151. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61501 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 11:27 am

If I was to design a universe, I would probaly try everything I could to make the galaxies closer together. Sure it is nice to see the faint stars on a clear night, but is that all they are for?
Sure, god made the lot just for us and no-one else, so he must have known that one day we would want to explore space. Yet he made it virtually impossible for us to travel to other star systems.
What a bastard.

152. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61500 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 11:20 am

26. Comment #61412 by Richard Morgan on August 5, 2007 at 4:53 am

What are talking about is the placebo effect, as has been noted in previous posts. It works, but the medicine doesn't. And at a time when GPs are not perscribing placebos for ethical reasons (and fear of malpractice lawsuits) then why should these people charge inflated prices for a treatment that doesn't do anything?

Let me pull you some stats to explain.

The success rate of placebos entered folklore when it was shown in trials to be around 35% (Beecher, 1955).
However, other trials have not been so successful, notably Hrobjartsson and Gotzsche in 2001, who concluded the effect was negligable when comparing 100 trials with real medicine, placebo and no treatment at all.
But you can argue either way about how the trials were handled, but the big one for me is that homeopathy and placebos have a zero effectiveness on diabetes and amputations, same as praying. 'nuff said.

37. Comment #61472 by discipline on August 5, 2007 at 9:43 am

This is not the direction the 'new atheist' movement is going, RD is the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. It is his job to increase the understanding of science in the world, and one way to do this is demolish myths, be it superstitions or con-men practising medicine.
The more people know about this sort of racket, the more can be done to quell it.
Simple.

16. Comment #61392 by Richard Dawkins on August 5, 2007 at 3:01 am

Thank you for your clarification. In one of your books (sorry, can't remember which one) you stated your father was an officer - I took this to be an indication of a career soldier as well, but I do understand the likelyhood of older generations engaging in military service, both my grandparents served in WWII.

153. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61378 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 2:03 am

"No, nobody in my family involved in the military at all," is the glacially polite reply.

Was RD playing devil's advocate here? I thought that his father was an officer, so maybe I'm just plain wrong or he was trying to see if the 'psychic' (psychotic?) could see through him.

154. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61364 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 12:55 am

V,

I am so concerned with the public notices that abound in our local newspaper. I did see an advert that claimed you could change your DNA (3x$80 sessions). Holy shit! I wonder how many people parted with their hard-earned cash to go along to that charlatan?

Jesus, that's bad.
Over here in the UK we only pay £5 for a packet of cigarettes and hope that will do the trick.....

155. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61363 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 12:52 am

Dawkins is horrified that 25% of the British public has some belief in astrology – more than in any one established religion – and that more newspaper column inches are devoted to horoscopes than to science.

Now here is something we can all become involved in - we need to tell our family, colleages and friends about the lies and stupidity of such nonsense. We need to pour scorn on those who pay for astro-texts and the like.

The creationists can prepare for a rocky ride from Dawkins the year after next, which will be the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. "It's going to be a big Darwin year," he says with undisguised relish.

Can't wait.

156. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61355 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 12:16 am

It's about time someone made a public stance againt these nutters, and after comments in TGD I'm not suprised it's RD. Go get 'em!!!Can't wait to see this mini series.

But yesterday, Miss Livingstone hit back. "I have a 100 per cent success record with people at some level," she told The Sunday Telegraph. "Richard seemed to enjoy it while he was here. He was smiling and he didn't want it to stop.

Probably laughing his tits off at her absurd claims.

The refurbishment of the Royal London Homeopathic hospital was part-funded with £10 million of NHS money.

Situated right next door to Great Ormond Street Hospital, this building houses offices and clinics for the greatest children's hospital in the world.
And I can assure you it does not just house new-age dilluders, there are some very fine doctors and nurses working there!!!!

157. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61318 by Nails on August 4, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Wow! what a coincidence!!!
I found a very similar book on my mother's bookshelf a couple of days ago, and I read her the first page.
I harps on about the roots of religion; how 3,000 or so years ago mankind was a struggling to find answers and basically survive, most children died young and 30 was a a good life expectancy....
So why then, are nearly all the biblical characters a few hundred years old?
The reply I got from my deluded mother?
"It's not to be taken literally, you know."

*shakes his head and sighs*

158. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #60301 by Nails on August 1, 2007 at 2:17 pm

77. Comment #59652 by LeeC on July 30, 2007 at 3:39 am

So back to the god question, I do not know how to falsify god, this theory is therefore not scientific

History has shown us one way to falsify god and it has been used more than once. just start the rumour, make it more fantastic than normal people would believe and then threaten them with eternal damnation if they don't agree.
Or, if the god illusio is prodominant, just tell everyone he has spoken to you and you alone in order to make the world a better place.
Easy peasy.

159. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60265 by Nails on August 1, 2007 at 12:26 pm

I like the idea of an athiest t-shirt, but i'm not keen on the 'A'. I've looked on cafepress.com and seen some good ones, but one has me stumped - my latin is not good enough to translate it!!
Cogito (I think) ergo (therefore) dues (god/deity) non (no/not) est (?)
Can anyone finish it for me?
Would still prefer the 'evolution' t-shirt RD wore in Galapagos recently....

160. Ducking the God Question

Comment #60259 by Nails on August 1, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Richard Dawkins, the most convincing of the recent atheist flame throwers, has employed his status as an Oxford University molecular biologist to systematically illuminate the thesis of his most recent book, The God Delusion.

molecular biologist?
Hope there are no more glaring errors in this otherwise well written article.

161. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59724 by Nails on July 30, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Fides, I think you still misunderstand the childish bit.
My thoughts on this are quite clear - RD said childish and he meant it.
Religion is childish (in my humble opinion) but, as you quite rightly point out, should we discourage children from doing childish things?
Yes, we should.
Bullying is a childish act, for example. So is stomping your feet when you can't get your own way.
But children will not begin religious activities without a helping hand (even unintentional) from their parents or family.
But, from your point of view, if you failed to teach your child about religion then you would feel like you were failing in your duties to bring up your child as best you could.
It is a double edged sword and it is the right of every parent to continue as they see fit (within the realms of the law, of course).
So why childish?
Simple, when the hard questions about where we/this/that came from arise, the simplest option is offered, one that any child or infantile-minded person can understand. God did it. Because he loves us.
Yet many people who are much wiser than people of 2/3,000 years ago still follow this, even those who should know better.
But I guess from your point of view, we atheists whould know better than to gamble with our future in heaven/hell.

162. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59281 by Nails on July 28, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Why does it have to be about conforming and being a 'group'?
Don't any of you wear sports shirts that show your support of a team or nation?
All we are doing by buying and wearing these is spreading a message of affiliation, that's all.

163. Welsh Hindus fight to save Shambo the sacred bull

Comment #59273 by Nails on July 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Oh crap. just found this little nugget:

Job 1

1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.

OK, so job is a man of god, a good man who shuns evil but owns slaves.
Go figure.

164. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59247 by Nails on July 28, 2007 at 2:16 pm

This is scary stuff.
Are these people really ready to bring us closer to WWIII to advance their dreams of the saviour returning?
But religion and violence arn't linked, we've seen it written on here by fundies countless times...
We need words stronger than deluded i think.

BTW - scottishgeologist - I love the avatar.

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

Comment #59156 by Nails on July 27, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Richard Morgan - I wasn't going to respond to your post because it is pathetic and child-like.
But it set me thinking.
Is that your son in the video?
Or one of his mates perhaps.
Maybe its Devolved.....

166. Resisting peer pressure: new findings shed light on adolescent decision-making

Comment #59150 by Nails on July 27, 2007 at 3:46 pm

6. Comment #59139 by Kakashi_monkey on July 27, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Peers pressure each other for many things, religion among them. Some christian kids bother the atheist ones, "You don't belive in god?! You should!" I have resisted peer pressure from my peers in my elementary school days about religion, and I stand strong for atheism. I hope most atheist kids and adults are capable of fending off religion attacks.

nice one kid, but take a good look around - most of us are more than capable of standing up to the 'righteous'.
In fact, I'm suprised at how easy it is to refute most religious arguments. I've yet to test myself against a member of the clergy but i'm trying to bait a friend of my mothers (who is a retired minister) into trying to convert me....
Should be interesting!

167. Welsh Hindus fight to save Shambo the sacred bull

Comment #58962 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 6:56 pm

21. Comment #58926 by dianalake on July 26, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Actually I expect to answer logically - I have read a few of Richard Dawkin's books and various others of a scientific bent. I have also got a degree in science, so I am not lacking in logic just because I'm a Christian.

Degree in science (but which science? and from where?) yet quotes Genesis as if it were fact....
So exactly what did they teach you in science?
And just how accurate is your education in science?
I hate to break it to you, but the earth is just a ltittle older than 10,000 years old and man was not created, he evolved. People don't, and never have, had children when they were 100+ or lived to six hundred and whatever Noah was supposed to be.
Why do we know this?
Because Science tells us so.
Biology, chemistry, physics, paeleontology - all have evidence that contradicts the bilical account of Genesis.
I look forward to your rested mind answering with facts, not fiction.
But to answer your point about where the bible mentions that slavery is OK - how about Genesis 20:17:

Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls so they could have children again

Did god tell Abraham that slavery was wrong?
No. he didn't.

Leviticus 22:11

But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.

So preiest are allowed to buy slaves!!

Exodus 21

Exodus 21
1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:

Hebrew Servants
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Personal Injuries
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks [c] his father or his mother must be put to death.

16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.

17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [d] and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

33 "If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.

35 "If a man's bull injures the bull of another and it dies, they are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally. 36 However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his.

Ooh, look!! the rules of owning a slave!! How interesting.
And anyone who attacks their parents smust be stoned to death. No mention of rights for abused children though.
Romans 7:25

Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

And we are all god's little slaves, and so he can punish us as he sees fit.

