me for some time. Why does the supposed existence of a God who can do anything to us any time he likes, and who watches our every move and knows our every thought add meaning?
1483. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162277 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Comment #162272 by Diacanu
Yes. But don't worry. I have become even more atheist to compensate.
1484. Evolution fray attracts top scientist
Comment #162269 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Comment #162266 by epeeist
I am over 40. Hence I have no idea of these "bot-nets" of which you write.
1485. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162268 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Steve Zara: I was a theist until I was 23, I'm now just about 30. It was a very difficult process to let go of theology, especially in regards to death.
1486. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162263 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Comment #162251 by Bonzai
Dammit, I am going to have to agree with you again.
I have no doubts that D-I-Ogenes was him.
1487. Evolution fray attracts top scientist
Comment #162262 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Anyone who really wants to be understandable to the largest potential audience will write on a wiki.
1488. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162259 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Comment #162167 by Sargeist
My conclusion has been for some time now that, in some way I cannot quite fathom, they must *know* that their beliefs are nonsense, that they are skating on thin evidentiary ice, that they are wasting their time on an insubstantial apparition of a parody of a worthwhile endeavour. And because they know that everything will crash down at the slightest breath, they really cannot permit themselves to acknowledge any chinks of doubt.
1489. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss
Comment #162210 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 10:53 am
Now that it is available as DVD's, I don't know if anyone is buying it.
1490. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162140 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 8:14 am
Al-
I made a New Year's resolution to have zero tolerance for bull shit and morons. I generally let loose on people who fit in either or both of those categories.
I don't really feel bad. And neither should anyone else. We are held in utter contempt by the credulous fucktards, I don't see why we owe them any kindness.
1491. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162128 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 7:57 am
Dr B-
The dyad does not provoke the curious question, "which group do I belong in?"
Both sorts of group statements provoke the question, "what did I say?"
A kindly mentor, like mom, offers much praise and only muted criticism. It's rather nice when someone puts your artwork up on the fridge.
1492. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162114 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 7:24 am
Comment #162113 by Dr Benway
To be fair, he did say "some who post here".
I am not sure, but might it not be reasonable, if someone has concerns, to say "I feel that some posts here can sometimes be a bit too [mild/angry/whatever]", as long as they don't say "You lot are all...."?
1493. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162102 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:51 am
Comment #162094 by BillySands
What I do find bizarre, and also just a bit upsetting, is why would RM turn to Robertson? He knows David has lied. He has seen David's attempts at emotional manipulation. For goodness sake, if RM wanted to go back to religion, there are plenty of far nicer preachers and far nicer religions. It seems every so slightly masochistic to me.
1494. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162093 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:42 am
Comment #162092 by hungarianelephant
We are having such a friendly rational debate about this. I can imagine on some Christian forums there might be talk of "hearing the Devil"...
1495. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162091 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:38 am
Comment #162089 by al-rawandi
As you approach the speed of light won't your mass increase exponentially? I don't know if I want to put on that kind of weight.
1496. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162087 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:32 am
Comment #162085 by Peacebeuponme
So what you are saying is that, if we started to move one end of a wormhole around now, and kept doing so, then future generations would theoretically be able to come back to an earlier point depending on how fast we could move the end, but that we can never go further back than now?
What does this mean for time travel in to the future?
1497. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162083 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:21 am
Why shouldn't people congregate in churches? They just don't need to pray.
1498. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162080 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 6:15 am
Comment #162077 by Peacebeuponme
Theoretically, you can use wormholes for time travel. That isn't the problem with what Karda is saying.
The problem is that you can only use a wormhole for time travel once you have set it up as a time machine, which involves moving one end of it around at close to the speed of light, so it is subject to significant time dilation.
Suppose you move one end around so fast that over a period of a thousand years, it only experiences ten years of duration. There is then a 990 year time difference between the ends!
A wormhole may have been around for a billion years, but that does not mean you can get back to a billion years ago.
1499. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162066 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 5:33 am
Steve, I commend you, but you are talking to somebody who hears voices in his head. You can debate till the world turns to ice, it won't change an iota of his opinion. The thread is already deteriorating to "science smacks of faith" after a relatively promising start.
Karda doesn't seem unintelligent and seems likeable, he reminds me a little of Revcourt,
1500. Lying for Jesus?
Comment #162061 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 5:14 am
Comment #161983 by MPhil
I am not that sad about RM. If he finds happiness, good for him. What is sad he fell into the clutches of the lying toad David Robertson.
What I feel RM was after was a mentor - someone charismatic to provide comfort. He didn't find that here.
It does illustrate a point some rationalist campaigners make: what support or community do you provide if you take away religion from someone's life?