151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186838 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 11:45 am

txpiper;
'Adaptation, even extreme adaptation, really happens. It is easily observable. But the most dramatic examples of adaptation are still almost completely confined to species. The concept does not transfer to one vertebrate class changing into another. That idea is fantasy in my view.'

Oh. Your an advocate for ID then ('Only change within a species, dummy, nowhere else'). Thanks for confirming that. Bye; you cannot be talked with.

Just watch; http://www.rockefeller.edu/evolution/video.php?src=coyne

152. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #186691 by AllanW on May 31, 2008 at 4:57 am

epeeist;

But don't you see? That activity MUST be good because it happens within a free-market, capitalist framework. Likewise with the income and capital distribution in the States and most western, developed economies where the top one percent of the population hold between thirty and forty percent of the wealth. It must be right because it's a free choice of freely rational people exercising their freedom to be at the bottom of the pile. They just don't have the 'get-up-and-go' or intelligence of the others. Hey, if they did, THEY would be the rich one percent; don't you think?

FF and Al will excoriate you for misunderstanding how beautifully and freely the market creates these resource allocation decisions and results. Don't you understand?

/sarcasm off

153. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #186504 by AllanW on May 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Artful_Dodger;
'"Intelligent design" is not only about irreducible complexity. It is about positing the existence of God on the basis, among other things, of the "non physical" rationality that enables us to argue anything in the first place.'

Typically specious bullshit. Do you have an answer to the 'Who created the creator?' response? No, thought not.

Just respond to the myriad of other questions posed to you on other threads before polluting the internet with more of your vacuity.

154. Iowa county board gives initial OK for ghost hunters to investigate asylum

Comment #185671 by AllanW on May 28, 2008 at 9:39 am

Ok CAPT, I'll bite;

What objective evidence do you have in this area? Objective being outside the brain-chemistry of an individual.

Many thanks in anticipation.

155. What is science for?

Comment #185315 by AllanW on May 27, 2008 at 12:21 pm

ASMarques;

Maybe you do not understand the nature of the 'alternate comment thread' on site. If so, I can understand why you think your comments have been censored or deleted; they have not. Just click the 'alternate comment' part of each thread and they are readable by anyone.

You have obviously reached the stage that a few other posters have reached where the inane repetition of obvious falsehoods, skewed and malicious rhetoric and plain lies no longer has even instructional value for casual readers. The administrators have placed your delusions at the side of each thread as a result. Not censored, not deleted, not suppressed just sidelined.

About time too.

Yet I'm sure you'll continue to bleat about suppression and censorship because it feels so good to feel oppressed in your favourite obsession, doesn't it? Kinda makes you feel as if you suffer for your goal? Wrong; you're just a boring inconsequential bigotted anti-semite who now receives the attention he deserves; next to none.

156. What is science for?

Comment #184265 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 8:39 am

Well, I now count that as three times ASMarques has returned/responded to say he has no time to respond to your direct questions while making some other point. A more clear example of ducking the issue you could not wish.

157. What is science for?

Comment #184245 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 5:53 am

Frankus1122;

He made it plain in a comment referenced here;
Comment #176802 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

158. What is science for?

Comment #184239 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 4:58 am

'Who here calls themselves a Bright?'

Nope; never have done. But I have a good reason not to ....

159. What is science for?

Comment #184224 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 2:33 am

ASMarques comment #184222

Another example of shift-and-bait. No answer to the question yet again.

To quote one of my favourite films;

"A non-denial denial!"

There will be points awarded to the first person who posts exactly which character said this in the film (getting the film is too easy :)).

160. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #184220 by AllanW on May 24, 2008 at 1:55 am

adbstern;

I'm sure our resident logic and philosophy experts will be able to furnish you with the appropriate terms but to me your statement in comment #184216 falls down because you START with the view that the universe is a designed object. You then go on to postulate a designer and comment upon the probability of this designers existence.

So a false start followed by a presupposition IMO.

161. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183708 by AllanW on May 22, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Oh dear, Nova.

Your whole rant is predicated upon the word 'suffer'; please define it.

162. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183612 by AllanW on May 22, 2008 at 11:06 am

Rawhard Dickins;

I understand your position and agree with a number of other posters that more can and should be done to prevent the requirement for abortion on demand (whether that be sex education or whatever); prevention is always better than cure in this instance.