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

Comment #58949 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 6:25 pm

Exactly! the KKK and the Nazis were both notorious for allowing people to express unpopular views in an open and free forum

Brilliant.

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

Comment #58946 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 6:15 pm

RD is a moderate now?
Hell, i thought that idiots like this usually described him as a fundamentalist!!
Leader of the atheist movement?
And why do you have a right to worship anyway?
The point about banning the bible as it preaches religious hatred and a homophobia is a valid one.
Le's not forget that people like this are used to cherry-picking waht they want and are used to censorship.
Again, the comments (not opinions, just a simple comment whether meant in jest or not is irrelevant) of one or two people becomes the manifesto of the many - talk about blind...
And this folks, is what we are dealing with here.
And wasn't that song crap as well.

170. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58941 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 6:03 pm

How bizarre that I didn't get the Occom's razor quote, had to bloody google it!!!
My gran taught me about lex parsimoniae, that simple rules are better than grandious dogma. Strange, she was a very religious person.
*shakes his head*

171. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58931 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 5:48 pm

74. Comment #58779 by newatheist on July 26, 2007 at 5:36 am

Hi Nails (Sorry to butt in late.)

Okay I had my rant pants on, but this wasn't just an insult. Coupled with the preceding line and the one that followed it, it was also a "cunningly abbreviated" commentary on Ash's manifest hypocrisy. ; ) Although no doubt the humour was lost in the harsh tone.

Maybe I'm the one who should be sorry for criticising you too easily and acting like I own the place.
Ash's comments were futile and contrictary, but I guess we are used to it on here now!!
I must confess I thought something very similar but I wanted to play devil's advocate.
The reason is quite clear, I suggested he read Mendel, he says he hasn't but has read Steve Jones and RD. I was waiting for him to trip himself up again but his god must have teleported him back to heaven.
As anyone who has any real interest in biology knows, Mendel described the rules of inheritance by observing peas and flowering patterns, amongst other traits. If he has seriously read RD or anyone else in biology/genetics then he wouldn't have to read Mendel, it would have been summerised of rhim already...
no doubt this one was lost somewhere as well.

172. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58928 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 5:35 pm

141. Comment #58707 by the_assayer on July 25, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Well Nails, Mea Culpa! I should have put it in better words. By labelling I don't mean forcing someone to identify himself as a Jew or a Christian. I was referring to the case where Labelling becomes an act of identifying someone according to his/her predispositions.
You say religion is not a character trait. Maybe not for a child, I agree. But a child of Faith, as Fide's son, gets labelled as a Christian or Jew by virtue of the people around him seeing him as one of them. Thats an innocent mistake on their part. As long as they don't limit him from knowing about other opposing views, they are being moral enough. A religious parent cannot be expected to keep his religious impulses a secret infront of his child. You have to understand that by Labelling a child christian, not every parent intends to censor him from other religions and belief system.

And your reply to my ".. are we our own God." is well taken. I was only trying to point out that maybe the idea of a God stems from such psychological traits that many of us had in our childhood. I was not trying to start a new Wooly-God based religion. You should my posts again. I don't say that God is in me or such stupid stuff. I was talking of God as "ME" passing judgements on "Myself". In some ways it mirrors your arguments against me in this regard.
I agree Goldy. Politeness is a belief only in that sense. I didn't mean that we require faith to take politeness seriously.

I have learned on here how easy it is to post without considering how other people can see your words in another light. It is a mistake i am trying hard to rectify but RD has admitted that people can twist words to suit their own purpose....
I hope I didn't twist your words, it is just how it appeared to me.
I am not personally comfortable with the labelling of children, but i wouldn't describe it as wicked either - i guess I'm a bit of a fence-sitter on this one.
But I accept your point that if the child grows up attending church etc. it will be seen to be in the same 'box' as the parents.
But i do strongly believe, based on personal experience, that when people pray for guidance they are merely summoning their own inner self to guide them - maybe a bit like talking out loud to yourself to help you remember something or increase its importance in the mind. But the end result is the same, the power is already within you.
you just have to know how to find it.

173. Welsh Hindus fight to save Shambo the sacred bull

Comment #58919 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Why can't they just get another one?
What is so special about this one bull?
Obviously nothing if it has TB, but you know what I mean.
dianalake - yes, you do have the right to your opinion and for it to be heard - but please don't expect any sympathy if it were your sacred bull.
At least they worship something real....

174. Proboscidean Mitogenomics: Chronology and Mode of Elephant Evolution Using Mastodon as Outgroup

Comment #58917 by Nails on July 26, 2007 at 4:57 pm

6. Comment #58914 by Steve19 on July 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Also, this article brings up the question: Will we ever be able to create a real Jurassic Park? And, could an elephant give birth to a Mastodon if we implanted a synthetic fertilized Mastodon egg?

