1851. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109901 by irate_atheist on January 10, 2008 at 2:41 am

390. Comment #109891 by wooter

You forgot the coconut. So well packaged for our mammalian use. Try opening one with your teeth.

You forgot mushrooms and other fungi. How delectable are Amanita muscaria and Amanita phalloides. Yum yum.

1852. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109622 by irate_atheist on January 9, 2008 at 9:30 am

381. Comment #109617 by al-rawandi -

Hold your own chorizo - leave mine alone.

1853. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109547 by irate_atheist on January 9, 2008 at 7:05 am

354. Comment #109510 by wooter -

Ah, yes, the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental.

1854. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109470 by irate_atheist on January 9, 2008 at 5:34 am

39. Comment #109467 by coretemprising -

Splitter!

1855. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #109129 by irate_atheist on January 8, 2008 at 12:09 pm

"A primitive death cult masquerading as a religion".


What a classic.

1856. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #107122 by irate_atheist on January 4, 2008 at 6:21 am

150. Comment #107114 by Peacebeuponme -

Spot on, spot on.

1857. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #106528 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 4:53 am

16. Comment #106527 by PlagioClase -

So what made your God?

1858. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #106516 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 4:25 am

170. Comment #106502 by wooter

1. The ones with swearing like Irates atheist who was asking me to give answer. The bad words belong to the mouth it pops out. Thank God, I did not use any bad word or swearing ones since I started writing on this web page. Insulting comes from weaknesses or being desperate.

Oooh!!!!! Ever so humbled I am!!!!!

1859. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106486 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 3:13 am

53. Comment #106482 by Geoff -

You're fucking nicked me old beauty!

1860. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106484 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 3:07 am

21. Comment #106474 by Tyler Durden -

True, true. But mayhap he's smart enough to not believe his own propaganda? We can but hope, more in faith than certainty.

1861. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106471 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 2:13 am

19. Comment #106469 by Tyler Durden -

Hmm...Obama seems at least sane (in comparison?).

1862. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106467 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 2:04 am

Great. The most powerful nation on earth, quite possible about to be governed by another complete nob-jockey. Beyond tears.

1863. The Pagan Christ

Comment #106466 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 2:03 am

210. Comment #106433 by albondigas -

Not even wrong.

1864. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106465 by irate_atheist on January 3, 2008 at 1:58 am

11. Comment #106353 by Diacanu -

Cookies!!!

1865. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #105994 by irate_atheist on January 2, 2008 at 9:05 am

148. Comment #105988 by DamnDirtyApe -

...the CofE is very much the 'cake or death' religion.

Initially I misread that as the 'cake of death' and was concerned about a marauding herd of mass-poisoning Anglicans. ~Shudders~

1866. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105972 by irate_atheist on January 2, 2008 at 8:29 am

141. Comment #105963 by Philip1978 -

Irate_Junior very happy, thank you. Especially enjoyed any pressies he could (or more accurately put, could attempt to) eat. This includes trains, teddies, cards, blocks etc. Basically anything not nailed to the floor. Yum - tasty!

1867. For the Love of Christ

Comment #105910 by irate_atheist on January 2, 2008 at 5:57 am

71. Comment #102817 by detox -

Splitter!

1868. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105903 by irate_atheist on January 2, 2008 at 5:27 am

Philip1978 -

Happy New Year!

1869. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105902 by irate_atheist on January 2, 2008 at 5:23 am

Wooter -

I'm still waiting patiently to read your answer to my question posed in 92. Comment #105247.

1870. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105247 by irate_atheist on December 31, 2007 at 1:58 am

87. Comment #105231 by wooter -

Are you really thick as shit, or are you just pretending?

1871. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #105246 by irate_atheist on December 31, 2007 at 1:55 am

Jesus fucking wept. You couldn't make it up. You really couldn't.

Edit: Unless, of course, it is actually made up.

1872. Do our leaders believe in God?

Comment #103020 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 7:47 am

5. Comment #102238 by Richard Morgan -

In spite of the Fundies, the extremists and MacDonalds.

Yeah. I hate those crappy fast-food outlets as well.

1873. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103007 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 7:16 am

54. Comment #103003 by ADH -

Mayhap I stand corrected. Although, if the fairy story referred to is Christianity, I'm not sure myself that the Jews invented it. They would have taken credit for it if they had, wouldn't you have thought? After all, what's the point of creating a fairy tale if you then denounce its followers as heretics?

P.S -

Do you agree with this? http://www.bible.ca/s-Dahmer.htm

1874. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #103002 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 6:53 am

61. Comment #102998 by al-rawandi -

Good idea. Anyone got the cash for a one-way ticket to Baghdad?