Yet the science tells us that the current guidelines are the best that can be drawn up to leave the mother with the decision to decide what happens to her own body before getting into difficult areas.

163. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183596 by AllanW on May 22, 2008 at 10:20 am

Rawhard Dickins;

No problem :)

'There is a grey area though, between sperm and an unborn child that surely has to have similar respect as say, a dying, demented, infirm person in old age. '

Yes, it's drawn at 24 weeks unless special considerations apply. Seems about right to me that the main determinant of the decision is the mothers' right to choose, quite honestly.

A far riskier route is to try to listen to spurious and unfounded religious twaddle about the sanctity of life of blastocysts and try to make rules from that point of view; it brings into the decision all sorts of hellfire and damnation threats that are just barbaric IMO.

A pregnant woman having to make these decisions is in enough of a quandary anyway without an overloaded freight of moral outrage to deal with. The womans right to choose her own bodies' destiny is paramount and no religious, fabricated theological bullshit should deflect society from that position.

164. What is science for?

Comment #183410 by AllanW on May 22, 2008 at 4:22 am

ASMarques;

You again seem to have a false impression; virtually no-one here is responding to you because they have assessed your paranoid ramblings for what they are. The deluded conspiracy theories of an odious anti-semite. Despite your cross-thread jumping and posting most posters and readers here have come to the same conclusion and refuse to dignify your insanity.

If anyone is in the least doubt please follow another thread of this persons inane ramblings here;

Comment #176802 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

BTW it is a sad reflection on you that clearmind/wooter recognises a fellow delusional and is attempting to make friends with you :)

165. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183354 by AllanW on May 22, 2008 at 12:19 am

Rawhard Dickins;

'Perhaps the unborn deserve even higher respect because of their potential.'

An untenable position. Think again after considering the logical extreme; to quote the Monty Python team, 'every sperm is sacred'!

166. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183207 by AllanW on May 21, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Al Rawandi;

Your fairytale view of the UK is about as accurate as the view of the US that says it is comprised of a relatively small number of well-educated, East coast elites and the rest are community-minded, gun-totin' Creationists.

ie not at all :)

167. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183183 by AllanW on May 21, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Mark Smith;

You may be right but here's where I disagree;

(a) wrong in the sight of God; woeful delusion and therefore ignore.

(b) sympathy for the foetus; I have more sympathy for the mother.

168. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183171 by AllanW on May 21, 2008 at 1:35 pm

'1. I didn't mention complications, nor was that up for discussion in the bill last night to my knowledge.

2. No I'm not saying that, nor have I at any point.'

Then your 'wrong' comment is mystifying and you should clarify. As for complications not being up for discussion you are wrong; the medical opinion that late-onset complications can warrant late termination seems to have remained convincing. How can you think that it is not relevant and did not form part of the decision?

You certainly stated in an earlier comment that 'alcohol and poor organisation' had more to do with unwanted pregnancies; you need to clarify therefore. Is it your opinion that 'people who exercise poor judgement' should be forced to live with their mistakes?

169. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183154 by AllanW on May 21, 2008 at 1:14 pm

'Late term abortion is wrong.' fides_et_ratio

I'm sorry but you cannot just impose your religion-inspired morality upon this issue. 'Wrong' is a judgement-call that has no place in a womans right to choose abortion in the 22-24 week timeframe.

Are you really saying that a woman should 'learn to live with' the problems that late-onset complications in pregnancy can bring? You are a monster, if so.

Are you saying that 'alcohol and poor organisation' are the main reasons for abortions in late-term? Because if so, again, your religion is warping your judgement in a moral area that you plainly have no real knowledge about.

You are welcome here for many reasons but my view of your ability to be rational and based in reality has taken a severe jolt with the 'wrong' statement. Shame on you.

170. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #180091 by AllanW on May 14, 2008 at 7:59 am

Thanks for the last 2 posts theist1218 but you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. LOL

Try a few more books other than THAT ONE next time.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

171. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179233 by AllanW on May 13, 2008 at 12:19 am

It's waaaaaay past time;

Teratornis! Paging Teratornis! Your prescence is requested on a thread to do with oil prices! Teratornis! Oh! wherefore art thou, Teratornis?

172. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177390 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 2:21 am

Quite astonishing.

Firstly, well done Richard. Pithy, sharp, a good performance. Entirely appropriate and well delivered. Really well thought-through to put Humphreys on the sharp end and get the reaction you did.