I'm sure that the differences in tissue type and immune responses would be a major problem here.
Something tells me the immune system of the 'mother' would reject her 'egg' almost immediatly

175. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58675 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

No, I don't think he did.
I too have lent my copy out, but I seem remember him expressing distain at the use of the term for its lack of clarity and conviction.
But, he does explain that 'gay' was not the best of labels when it was first used by homosexuals but has served their purpose well.

176. Fewer Muslims 'back suicide bombs'

Comment #58665 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:55 pm

I wish they had sampled other faiths and ahteists just to put a perspective on things.
Also note the question - specifically suicide bombings agains civilians.
i wonder how many support such action against a military target, even a 'soft' target?
Better, but still not good enough.

177. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58664 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

As for Judas - what evidence do we have that he actually died a week after Jesus was crucified? I can only think of the Bible, and that's a bit dubious, isn't it?

That is exactly my point.

Matthew 26
The Plot Against Jesus
1When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, 2"As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."
3Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. 5"But not during the Feast," they said, "or there may be a riot among the people."

Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus
14Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
The Lord's Supper
17On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
18He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.' " 19So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.

20When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

22They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"

23Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."[a]

Matthew 27
Judas Hangs Himself
1Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. 2They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor.
3When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. 4"I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood."
"What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility."

5So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=26&version=31

Maybe less than a week then....

178. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58657 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Sorry if i refer to earlier texts, I've got a bit of catching up to do on this thread.....
So forgive me if anyone else has answered these points and I end up repeating.
67. Comment #58457 by the_assayer on July 24, 2007 at 11:49 pm

I agree with fides. Labelling cannot be termed as a wicked thing. Its something we do inorder to qualify someone's character.

WTF????
How is labelling someone (a child especially) aChristian supposed to qualify someone's character?
Religion is not a character trait. There are so many different interpretations of religious doctrine that make the label useless in my opinion.
The best anyone can hope for by being labelled a theist of any description is that they have lost the ability to think for themselves.

85. Comment #58488 by the_assayer on July 25, 2007 at 3:03 am

...In other words, are we in someways our own God?

Let's put this another way. If you pray for strength, where do you think this strength is going to come from?
That's right, you. By imagining you can gain help from a supernatural source implies that any help it imoarts was with you to start with, you just didn't know it.

179. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58517 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:44 am

LeeC - Almost like a whale. The only book of his I have read so its not much of a recommendation really but I enjoyed it.
Maybe I am a little closed in my mindset with regards to literature, a friend bought me a Carl Sagan book a few years ago (Cosmos) but I havn't even opened it. to be fair, there is a lot of biology-based books i want to read first; I've spent the last 15 or so years learning and working with biology - maybe it is time for a change.
With regards to the 'clan' statement I made earlier (for which I have been severely censured!!) i wish to make it clear that I have no wish to see atheist churches or workshops - if any of you have joined gaming clans then you will probably understand my sentiment. i feel the analogy was apt because sometimes it feels like the is hoard of atheists here ready to obliterate any theists who cross the path.... just like playing Halo 2 on x-box live...
But I will endevour to be more careful with my language in future to avoid siuations like this. Where I foresee a potential mindfield I will try and explain myself further before I finish the post.
In my defence, my actual line was "We are a clan if you like " - emphasis added later.
Quetzalcoatl - I saw a documentary on the Gospel of Judas a few months ago and it went into suprisingly little detail about its actual content especially for a National Geo programme. Basically, the crux was that Jesus told Judas to betray him, it was god's plan. Still don't get how he had the time to preach this as he was dead a little over a week later, allegedly. The other gospels would certainly be a useful read, but I guess their must have been a good reason for their suppression. there is also evidence of the early popes changing the direction of the teachings, linking Mary Magdeline with an un-named prostitute is a classic example and only serves to further prejudice women. How different life in Chriatianity would have been if there had been a leading woman in the bible....

180. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58504 by Nails on July 25, 2007 at 4:14 am

Goldy, thank you for setting me straight on the Genghis Khan religious issue. Basically it was more of a guess than anything else as I havn't researched the issue, much like people who claim that Hitler was of no religious disposition.
Bonzai, Islam is something I would love to learn more about but most Muslims i know seem very reluctant to talk about their faith; either that or I have gained an unfair reputation and they don't want to end up debating with me....

One question I would love a theist to answer is how they can substanciate the biblical accounts.
After all, Jason and the Argonaughts is an old story with some elements of truth that are historically accurate. It was passed down by word of mouth and possibly altered, made more fantastic for generations before being written down. Maybe in modern times we have added a new level of drama for TV, I don't know. But is the bible any different?
After all, the gospels were written after their deaths and there is no written account from Jesus himself. There is suprisingly little written evidence from the Romans etc, so maybe his life was not such a big deal and the furore has arisen after his death.
Recently there has been an uncovering of a gospel of Judas - but how can that be if he hung himself three days after the betrayal?
if there are more gospels, as has been suggested, were they based on the actual teachings of the disciples or just words put in their name?
How can you prove their authenticity or accuracy?
Was the current edition of the bible ruthlessly edited by the early papel administration? And how does this effect its impartiallity as a historical document if others have been destroyed which could either corroborate or refute the biblical claims? Why were the other gospels destroyed?
Long question I know, please entertain me on this one. I need to know.

181. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58418 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Without reaching for my bookshelf i cannot prove that I am right....
Too tired.
Gone 2am here, time I was dreaming of a religion-free state... Goodnight to you all.

182. Red Mosque Fueled Islamic Fire in Young Women

Comment #58414 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Remind me never to go to a WRVS shop in islamabad.....
Maybe a bit harsh but I shall explain.
In this country (UK) we caracature women of the church as being mddle-aged charity shop workers, into knitting and drinking tea.
Harmless.
And mosques are kicking out people who would gladly die, not just for their faith but for the afterlife?
I don't get it, I really don't.
If it was that good, why are their any muslims over the age of twenty?
Surely they would all martyr themselves as soon as they were deemed old enough!! And that woul dleave no-one around to tell the rest how good it is going to be without ever having the slightest idea how ridiculous it sounds.

183. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58410 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 6:04 pm

50. Comment #58406 by Veronique on July 24, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Maybe let go of the 'wickedness' of labelling and just see labelling as deleterious to a child's developing brain, mind and curiosity. RD calls it wicked and maybe that's a bit strident. Others, and RD, have called it 'child abuse'.

I don't believe that the labelling in itself is deemed child abuse, more the indoctrination.
Filling a child's head with stories of hell for not praying/obeying/conforming are just plain evil in my book and I think this is closer to RD'd stance as well.

184. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58408 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 5:59 pm

I think the main issue here is choice.
Children rarely have any choice but to follow their parents religion.
The labelling system compounds this and it is, in all esscence, unfair.
People should be judged on thier own merits, acheivements and aspirations - we are long past the era when a son had to follow his fathers trade and earn his sirname.
In short, if we gave our children a choice and allowed them to choose their own religious teachings when they are older then we can't label them and religion will loose a stronghold on the next generation.
So maybe RD's rational is two-fold, labelling a child with their parents beliefs/qualities/job etc is unfair (I wouldn't go so far as to call it wicked myself) but it would also reduce the claw of religion by reducing the indoctrination aspect.
Let's be honest here, born-again christians have made a choice, children havn't.

185. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58390 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 5:14 pm

32. Comment #58382 by fides_et_ratio on July 24, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Interestingly to me is the fact that he asks to pray, and derives some inate pleasure from praying

Have you ever considered that your child finds that by paying he is pleasing you and derives pleasure from your approval?
If pleasure from praying really was innate, children of non-believers would do it and probably some other animals as well.....

186. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58377 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 4:52 pm

51. Comment #58217 by newatheist on July 24, 2007 at 3:38 am

Better re-read your first comment then. Dickhead.

A little harsh I thought. If we allow the conversation to break into insults so easily we might as well not bother with any conversations and just type expletives. Ash is new here, let's give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt, at least for now please.

53. Comment #58220 by Ash Roskell on July 24, 2007 at 3:54 am

I must say, it's beginning to get a bit lonely out here (though I'm sure that comment will prompt a crack about having God to keep me company).

That's because most theists only have three or four answers to everything and they get very sick of being questioned vigourously (or just intellectually beaten) on here. Somehow I think you will be a source of inspiration to us all.

With regard to lapsing into the 'religion as a cover for violence' argument, putting it rather simply, I know. I am dissapointed. I had come to expect higher thinking from you. I stand by the point that, in a world without religion, people will still find hypocracy, lies, zealousness, etc. There will still be suicide killings, atrocity & war faught in these ways.

Sorry, don't agree. There is only two possible causes of a suicide attack, japan showed us the first in their piloting skills (was it an accident they just fell out of the sky?) no, they really believed that they had to defeat the American army to safegaurd the lives of their families. And a few thousand year s of teaching the masses of the 'honour' of the ultimate self sacrifice.... the other is total brainwash where god wants you to blow up as many infidels (who are not a threat to you at all) and you will be rewarded with x amount of pleasure for eternity.
In all likelyhood then, no religion = no suicide bombers. Kamikazee is slightly different as there is a real threat factor there.

Hi Goldy, you should check the posts again. I mentioned athiest regimes, and the hell they have unleashed, in response to Nails' argument that religious regimes seemed to be the worst perpetrators of such atrocities. You have made, almost, the same point as I; that there are only people, when it comes to warmongering. However I would challenge the notion that ideas stand alone for their validity.

You need to make a major distinction here. Hitler was Catholic and persecuted the Jews. That is religious in motivation (cause) and action (effect).
H was also a megalomaniac and wanted to rule the world, something that is not religious in nature. I fact I think the bible actively discourages this (but I won't trawl for a quote).
Stalin was atheist but didn't persecute because he was atheist or in the name of anti-religion.
Gengis Khan, same answer.
As I have previously posted and has been said many times before - religion doesn't make you good or bad. But bad religious people are the worst of the lot.
Look at Americas flourishing evangelic movement, they fleece the poor in gods name and make themselves rich. With these riches they buy more TV time and influence politics.
Even bad ideas from good people become worse with religion, look at the pope's stance on condoms and the AIDS crisis in Africa.