1875. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102999 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 6:37 am

50. Comment #102985 by ADH -

Another flea for you to swipe at without a second thought

No, I'll take some thought and tear it to shreds.

Behind unsubstantiated assertions, sweeping generalisations and random anecdotal evidence, there's the unmistakable whiff of panic; they fear religion is on the march again.

What assertions, random generalisations and random anecdotal evidence? People flying planes into buildings because of 'faith'? The Inquisition? Catholic doctrine against birth control? The Crusades? Quite a body of evidence in just those four sentences - hardly random or purely 'anecdotal' thank you very much.

He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage.

So, goddidit then? In one assertion by this woman, puff go years of experimental psychology, study of the human mind, primate behaviour etc etc etc.

More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion?

And what does the anthropoligical study of the worlds bizarre, contradictory beliefs tell us apart from the fact they are non-evidence based, bizarre and contradictory. An own goal methinks.

There are three areas in his programmes where the lack of rigour is most striking. First, Dawkins is featured in Jerusalem; the point is that religion causes violence and most of the world's conflicts can be traced back to faith. If only they didn't have segregated schooling in Israel and Palestine then peace could emerge. Likewise in Northern Ireland.

Let's leave the political scientists to point out the absurd simplification of these political struggles over land, rights and resources

Religion provides one more cause for, and 'justification' of wars. One can hardly have a religious crusade without religion being involved somewhere. One can't have Protestants and Catholics fighting over the division of a country - on religious lines - without religion. Many of the squabbles over land - Palestine, anyone? - are caused by religion, lines on ancient books that should be thrown out with the refuse.

the Holocaust about a racist political ideology

So, Judaism is a race, not a religion. News to me.

Crucially it fails to grasp the modern phenomenon of fundamentalism and how religious identity is being mobilised in an attempt to carve out positions of power within a rapidly globalising world; this kind of violent religion is a political product of rapid social and economic change.

And this is a defence of religion and a plea for toleration of it? Again without religion, would so many young men blow themselves up at the behest of their religious/political leaders in the promise of 72 vestal virgins? I think not.

Second, Dawkins mounts a charge of "child abuse" against religious education; it manipulates childish minds, inculcating in them a terror of hell and damnation. On this argument, I'm with Dawkins for a while; he's right that many religions have a horrible habit of using fear to shore up their authority. But that's only part of the story - religion can also provide children with a deep sense of confidence from the teaching that they are each precious in the eyes of God, of reverence for their gift of life and of ethical bearings.

What utter bullshit. Which God? The very definition of indoctrination. God loves you very much - believe in Him or go to Hell. Well, fuck you, is the politest response I can summon up at such short notice. Children wondering why their best friend is dying of cancer and God won't cure him/her? Parents divorce - why couldn't God have kept them together - is it my fault? A lifetime of self-loathing and confusion can then ensue.

His conclusion is that no children should be exposed to religion until they are old enough to make a choice; anything else is indoctrination. But this is quixotic; how can they ever make any choice without knowledge and how can they ever have knowledge without running into Dawkins's allegation of indoctrination?

.Well, what's wrong with them not being exposed to it until they are mature enough - then they can 'learn' about it? Perhaps they might not believe your particular brand? Do people stop learning things beyond the age of, say, 16? 12? 7? So she would argue that you doyou have to get them young and impressionable otherwise they'll reject your 'teachings', perhaps?

Finally, Dawkins returns to the old complaint that religion "cuts off a source of wonder"; he once famously described the medieval view of the cosmos as "little" and "pokey". It's a revealing comment because it exposes a remarkable lack of empathy for how people in other ages or cultures imagine the world.

Is this a plea to 'respect' flat-earthers, or instance? What is there to be respected about ignorance apart from a desire not to repeat the folly?

Finally, Dawkins returns to the old complaint that religion "cuts off a source of wonder"; he once famously described the medieval view of the cosmos as "little" and "pokey". It's a revealing comment because it exposes a remarkable lack of empathy for how people in other ages or cultures imagine the world.

What is she trying to argue here? Empathy for ignorance? Worship of credulity? Give me a break.

That lack of empathy also lies behind Dawkins's reference to a "process of non-thinking called faith". For thousands of years, religious belief has been accompanied by thought and intellectual discovery, whether Islamic astronomy or the Renaissance. But his contempt is so profound that he can't be bothered to even find out (in an interview he dismissed Christian theology in exactly these terms). If this isn't the "hidebound certainty" of which he accuses believers, I'm not sure what is.