As for Murphy O'Connor's rambling nonsense, what else have we come to expect from this desperate, caged old man protecting his privileges? But to mis-speak (the new Clinton addition to our vocabulary) by citing 'reason' rather than atheism as he did is a bad slip. I hear the sound of a coffin-nail thudding home.

He'd be well advised to clarify this by the end of the day or it'll become a news story in itself.

Once again, well done today, Richard.

173. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177379 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:58 am

Comment #177244 by discipline

I entirely agree with your analysis. Well said.

174. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177376 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:54 am

Styrer; lighten up, man. This is no big deal. And that's why Dawkins' response was apposite; he laughingly swatted a fly, barely deserving of attention in a cool, clear manner.

Maybe our views of this are a cultural thing; I'd rather see this kind of response than a serious, meaningful point-by-point shredding because quite frankly Boteach is a ridiculous circus performer who deserves no more time spent on him.

The anti-semitism charge needs no more time spent upon it than Dawkins gave it; it is plainly fallacious. If you react in one way only to every snipe you constrain yourself to predictability; Dawkins is becoming more adept at sorting the attacks he needs to spend time upon from the ones he can dismiss laughingly.

My two cents.

175. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177355 by AllanW on May 9, 2008 at 1:04 am

Bravura performance here by Dawkins. The odious little man was treated with contempt and ridicule for his ignorance of evolution but couched in a polite and jocular manner. I think that hits the right tone for a shallow, shrill clown like Boteach.

176. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177075 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Richard, good luck for tomorrow. I know you have the training and the techniques for this kind of thing but remember;

- soundbites, soundbites, soundbites

- short, pithy answers.

For everyone else;

You may feel that this medium and style does not do justice to the answers that can be made to the drivel from Murphy O'connor and you'd be right. Given a choice we'd all rather see an extended debate either on a stage or in writing to do justice to the ideas, their formulation and articulation. But this is an opportunity to reach a wide public and the medium forces compromises. We should take the chances that our opponents provide us (the article above is classic non-speak) because waiting for it to be a perfect chance may mean we wait in vain.

177. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177027 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Richard, in my opinion you should do the programme. But use this non-speech as just a hanger for the points you might like to make. How radical this mans pronouncements have been lately and how disturbing it is that he has tried to use his religious organisation to coerce politicians into anti-scientific votes in the House of Commons may be just a few things to mention but I'm sure you have many more apposite ones yourself. After all, this is what the politicians who go on the programme do all the time :)

178. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176845 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 6:51 am

(stands up suddenly) "No! I'm Gladys!. erm .."

Doesn't sound the same does it?

179. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176802 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #176800 by ASMarques

'I'll be glad to debate with you any points you wish if you'll be kind enough to organise a little better your texts in the following way:'

You seem to have misunderstood; you have been debating the entire site on this issue for more than a month now.

'Don't quote me in your words (snip) Quote me in my words'

I have consistently done so by using quotation marks (see for example the first phrase in this post and the quote above).

'It's not comfortable at all for me to go looking for something you attribute to me in less than exact words.'

I repeat; every time I quote you the phrase is in quotation marks and every time I paraphrase the difference is clear and obvious. Stop wriggling.

'Don't spend so much time discussing my bad character as you see it'

I have made one post on this topic, my last one. It was made as a result of having analysed your arguments and the data presented and concluding that the only missing piece, for me, was your motivation. You kindly provided that, thank you (comment #164730; 'Do you think it may have something to do with a naked fear of what the Jews may do to you?')

Goodbye.

180. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176760 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 1:01 am

Nicely said JimJ.

181. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176757 by AllanW on May 8, 2008 at 12:52 am

Another hopeless mishmash of obfuscation, denial and avoidance was presented by ASMarques. To pick just a few hilarious moments (remember, it's not necessary to debunk delusional viewpoints in detail but just to underline them);

ASMarques;
'It's naturally difficult to come up with precise statistics after so much obfuscation, with no real official investigation ever done on the subject, but I would consider '

An interesting revelation of your duplicity here in two ways. You very soon chide Teratornis for asking why virtually all historians accept that there were mass killings of Jews by stating that very few have actually done any real investigation into original references (totally ignoring the accepted premise that, unlike science, historical research can and does rely on reputable investigation without having to 'repeat' the experiments/investigation to verify the results). And secondly, in response to your passionate plea for belief contained in the quote above, I'm sure you won't fail to link to your own original research that allows you to so confidently say that 'you consider'. I'm sure you have it rather than, as you have exclusively done so far in justifying your outlandish views, relying upon other peoples' views. That would be hypocritical wouldn't it?