If you have the time to read Dawkins, then you have the time to read history & the philosophers. Perhaps you should just come out & acknowledge that you don't want to?

I enjoy reading, biology is my work and my hobby so I can legitimately combine them.
I often find that to attempting to move to a new field brings up gaps in your knowledge or questions that require further investigation, and that would be a drain on my time and resourses. After all, what is the point in only looking at one perspective? Much better to examine something from all possible angles.

187. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58365 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm

"...but you were raised as an Anglican child?"

"Yes, so what?"

Nearly spat coffee all over my screen.

Stephen Sackur also displays a hugely ignorant view of the selfish gene theory.
Obviously very little detailed research done, maybe there is just a standard question card kicking around for interviewing atheists.

188. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58201 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 2:24 am

Bonzai (and Ash), biology is my chosen field and I read Origin of Species one summer holiday when I was only working part-time. I must confess I found it hard to read, but as I was a biology student i gained a huge insight from it. With hindsight, i would have been better off reading the Selfish Gene as it was on my recommended reading list. For some reason I thumbed a few pages and came to the conclusion that we are altruistic because our genes are selfish. End of. I have since read the book and I found it very hard to put down. Loved it.
What is striking about Origin is the amount of detailed observations Darwin made, he really must have been a prolific note-taker. The huge sum of evidence he colllected was quite striking and the basis of his theory is still sound despite him having no knowledge of genes or DNA.i must confess I havn't read Mendel's work directly either, but his work is required learning for all biology students of any level - GSCE upwards (sorry, not sure what the American/worldwide equivelent is, age 16 exams).

I do agree with Bonzai that you do not have to read someones work to understand the theories, and to return to Ash's earlier point about me getting 'bored' with reading the bible that must be a character flaw because I found Blind Watchmaker quite boring as well. Having previously read Selfish Gene and Ancestor's Tale I found most of Blind Watchmaker had been repeated elsewhere - a similar sentiment I suppose to reading the bible.
God is not great is my next read, but I have only flicked the first couple of pages so far - school holidays are a real time-consumer but i hope to have more time after summer.

With regards to physics, I have read brief history of time by Prof. Hawking and loved it, but that's as far as that goes.

I am curious about one thing though Ash, if you have read Darwin, Dawkins et al then how come you still have faith?
Not that I suppose reading Dawkins is going to strip your faith away, I guess you have to have doubts of your own first. i considered myself a quiet atheist before reading Dawkins, now I know I don't have to feel like the odd one out and oppologise for it.

189. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58147 by Nails on July 23, 2007 at 5:02 pm

I ask you; are you honestly telling me you have read the whole of "Origin of Species"?

Yes i have, cover to cover. Not easy, I must admit. It is now available online in its entirety, but I guess you don't need me to provide you with a link.

You have made two incorrect assumptions about me and thereby rather clumsily revealed your hand. 1) You assume that I do not read literature with which I do not agree 2) You assume that I have not read the same books as you. Wrong both times.

dito.

But now I know, by your own admission that you have not read a broad cross-section of literature which, no doubt, the head of your atheist church will have (that is not sarcasm by the way) & I also know, by your own admission, that you are not willing to look outside of the world in which you are comfortable. For my own part, I will give Mendel & Harris a look.

On the contrary, by rejecting the bible i have looked outside the world I lived the first twenty years of my life in. I stepped out of the comfort zone and decided to face my own demons. And i won..
And if you had read much Dawkins or Jones you would have no need to read the only notable work by Mendel.
You are however correct that my literarary knowledge is limited, hopefully I can correct this when my little ones have flown the nest.

As for persecution, I simply think that blaming persecution on religious people alone shows a total lack of understanding of history. It is a popular and increasingly discredited argument; that's all. Read history or leave that side of the debate to those in the know.

Persecution is a notably human feature, of that there is no doubt and you do not need to have deity to be good or evil - on that I think we both agree. However, religion adds another level to the equation, look at the inquisistion.
I have no doubt you are well aware of the courage shown by thousands of brave allied soldiers when storming the heavily defended beaches of Normandy on the morning of D-day, but what about the Iranian squads who ran at heavily armoured Iraqi bunkers with no helmets and no weapons?
And the single reason for this apparant suicide - yup, love of god.

As you bring up the death of your mother & feel it appropriate for discussion on such a site, I can say only this. You were not punished for anything; God does not work that way. You cannot say that she was not prevented from more suffering perhaps, but such speculations are mawkish at the best of times. I am sorry for your loss, but I could just as easily use the examples of the many deaths I have witnessed, as well as the others which have caused me suffering, in my arguments for faith. I do not think it wise or right to do so.