What does religious faith have to do with looking through a telescope and mapping the stars, or learning foreign languages and appreciating art? That is science and art. Both aspects of human creativity and intelligence that religion has tried to warp or suppress since it was invented (religion, that is). That a vicar can drive a car or ride a motorbike, has no bearing on the truth of what he preaches.

Let's be clear: it's absolutely right that religion should be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men. It's also right for religion to concede ground to science to explain natural processes; but at the same time, science has to concede that despite its huge advances it still cannot answer questions about the nature of the universe - such as whether we are freak chances of evolution in an indifferent cosmos (Dawkins does finally acknowledge this point in the programmes).

Seriously, not even wrong. That we haven't discovered something yet, does not mean that we won't. Positing the catch-all 'my god did it' is not even worthy of consideration any more. What is not a 'natural process', by the way? Do you care to give a definition, ADH?

Dawkins seems to want to magic religion away.

I doubt he does. He wants to reason it away.

It's a silly delusion comparable to one of another great atheist humanist thinker, JS Mill. He wanted to magic away another inescapable part of human experience - sex; using not dissimilar arguments to Dawkins's, he pointed out the violence and suffering caused by sexual desire, and dreamt of a day when all human beings would no longer be infantilised by the need for sexual gratification, and an alternative way would be found to reproduce the human species.

Well, actually, we have. It's called in-vitro fertilisation. It's just that sex is more fun - and sexual desire is part of our evolved nature, not a result of indoctrination or dogma.

1876. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102984 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 5:30 am

Personally, I wish he'd been converted to run on LPG instead.

1877. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102981 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 5:23 am

46. Comment #102976 by ADH -

Anyone who insists, with Dawkins, that Christians must produce empiriacally verifiable evidence are obviously going to find the arguments of these "fleas" unconvincing

And anyone who professes to believe anything so patently absurd in the absence of empirical evidence is either a liar or an idiot.

Case closed.

1878. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102975 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 5:08 am

44. Comment #102973 by ADH -

I suspect that bitbutter was taking the piss out of trolls like you. Pathetically repeating 'I believe goddidit' is not an argument, it's symptomatic of a mental illness.

1879. Chasers war on everything: Evangelicals

Comment #102974 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 5:03 am

28. Comment #102966 by Steve Zara -

I would have gone too, but I have a problem getting into metal tubes that are suspended thousands of feet in the air. I just don't have enough faith.

Now, if you'd done a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, you'd know how it all works and not rely on 'faith'. Has anyone got a spare wind-tunnel so I can do a practical demo or two for Steve?

1880. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102971 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 4:49 am

12. Comment #102741 by fides_et_ratio -

Not even wrong.

1881. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102967 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 4:38 am

49. Comment #102949 by Richard Morgan -

As an alias, and one of the most strident on this site, (I hope!), I agree with you to some extent.

The only reason I have an alias is that I fell in love with a Vicar's daugher and married her. Nice people, in most respects, but display more cognitice dissonance than Prof. McGrath. The sort of people that teach that Christians should not date, let alone marry non-Christians. If I were not in this position, you'd know my full name, roughly where I live and much more besides. however, to protect my wife and kids, I have to go undercover.

I sometimes feel hypocritical for doing so, but I have someone else's wellbeing to cater for, until the day I die.

Since I've known her, my wife has turned from someone who could make revcort seem rational into a run-of-the mill mild 'Christian' who doesn't take it all too seriously or let the nonsense intefere with her life. Previously, well, I could tell tales that would make your ears bleed. When people say that the fundamentalist faith-heads are 'nutters' (as I have), or mentally ill, it is my considered opinion that they are, to some extent, correct. There were three options to explain what she was telling me at times -

1. God really was telling her where to sit on a bus and who to talk to.

2. Naturally psychotic, possible a schizophrenic - undiagnosed and untreated.

3. In the grip of irrational beliefs impregnated, indoctrinated and reinforced by her family leading to a form of 'religious mania' that could take years to overcome.

Having seen her behaviour in non-religious settings and discussions, I gambled everything on option 3.

It took years of patience and love to allow her to become a normal person. That I'm still alive to tell the tale, (though, only just, it sometimes felt) suggests that option 3 was right.

That she does not want our little boy baptised or to go to Sunday School etc etc, suggests that at least in part, she understands what has been done to her and how wrong it is.

I may be deluded, I may be right, I may be wrong, but I dread to think what would have happened to her in life if I'd taken the option to run away screaming. Sometimes in life, principles have to take a back seat to what is right. I just take some satisfaction in knowing that I've won, and these bastards haven't quite managed to ruin one more life.