You then launch into another extensive diatribe about your views but we've seen it all before; repetition can be a signal of deep-seated conflict, can't it?

Yet then direct me to one of your previous messages which you aver covers your reasons for being a Holocaust denier;

- you are an ardent seeker of the 'truth'
- you believe that virtually all historians live in genuine fear of what Jews will do to them if they question the accepted history. (see comment #164730)

I have no problem with laughing loudly at your first claim. You have provided more than enough instances of obfuscation, lying, duplicity and plain craven ignorance in your posts (including the last few) for everyone else to join me in the laughter as well.

Your second point is more troubling. Not for me but for you. I've attempted to have an open mind up to this point but now you put yourself clearly in the tinfoil hat brigade. Teratornis compiled a list of popular conspiracy theories a while back and I'm sorry to say that I refrained from joining in with the general view that you should be lumped into that category. However if, as you state, your whole reason for pursuing this denial position is a belief in a Zionist conspiracy then, I'm sorry, but I too shake my head and leave you to your own mind.

A final quote from you;

'Denial of what? "Denial," just like that? Isn't the denied matter interesting any longer? Is the magic word too powerful to be pronounced by the lesser believers further away from the Holy of Holies?'
As I said at the beginning, sometimes it's only necessary to underline not debunk lunatic positions.

182. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176345 by AllanW on May 7, 2008 at 7:43 am

'That's no way to live life if you ask me. What I fear is intolerance, not someone's fantasy life.'

You deliberately misunderstand and project; shame on you. And I didn't ask you. My life is not filled with fear mainly bacause I don't believe in hellfire and damnation and an eternity in hell as most religious believers (as you put it) do.

On the contrary, my life is pleasant, filled with good things and joys; the only black cloud being religious believers thrusting their dogma into public life and into mine as well; how intolerant is that?

BTW you really should fear someones fantasy life when it starts to affect their real life. Reason and rationality are a good defence against this kind of delusional behaviour; you should try them sometime.

183. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176325 by AllanW on May 7, 2008 at 7:13 am

seeker_of_truth;

'No evidence that your little scared-shitless-of a-deity that you don't believe exists brain can bear to consider.
'

LOL! You fool, we aren't afraid of any god; they don't exist. We ARE, however, afraid of the irrational behaviour of their followers here on earth; they are truly fecking scary :(

184. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #176286 by AllanW on May 7, 2008 at 5:47 am

ASMarques;

I've read your posts for the last month or so, read the links you have provided and tried to understand your point of view. Yet I'm absolutely flummoxed by why you want to believe that no mass deaths of Jews occurred.

You position (cutting-through the obvious paranoia) is summarised as;

1. Some Jews still live who were at the camps or were interred by the Nazis therefore they didn't all die.

2. There is no documentary evidence that you are willing to accept that shows every dead body that was created in the Nazi era so you don't believe that vast numbers did die.

3. There are sufficient anomalies between contemporary accounts (whenever are there not?) for you to dismiss that a mass extermination ever occurred in reality and therefore it is all a big hoax. Perpetrated by Nazis, Jews and anybody who aligns themselves with these people. And this hoax is maintained now through constant repetition without reference to any evidence at all.

You plainly believe this holocaust-denial position but my question to you is why? You are not unintelligent; you can plainly read and discover evidence; you are equally plainly interested in something (bordering upon obsessively interested) but it seems to me that this 'something' is not the Holocaust.

Would you care to address the 'why' question, please? I have no further interest in anything you can say, write or link to as regards the Holocaust itself; you have dismally failed to persuade me of your case. I'm only interested in your mental state and motivations for your denial position.

Thanks.

185. Life after Jehovah's Witnesses: website offers help to followers who lose their faith

Comment #175759 by AllanW on May 6, 2008 at 1:55 am

Congratulations to this lady and her fellow helpers both for getting out of this sect and for setting-up this facility.

If people are unsure what they can concretely do to help in the battle for rationality and reason then spend some time helping at one of these groups or just support them with money. The repayment is immense but insubstantial :)

186. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175305 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 6:50 am

Comment #175297 by The Smart Patrol

'perplexing that someone who can get things so spectacularly wrong can have had such a long career in television. OK, maybe I'm just being a tad naive here!'

