151. Nigeria teacher dies 'over Koran'

Comment #27560 by Friend Giskard on March 25, 2007 at 9:30 am

Islam must be destroyed.

152. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #25603 by Friend Giskard on March 14, 2007 at 9:38 am

tom70 makes a good point. Just think of all the fantastic art we would be deprived of if there were no war, for example.

153. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #25596 by Friend Giskard on March 14, 2007 at 8:49 am

Hey, nickthelight

Since you like optical illusions of that sort, I strongly recommend downloading this cut-out-and-fold pdf

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/dragon_illusion/

It's pretty amazing. My dragon is sitting on top of my computer now.

(BTW It helps if you glue a bit of card behind the neck to stop the head drooping)

154. Free Speech

Comment #25577 by Friend Giskard on March 14, 2007 at 6:55 am

I don't think it is fitting that Hitchens calls on the example of Sir Thomas More, fictional or otherwise, in a defense of free speech.

Thomas More was a christofascist who happily burned people alive simply because their beliefs were slightly different from his own ridiculous beliefs.

155. How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

Comment #24942 by Friend Giskard on March 9, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Hiya, Roedy.

To get some further insight into how much of a feminist Muhammad was, have a little read of this:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15206

156. How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam

Comment #24915 by Friend Giskard on March 9, 2007 at 8:39 am

ISLAM DELENDVM EST

157. U.S. Mint goof creates 'Godless dollars'

Comment #24898 by Friend Giskard on March 9, 2007 at 5:05 am

"In Mammon we trust" would be a more apt inscription for coinage, I think.

158. Long live satire

Comment #24522 by Friend Giskard on March 7, 2007 at 4:10 am

Is it really fair to imply that Muhammad was "a violent paedophile". After all, Aisha was a pig, and pigs are already fully grown when they are nine years old.

159. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24352 by Friend Giskard on March 6, 2007 at 5:49 am

Pantore is a joke.

From now on Pantore's avatar will be my cue to skip to the next post.

160. Religion in Conflict: Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?

Comment #23319 by Friend Giskard on February 27, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Paul Kurtz is another atheist who unashamedly gives that monster Muhammad the title of Prophet with a capital P, and not a quotation mark in sight.

People should think more about the words they use.

And Kurtz is wrong about Bill Maher.

Maher has stated on both Politically Incorrect and Real Time, and in several appearances on Larry King Live that he does, indeed, believe in God, but that organized religion is nothing more than tradition and superstition. In 2002 he told the Onion AV Club, "I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no. I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books." - Wikipedia

May the Force be with you, Bill.

161. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23003 by Friend Giskard on February 25, 2007 at 6:51 pm

It bothers me when atheists (and non-muslims generally), refer to the founder of islam as "the Prophet Muhammad", as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (an atheist) does here and elsewhere.

If you're not a muslim then you can't believe he was a prophet. So why dignify him with that title. (In print they usually even give "prophet" a capital P.)

Think of the satisfaction it must give to muslims to hear those who claim to be unbelievers nevertheless concede the title of prophet to their evil hero.

From now on, let us refer to him only as 'the so-called prophet Muhammad', or 'the self-proclaimed prophet Muhammad', or 'the lying, evil false prophet Muhammad', or, at best , and only in print, "the 'prophet' Muhammad."

Consider. Would it be thought proper in a serious news bulletin to speak without caveats of 'the psychic Uri Gellar' or 'the psychic medium Sylvia Brown'? Of course not. Yet it seems to be the official position of e.g. the BBC that Muhammad really was what he claimed to be.

162. We all fund this torrent of Saudi bigotry

Comment #21245 by Friend Giskard on February 8, 2007 at 8:11 am

Islam must be destroyed.

163. 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam': Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #20817 by Friend Giskard on February 6, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Islam must be destroyed.

164. God and gorillas

Comment #20248 by Friend Giskard on February 1, 2007 at 8:59 am

Just to correct the Latin at the top of the article, it should be "Homo religiosus"

As for the article itself, it's too boring to read.

165. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19571 by Friend Giskard on January 28, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Sam started his first post by writing,

First, I'd like to say that it is a pleasure to communicate with you in this forum... I think this email exchange will give us our first opportunity for a proper discussion.

I wonder if Sam has changed his mind yet about the chances of having a proper discussion with this man, or about how much pleasure there is in trying.

166. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19222 by Friend Giskard on January 25, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Let Richard do what Richard does and leave the arse-licking to Shermer.

167. Arguing for Atheism

Comment #19217 by Friend Giskard on January 25, 2007 at 3:46 pm

So, Mr Shermer, you have friends and colleagues who are religious, and yet not deluded?

Are you serious?

As for the pain these appellations cause them, I get called a lot of worse things by religious zealots all the time (e.g. Qur'an 98:6 calls unbelievers "the vilest of creatures" -- which puts me, and everyone I care about, below maggots) . But it doesn't cause me any pain at all. It just reminds me that I'm superior to them.

Your friends shouldn't be so sensitive. (Or is it different for them, because the most hurtful thing you can say to a person is the thing that -- deep down -- they know to be true.)

168. Randi and 800 Other Amazing Skeptics

Comment #19143 by Friend Giskard on January 25, 2007 at 6:49 am

This from Wikipedia on Trey Parker:

Although Parker regularly mocks religion on South Park, he does believe in God (though he didn't mention of which religion). On a September 2006 airing of the ABC newsmagazine Nightline, Parker articulated his position:

* "Basically...out of all the ridiculous religion stories---which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous---the silliest one I've ever heard is..."yeah...there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here 'just cuz'..."just cuz". That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever."

On this evidence I conclude that Southpark owes most of its wit and intelligence to Matt Stone.

169. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #19085 by Friend Giskard on January 24, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Hi Norman,

The charges of "intolerance" and "dogmatism" are just the familiar name-calling that cornered theists use in lieu of a proper argument. These may be disregarded.

But Sullivan should clarify the point about Sam contradicting himself, if he agrees with it. (He won't, of course.)

170. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18915 by Friend Giskard on January 23, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Janus writes:

I don't see why. No scientific theory can rule out the existence of a 'supreme being' (whatever the hell that is) outside of our universe or outside of time, but it (AFAIK) can rule out the possibility that our universe had a beginning, which means that it can't have been created. An entity defined as the creator of our universe cannot exist if our universe hasn't been created.

The inference that a universe that has no beginning cannot have a creator depends on the assumption that the part of space-time which we think of as being close to the 'beginning' must have some special relationship to the supposed creative act which brought the universe into being. That the past is closer to creation than the future.

But it is easy to conceive of a creation in which all of space and time, past, present, and future, are brought into being together, on an equal footing. In this view, the big bang is no more representative of the supposed act of creation than is, say, a particular collision between two molecules of uric acid in a chamber pot in Sutton Coldfield in June 1974. A knowledge of the specific topology that obtains at the big bang does not allow one to draw inferences touching on the question of a creator, any more than does a knowledge of the temperature of that chamber pot.

(For anybody reading this post out of context, don't get the idea that I'm arguing for a creator. I'm not)

171. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18892 by Friend Giskard on January 23, 2007 at 1:47 pm

In his latest reply, Sam Harris blunders when he writes:

When the real cosmologists come back from their next conference and say things like, "spacetime may be a closed manifold and, therefore, may have no beginning or end" this would be one of many possible descriptions of the universe which would close the door on a creation event and, therefore, on a Creator. There are many ways that science could conflict with the "truth" upon which your faith now rests.

This is a very weak argument which only requires the crafty theist to shift to a modified conception of a creator who stands "outside of time". My heart sank when I read it.

Sam should know better than to base an argument on the idea that a scientific theory could ever rule out the possibility of a creator. Sullivan will make him pay for it.

172. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18886 by Friend Giskard on January 23, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Quork writes:

I thought Harris was a former Fundamentalist. Is that so, and can Sullivan actually be unaware of it?

Wherevever did you get that idea? It doesn't sound very likely.

173. Some stars and planets in scale

Comment #18682 by Friend Giskard on January 22, 2007 at 11:26 am

Here's a similar kind of thing which I actually prefer:

http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

Although those red giants are impressive in girth, you should bear in mind that they contain less matter per cubic meter than what in most laboratories would be called a vacuum.

174. The Mystery of Consciousness

Comment #18672 by Friend Giskard on January 22, 2007 at 9:45 am

Whenever I hear or read someone claiming that the 'hard' problem of consciousness has been solved, or denying that there is any such problem, I have to wonder whether there truly are zombies among us.

175. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18134 by Friend Giskard on January 18, 2007 at 2:05 pm

dmcr35 writes:

Science requires empirical evidence unlike religious belief which requires a vivid imagination only.

You are far too kind in crediting believers with a vivid imagination.

It is surely a sign of the utter impoverishment of the religious mind that these people must worship a figment of somebody else's imagination.

176. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18120 by Friend Giskard on January 18, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Lionel A

It should read pabulum instead of pablum.

177. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17293 by Friend Giskard on January 12, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Duff,

And yet Professor D. has been known to make reference, from time to time, to the "sophisticated theologians" who accept the fact of evolution. A use of words that has always puzzled me, coming from the prof.

I personally take them all for fools.

178. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17286 by Friend Giskard on January 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

No wonder some of his critics sneer at the level philosophical learning evident in Richard's writings. He obviously learned his philosophy from Walt Disney. Just look on his bookshelf: "PLUTO'S REPUBLIC".

***
LATER

[Amazingly someone has taken this as a snipe at Richard on my part. But this is a joke. I actually can't comment on the prof's philosphical learning, as I have very little of it myself)

179. Gentle Rottweiler

Comment #17281 by Friend Giskard on January 12, 2007 at 5:14 pm

The author, to illustrate the point that Richard's critics accuse him of dogmatism, quotes Dan Dennett: "some readers will probably come away from the book more impressed by Dawkins' disrespect than persuaded by his arguments."

To be fair, Dennett does not accuse Richard of dogmatism, but only of disrespect. The author doesn't seem to understand that there is a difference between dogmatism and disrespect. The latter, when directed at the right people, is even a good thing.

180. Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Comment #16238 by Friend Giskard on January 5, 2007 at 4:51 pm

The public was consulted on hybrid embryo work among other issues for an overhaul of outdated laws on fertility treatments and embryo research.

Darn. I missed that meeting.

181. If they preach the cause of the poor, they're my people

Comment #15833 by Friend Giskard on January 3, 2007 at 9:24 am

What and arsehole.

182. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14454 by Friend Giskard on December 22, 2006 at 1:57 pm

This piece of prose does not meet Richard's usual high standards. I had to read to sixth paragraph about ten times before I understood it. There are too many ambiguous pronouns - it, its, they. I think Richard should have got someone to read this through before publishing it, or left it in a drawer for a day or two before re-reading it himself.

183. The problem with secularism

Comment #14378 by Friend Giskard on December 22, 2006 at 7:57 am

He-he. The authors say that the multiverse hypothesis sounds even more bizarre than religion, implying that bizarreness is a good reason for dismissing something. But they obviously think that religion is also bizarre. So we can just as lightly dismiss that too.

184. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13180 by Friend Giskard on December 16, 2006 at 4:18 am

The following article is worth reading. Since there are no comments there at the moment, it looks as though most people here haven't seen it yet.

Link: The Righteousness of Blasphemy.