Thank you for your kind words, but my mother is still alive. She survived several operations and will live out her natural life a shadow of her former self but such is life. I ask not for anyones pity as death is the logical outcome of life; it wasn't the worst tragedy of the time but it was most certainly the catalyst. What it did was allow me to look outside the box, even though my mother severelly disapproves of my atheistic stance.
But with regards to the bible as evidence, its usefulness as a source were demeaned by its shameless editing.

190. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57968 by Nails on July 22, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Part 2 - Genesis is written more like a poem in the first instance and based upon the number seven so we shouldn't take it literally.
Because god made the universe in an ordered way, he paved the way for science.... BS
I wish the Rev. would join in on here, I'd love to ask him why god created life over 3 billion years ago and waited until recent times to speak to his creation - unless the dinosaurs had a bible after he revealed himself to them that is.
Then, when it went tits-up why did he drown 99.9% of everything?
Why not just a click of the fingers or whatever he did in the first place?
And when we evolved (under his guidance?) into aggressive beings, why did he not just tinker with the DNA to make us a little less murderous or inquisitive?
Why then change tactics and have your own son betrayed and murdered so that we can be happy?
Crazy, just crazy.
But check out the prayer at the end:

we know that there is much that we do not know... it is not wrong for us to enquire and puzzle.... we know that knowledge will never be a saving knowledge... where we yet doubt your existance, give us the courage to enquire

Unless any of the above contradicts the ancient fairy stories that is.

191. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57963 by Nails on July 22, 2007 at 4:57 pm

15 minutes in and I have lost interest.
Too many examples of incompetant arguments.
Why must life be either a supernatural event or scientifically explained:

Why does it have to be an either/or?

*sighs*
Phenomenon of radical theory change - McGrath's argument that science is weak because it is constantly changing and improving?
*shakes head in dispair*
C- Steve, must try harder.

192. PZ Myers on Blogging Heads

Comment #57957 by Nails on July 22, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Very interesting, but long winded.
A lot of beating around the bush unfortunately and i empathise with Jiten's comments.
however, I imagine that a lot of the conversation has to be 'dumbed-down' in order to make it accessable to a wider audience; not many of us could keep up with PZM if he was in full-on bio-speak mode.
If you have a spare hour, you would pobably only waste half of it watching this.

193. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57918 by Nails on July 22, 2007 at 9:47 am

40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell on July 22, 2007 at 1:05 am

Go on then, Nails, I'll give it one more shot. Really though, don't you think that sweeping generalisms and sarcasm are some sort of fig leaf for flimsey arguments? When you are placed in the context of all the other posts it is clear that your earlier "clan" comments were fixed squarely in the sea of love surrounding Dawkins. It is a sign of character not to back-peddle, but to own your views or admit a mistake.

Hardly a fig leaf, and certainly not a back-track. Maybe some of us of a younger generation interpret words differently sometimes, I wouldn't imagine many people use decimate to litteraly mean reduce by a tenth.
But, by posting on here I will accept that I will be shot down sometimes whether you expect an explaination or not. But if all you can do is pick up on interpretation of words, then really, shouldn't you be at dictionary corner instead?

As to growing bored with a book, or failing to understand its content; this is not a valid argument for invalidating the truth therein. It is, however, the most compelling argument for suggesting that the reader does not have any valid grounds for dismissing it, if he confesses that he does not understand it and has forgotten most of it.

On the contrary, I turned to the bible in my hour of need and spent around two years reading and trying to fixate myself in it. i prayed every nght for my sick mother, and I cried myself to sleep some nights begging god for forgiveness at being so lax in my church attendance as a teenager. I felt i was being punished for being a bad christian. But I rarely lie, I don't cheat or steal and I have lived a good christian life in my opinion, so there must be another reason for my faith to be tested. And the more I read and studied, the more I understood. Now that I have rejected my religious upbringing and seen the biblical stories for all that they are - stories - then I am free to live my life without guilt or shame but with pride.
I am proud that I have made my own mind up; I have looked through as much evidence as I can and arrived at my own conclusion.
And I defy anyone to understand revelations, it is blatently misleading in order to inspire and abuse those who fear hell and judgement.

But if you want to read some bad horror stories about atheistic ragimes, try Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Poll Pot and many more in all good stockists near you now.

i think you need to look again at this, you might be suprised about how much religion influenced Hitler and Stalin in particular.

I mean, really! We could stack up all of the bodies in history into two piles; those killed in the name of religion and those killed in secular wars, and guess what you will find? Nearly all of those which were killed in the name of religion were actually killed for secular reasons, religion being very rarely the cause of war, though often the excuse. But you can't seriously believe that, in a world where there was no religion, there would be no war, or people lying about their reasons for going to war?