In comparison to someone hanging around this site with an open mind and an interest in the topics raised, most other people will not have the data or viewpoint to feel comfortable.

As for being a tad naive, I wouldn't be so harsh on you :). However I've not bothered wasting my time with mass-media outlets for about ten years now and feel I'm much better briefed as a result. It takes effort and diligence but there are good news sources out there with commentary that is thoughtful and intelligent on any topic you care to take an interest in.

In retrospect, all I'm doing is recreating for myself my own news channel or newspaper that is respected, thoughtful and stimulating; you know, like television or the broadsheets used to be before journalistic standards dropped so far.

Don't forget; any source or site must be evaluated frequently. I fell into the trap once of rating a site as worthwhile but over time its quality deteriorated; just a friendly warning :)

187. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175285 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 5:27 am

I'm chuckling to myself here while reading the last few comments about this interviewer. The points are well made but the tone is of injured frustration. What standard of thoughtful and intelligent interview are you expecting? This it television, in the daytime!

This lady's job is to present entertaining, superficial topics while most people are out at work; I think the final comments we see are revealing as to what market the programme is aiming at; go back and see what the upcoming segments address :)

I thought she did a better job than most American stations have done in allowing RD to get his points across without skewing the questions in an obnoxious way (you prefer Fox's blatant prejudice?), better than most of the UK programmes that RD appears on (the risible 'debate format' studio ones are cringe-making) and as measured as it's reasonable to expect from a mass-media outlet.

RD did a good job here in the circumstances but I expect nothing more from this kind of format other than introducing the topics to a wider audience.

188. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175275 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 4:39 am

Re; Comment #175271 by Peacebeuponme

'to promote him here alongside the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens does not seem right to me'. There is a value judgement here that you need to detail. 'Right' implies this; you need to expand the point.

'his pretty simple smug routine would be vulnerable to any decent theist'. Again, you need to show where, with particular reference to details of his speeches, this would be true.

'I think him being promoted here lessens the impact of Richard'. I'm unclear how this is so (as you assert). Please explain.

'promoting him so plainly on the homepage is the wrong thing to be doing I think.' In what way 'wrong'? How do you arrive at this conclusion?

I'm not having a go, PBUM :) but am genuinely interested in understanding how and why you (and some others posters) think the way you do. I'd be even more interested in how you justify your position with regard to these videos.

189. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175250 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 2:27 am

Re; Comment #175245 by Ian

Another good post, mate. Thanks.

190. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175243 by AllanW on May 5, 2008 at 1:53 am

Re; Comment #175191 by Caudimordax

Good point but plainly not all can tell the difference :)

191. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175104 by AllanW on May 4, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Ok PBUM, you don't find him funny; is that your only problem with Condell? Or do you disagree with the fact that the RDFRS has decided to promote his videos in this way?

192. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174095 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 3:50 pm

FightingFalcon
'I don't know what the future holds for the educational levels of our people'. Again, maybe too narrow a view; if you are thinking of the US I would agree with you. There is a problem over there (from what I can see and people who are more informed in detail tell me) that has been going on for two generations and I see no end to it. But look at Europe; still high standards and continuing to creep upwards. Even better, look to the east. India, southeast Asia and especially China. As a species the level of educational attainment-torch has passed to these areas.

'The American election has become a god damned popularity contest and it pisses me off.' Hehe. Yep, 'Election Idol' seems to be about the level of it. Not that much better over here TBH.

'If you want a good satirical movie, watch Idiocracy. That movie accurately portrays where I think the human race is going.' Saw it; quite funny. But I disagree; from what I can see only the US is headed in that direction; most of the rest of us are not. Sorry to say that but it seems obvious to me.

Back on the main point; 'I know that Atheists by nature believe in the progression of mankind but I'm not sure if I can share that sentiment.' Put this the other way around; are you telling me that any African, Asian or Polynesian child, taken at birth to a western first-world economy, lavished with health-care, nutrition and educational opportunities and given the benefit of not having to scrape a subsistence living from the age they can toddle, would not do as well as you or I have done in the same circumstances? I see no inherent lack in their ability to do this, just a difference in the circumstances of their existence.

We truly are the lucky ones.

193. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174010 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm

FightingFalcon
I think you may be too despondent about the state of democracy (in both our countries atm :)) and with good reason. But take a little wider view.