When I take issue with, for example, RD publicly singing carols and saying he enjoys it and that he's a 'cultural Christian', I wonder if even he really comprehends the damage that religion does. I have my doubts that many do, else it would have been wiped from the face of the earth.

God is NOT Great. Religion Poisons Everything

1882. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102948 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 3:07 am

"...God has been attacked angrily here and there in the English-speaking world and believers have been accused of causing most of the wars and crimes in history

Nope. We just explain why, almost certainly, there are no gods. Your particular brand of ignorance is used as just one more justification for wars and crimes, that's all.

Hitler a rabid atheist? Is that why the Waffen SS motto was 'Gott Mitt Uns'? It was a postmodern ironic statement by the Nazis, a kind of knowing joke?

As for Churchill, he has clearly never read any of his autobiographies, certainly not 'My Early Life'.

Bloody ignorant fool.

1883. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102941 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 2:38 am

Of course the Archbishop's right. In recent years, atheists have been going around starting wars in the middle east, opposing medical advances, virulently opposing the use of condoms to spread AIDS, and trying to deny minorities their human rights. All this whilst being, in many instances, state-sponsored and tax-exempt.

1884. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #102939 by irate_atheist on December 24, 2007 at 2:35 am

Damn. I hoped to read about Bible bashers dying out in Kanvas. I'd raise my glass to that.

1885. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101928 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 7:33 am

237. Comment #101921 by epeeist -

The former will, of course, only be allowed to be eaten with a nice piece of Wensleydale.

Oh what bliss! Why does thou tempt me so!

As it is, I'm having Christmas dinner with 1 vicar and 3 preachers - i.e the inlaws. Carol singing is not included in the agenda.

1886. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101881 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 4:11 am

232. Comment #101875 by Frankus1122 -

Should I not listen to Led Zeppelin because there is mention in one song of a 'Stairway to Heaven'

Well, I suppose that very much depends on whether you work for Stannah Stairlifts or not.

1887. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101878 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 4:07 am

231. Comment #101873 by epeeist -

Never, ever, refuse cake. How could you even pose the hypothetical question!!?

As for singing Carols, well, I suppose you could sing out of tune and get the occasional word wrong. Sadly, this would more than likely make you blend in with the flock...

1888. This Week's Flea

Comment #101874 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 4:01 am

Can God really be dismissed as a mere delusion? Is faith really the enemy of reason? And does religion really poison everything?

To address these question in order:

Yes
Yes
Yes

1889. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101854 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 3:10 am

Further to my comment #101789, may I observe that there isn't a matchbox small enough for this retard, if you get my drift.

1890. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101851 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 3:05 am

51. Comment #101435 by al-rawandi -

I agree. I would like to die mid coitus with 72 virgins. Wouldn't that mess up the plan.

Not to mention messing up the bedsheets, lol!

1891. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101849 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 3:02 am

56. Comment #101847 by faouloki -

Worse than that, it may be the "I know it's bollocks but I want loads of (other) people to believe it." approach.

1892. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101806 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 2:06 am

wooter 119 flagged as troll. Just because, OK?

1893. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101805 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 2:05 am

wooter 118 flagged as troll. This idiot's as stupid as, but not amusing as, revcort.

1894. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101794 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 1:46 am

49. Comment #101780 by Steve Zara -

I would almost feel sorry if he had not be paid to write the stupid article.

I never feel sorry for these idiots. They are not worthy of our pity.

1895. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101789 by irate_atheist on December 21, 2007 at 1:36 am

Is this prick the first valid counter-argument to Poe's Law?

1896. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101375 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 9:31 am

41. Comment #101365 by dbunker -

Whatever it is, from the evidence we've seen, I very much doubt it's consistent or rational.

1897. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101367 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 9:25 am

25. Comment #101363 by al-rawandi -

Spermination. I am working 24/7 to realize that solution. Unfortunately they don't drink.

I don't think Diacanu's suggesting they drink it. Oh, I see what you mean.

1898. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101284 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 7:15 am

3. Comment #101271 by Rtambree -

Missing option - Jim Davidson.

1899. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101258 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 6:46 am

The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.

Really? Is that why he believes some bits and not others? And as for:

He said the virgin birth was "part of what I have inherited".

Good grief man. How do you 'inherit' a belief in human parthogenesis?

1900. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101244 by irate_atheist on December 20, 2007 at 6:23 am

104. Comment #101084 by Sara -

Atheists are reasonable, right?

Well, some of us like to believe we're reasonable, a bit like other people believe in God. Oh bugger, I've just turned being reasonable into a belief system. You can't win in this game, can you?