The big difference is how religion allows the persecution of homosexuals for no other reason, the stoning of those who work on the sabbath and the repression of women. just look at the recent news, a young, unmarried muslim couple were stoned to death for walking hand in hand together in public.
There will always be justification for persecution, but religious justification is fanal and unchallangeable - that needs to end.
I don't think that the world will be such a different place without religion, there will still be wars and murder but no-one will be able to say that their imaginary friend told them to or allowed them to do it, and so escape punishment. (Catholic child abusers are a massive example here)

As you say, perhaps you are naive, so what I suggest (in all good part) is that you study the practice of allowing your head & not your heart rule you in rational thought & debate, & take up a study of history. I recommend, Cicero, Plato & Socrates for the former & Barry Cunliffe & Simon Schama for the latter. Most of all, avoid aggression or sarcasm in debate; it demeans both the argument and the man. Forgive me, if I sound patronising, but I am very, very old & feel I have earned the right to lecture a little :)

I have no problem being patronised and age is no barrier to debate.
Reading? may I recommend Dawkins, Sam Harris, Steve Jones and Christopher Hitchens to name but four that I have read.
Even Charles Darwin or Gregor Mendel might be helpful.
But something tells me that you won't.... as I am just as unlikely to follow your recommendations.

194. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #57885 by Nails on July 21, 2007 at 11:55 pm

"A four year old is no more a Christian than he is a memeber of the postal workers union"

Very well put. Must have read TGD but addresses some major points in a more succinct way.
Humour may well be a useful ally in our quest.

195. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57884 by Nails on July 21, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Its bad enough that the history of humanity is littered with tragedy and horror, but to abuse power and trust by sexually abusing a child is the lowest of the low.
And to hide behind the banner of religion to carry out such horrors is unforgivable. These people should be nailed to a cross or stoned to death, they deserve nothing more.
Those who covered for them are no better.
I'm not suprised that being so close to these stories (by reporting them) that William Lobdell has questioned his faith and turned his back on religion.
Welcome to the rest of your life Mr. Lobdell, now that your mind is free from the shackles of dogma.

196. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57855 by Nails on July 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Hmm, seems like i have to defend myself.
Bonzai, I referred to a clan of the internet gaming type. Meeting up virtually and blowing up computer-generated versions of others for fun - think halo/quake/unreal. Good fun, and certainly not rational. But humans are not rational, not in the slightest.
Atheists and theists differ only in that area which considers supernatural deities. We are still human, even if we are more rational than others.
My quote from Monty Python was from the Spanish Inquisistion sketch, which i would imagine you can now see the irony of.
Ash - maybe i should drink more. That is sound advice, and i shall pour myself a small (ha ha) medicinal whisky as soon as I finish this post.
Again you have misinterpreted my idea of a clan, maybe i was being a little naive. After all, we all know that religion teaches a 'sheep mentality' to keep its order in check, without a shephard you would all be lost.
My point on syntax was only to make your posts easier to read, but maybe I'm the only one woth the problem so please feel free to ignore me, I wan't be offended.
Stephen, first Christian martyr eh.
Killed by Jews, was he?
for blashemy?
one of which was to become a saint on his death?
Bizarre.
I have read the bible, every chapter and verse from Genesis to Revelations. Lost interest in the end, Revelations doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever. There is an awful lot of it I don't remember, so i wouldn't consider myself a biblical scholar. After all, there are many stephens in history, not just scripture so I'm not suprised i didn't get that. Mind you, there are that many violent and unnessassary deaths that they all sort of merge into one bad horror story for me....

197. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #57784 by Nails on July 21, 2007 at 2:22 am

Ash Roskell - I'm sorry but i didn't understand what you were trying to put across.
Have you been drinking?
You may also find that your comments are easier to read if you talk to one sex and include them all - 'he' is a perfectly legitimate way to include all of mankind.
Have you never seen followers of idols displaying signs of devotion?
Have you never been to a gig and seen the mass hysteria that a message, often without meaning but put to a drum and bass rhythm causes? Of course some people here display an almost fanatical devotion to the truth (to quote Monty Python) but is that not a human characteristic?
Most people here are united under one theme - our belief that there is no god and hence religion is a waste of time and energy and should not dominate our society. We are a clan if you like, a world-wide joining of ideas and minds free from biblical teachings and rules.
And who the heck is Stephen?

198. The New New Atheism

Comment #56603 by Nails on July 16, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Remind yourselves people, what is the greatest selling book on the planet bar none?
And where has all the money from that gone?
Money cannot be the sole reason for selling books, but it is a damn good and universal one.

199. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56599 by Nails on July 16, 2007 at 1:59 pm

As long as the plans include plenty of fire extinguishers I can't see a problem.
And if anyone wants to douse themselves in petrol you can just hit them over the head with it....
Seriously, scary news.
I hope it is blocked, if only on the grounds that non-muslims (I suspect) will not be allowed antry.

200. Found: the giant lion-eating chimps of the magic forest

Comment #56243 by Nails on July 14, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Photos please!!!
Videos would be better though.
And how frustrating that it had to be called "magic forest".
That annoys me nearly as much as selling scientifically formulated plant food as "miricle gro"