One hundred and fifty years ago you and I would not be able to have this conversation; that has nothing to do with the internet or the medium we use. It has everything to do with the fact that as the children of non-elites (I'm making an assumption about you here, sorry if it's wrong) we would have had better than a fifty-fifty chance of not making it to our teens. We would not have had any formal education. We would not have had basic healthcare (in whatever form but don't get me started on the US's inability to care for three million un-insured poor people in your country grrrr). We would be broken in body through work, disease and lack of prospects by our mid-thirties if we even made it that far.

We have these things now because nobler people than I will ever be fought for these basics for all people. I'm very, very grateful for that and want to continue that trend of progress for the vast majority of humankind. I'd like to think that the potential in me (that has been realised only as a result of the advantages I've received by being born in a country like mine in this time) is present in all people. I'm nothing special but have been able to do things, think thoughts and affect the lives of others in a positive way as a result of these benefits. I think that others can too if we give them the same start in life.

Diacanu said it best above; Enlightenment is not a minority right. It can be available for all. In that set of circumstances (still not optimal I grant you) I think democracy can work.

Yeah, I know; I'm an idealist.

194. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173652 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 3:31 am

'A few seconds thought would have exposed this philosophy as the idiocy that it is.'

And a few more seconds' thought may have led you to the conclusion that it was used ironically. Sigh.

195. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173640 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 2:50 am

'Allan, I have to say if Condell is thoughtful I'm the Dalai Lama.' You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I disagree (BTW how's the civil insurrection going?). I lol'd at your comment anyway :)

'He does not like people from cultures or with beliefs different to his own "invading" his White Britain. He makes the rest of us look bad.' This may be the difference between us; I hear him talk about deluded, fundamentalist fools and people who demonstrably seek to impose their misogynistic viewpoint upon a wider audience. You plainly hear xenophobic ranting. Why the difference? And as for the 'making the rest of us look bad' idea, I'm sorry but I don't accept that; there is no defined 'movement' yet for him to be a mouthpiece or figure-head. If anything does exist I would think that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett et all are in the queue for recognition before Condell so what exactly is your problem? Because if you are seeking some sort of membership criteria or evaluation panel to judge a members' acceptability to the movement before being able to express their views then you have missed the point of reason and rationality. I'm sure you haven't though.

'Even when I agree with him, (which happens) there are so many others who have said it so much better than him' Agreed but why criticise someone who is doing it in merely a different format or manner? It all addresses the same issues but may be more successful than some of the others in reaching parts of the population. That's my main point; he adds to the messages reaching the ether (and hopefully causing some thoughts to occur) rather than not. I don't see the downsides of his type of message as being greater than the upsides. So on balance, worthwhile.

196. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173619 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 1:02 am

FightingFalcon
I understand your impulse to look at other forms of government, my friend; it's natural when you see the mess most democratic contries make of its operation. But don't you think that democracy would work well enough if the vast majority (you'll always have a small percentage of the population that cannot fully participate in the process) of people had better basic education? Most of your, quite accurate, observations would be obviated if this were made a priority.

I know, call me a dreamer.

197. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #173615 by AllanW on May 1, 2008 at 12:34 am

I don't think Condell gives any topic the tabloid treatment; he's far more thoughtful than that. Maybe people have started to equate straightforward delivery (possibly equated with politically motivated stand-up comedy) with unthinking ranting. I'd suggest they re-examine his videos. His points are clear and though you may disagree with them they are thoughtfully constructed and hit very vulnerable areas of peoples' preconceptions or biases.

After reviewing a couple of his videos last night I'm irresistibly reminded by some of the contributions to this thread of his point in one of them; he gets criticism from atheists that his talks are xenophobic rantings and are too simple, un-nuanced and will not convert any people to atheism. As he points out, they prefer to indulge themselves in paternalistic, rational debates with religiots who do not even accept the premise of reason and rationality. In other words they have a nice hobby for themselves to feel good about while the real world exhibits further religious bigotry and horrors that they carefully insulate themselves from.

I agree with him on that point.

198. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172966 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 8:03 am

And it never ceases to surprise me that strong and clear views (always based upon actual events) about the reality of developing situations are slurred and labelled by people who present themselves as more concerned for oppressed people than you are. What egotism!

199. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172758 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:49 am

Re: comment #172756 Corylus

Exactly. I'd urge joining the NSS as well.

200. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172752 by AllanW on April 30, 2008 at 3:36 am

PJG; LOL!