Comments by JAMCAM87

Comment #255704 by JAMCAM87 on September 28, 2008 at 3:27 am

Fanusi,

The invasion of Iraq was a deliberate attempt to "wipe the slate clean" and allow American companies to take root there in an effort to secure America's financial future.

The Americans (and British) didn't give a shit about the Iraqi people. If they gave a shit about people they would have invaded Iraq ten years ago when Saddam massacred the Kurds.

I admire Hitchens immensely but he doesn't really believe that the Iraq war was a good thing. He is just trying to be controversial because he hates it when everyone (including the media) gets too comfortable with their particular viewpoint. He enjoys the thrill of being the only one with a particular point of view, one of the reasons why he befriends holocaust deniers. He is exercising his right to free speech in a world which is taking too many liberties with censorship e.g. Austians banning holocaust deniers and British not publishing Danish cartoons etc.

252. More atheists are sharing their views

Comment #254619 by JAMCAM87 on September 26, 2008 at 2:23 am

12. Comment #254183 by textnotspeech on September 25, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I'm glad they didn't refer to us as "the New Atheists". I'm so sick of that. I'm not sure why it's used but something about it feels derogatory. It's like saying we were born yesterday or something.

What on earth does New Atheist actually mean? I can't see how the Atheist position had ever changed. Lack of belief in a deity/deities. What's new about that?

253. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253920 by JAMCAM87 on September 25, 2008 at 3:23 am

Caretakers?

Doesn't he mean the undertakers of our most precious knowledge?

254. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253426 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Yes your question was excellent. I just remember thinking "what a fluent and intelligent question, thank god there are some sane people in this (apparently small!) world".

I really hope they post the debate for everyone who missed out. :)

255. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253408 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Were you the lady who asked such a wonderful question of Holloway which went something like "what do you actually believe?"

I was appalled at the quality of the other questions that were asked. Some shockers.

Is the debate available on this site or on youtube? I would love to watch it again.

256. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #253398 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 11:56 am

bamafreethinker

I found Carl Sagan's book Contact so boring that I gave up. It was like reading the Da Vinci Code.

But I haven't met anyone who agrees with me on this.

257. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253392 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 11:48 am

Dawkins and Holloway agreed about a great many things. I would sum up their disagreements in terms of Dan Dennets skyhook/cranes argument. Holloway looks for skyhooks while Dawkins desires only cranes.

It was an excellent discussion. Dawkins was inspiring despite his terrible cold.

p.s.

Don't you just hate the words "something more"? As if, what we have already, just isn't wonderful enough.

258. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253377 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 11:31 am

The concorde effect is what holds him back. He has too much respect, too much history as a Bishop to just pack it all in.

So much money and resources were pumped into the concorde project that, although it wasn't economically sustainable, it was too late to turn back.

259. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253368 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 11:21 am

Richard Holloway is an incredibly intelligent man. It's a shame he doesn't "come out" and deal a devastating blow to Christianity.

I suppose he is a victim of the concorde effect.

260. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253357 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 11:06 am

Paula,

They are even worse than the fundamentalists in some ways. They are more dishonest. Cherry-picking like they do.

I went to a discussion between Richard Holloway and Dawkins and there was nothing theistic about the Bishop! He described himself as an agnostic, bhuddo-quaker or something like that. So I should really say that SOME (few) Anglican bishops are actually atheists.

261. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253349 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 10:41 am

I really loved when Richard Dawkins questioned the Archbishop of Cantebury. Rowan Williams just couldn't avoid the obvious answer to richard's question. There was a twinkle in his eye that said "ok I don't by it either but I can't let my flock know that".

So yes, Don Quix, I think a lot of Anglicans bishops are de facto Atheists already.

262. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253122 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 5:21 am

Comment #253114 by Mitchell Gilks

That's a false analogy. You have a rational reason to like one beverage over the other. They have tastes, literal tastes, with one appealing to your palette, and the other not.

This is not the case with homosexuality. There is no physical difference, nothing you have to do that will be displeasing. It is merely changing an attitude that is based on absolutely no rational grounds, and causes harm.

Excellent summary.

263. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253120 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 5:14 am

Sargeist,

You are right. If he is seriously saying that his dislike for homosexuality is the same as his dislike for wine then I can't argue with him about that.

Usually when you realise that you are just prejudiced for no reason then you cease to be prejudiced. Isn't that the way it works? Otherwise he is playing some strange reverse psychology trick on himself.

264. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253108 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 4:59 am

Atheist Jon

But, anyway, the point is, that I can't justify philisophically why a find homosexuality repulsive... it just occurs that way to me. The same way that you might like the taste of wine more than beer. I'm a beer only guy.

So it's just a gut feeling? This is not the sort of rationalist response I would expect from someone on this site. A good rationalist can overcome their instincts and prejudices using reason.

265. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #253092 by JAMCAM87 on September 24, 2008 at 4:40 am

Wow,

They are really rattled. Well done Dawkins.

266. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252496 by JAMCAM87 on September 23, 2008 at 7:51 am

It is possible for two gay penguins to live together for their whole lives and even adopt abandonned chicks.

Animals can be asexual, homosexual, bisexual. Some invertebrates have sex with themselves. We share a common ancestor with all of them. Unless you find nature repulsive I cannot see how you can find homosexuality repulsive.

267. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252491 by JAMCAM87 on September 23, 2008 at 7:29 am

Atheist Jon

Do you "accept" homosexuality amongst penguins and dolphins? Does that repulse you? If so, then why?

I think you should actually try and figure out why homosexuality disgusts you.

268. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252106 by JAMCAM87 on September 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Oh wonderful. Another twerp making this mistake. How about actually reading what I write? Or trying to prove this point?

Why are there so few people on this site that can discuss without calling each other twerps and idiots?

Fanusi, so you do make the distinction that I mentioned then?

269. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252082 by JAMCAM87 on September 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Fanusi fails to make the distinction between Islam, which is pure, undistilled evil and between Muslim people who are on the verge of becoming a race more persecuted and oppressed than has ever existed.

Lets criticise Islam not wage war on Arabs.

270. Richard Dawkins infected with Satanic 'virus of mind', Christian group claims

Comment #251763 by JAMCAM87 on September 22, 2008 at 4:02 am

David A Robertson

He recently applied to join an evangelical ecumenical group which my church (The Free Church) belongs to . If he succeeded then our position is simple - we would resign. To paraphrase Marx (Groucho not Karl) we would not want to belong to a club that would have him as a member.

You already belong to the same club. You may not have similiar views on condoms and gay sex etc. but you have the same ridiculous belief in the supernatural.

271. Look Who's Irrational Now

Comment #250645 by JAMCAM87 on September 20, 2008 at 4:06 am

So let me get this straight.

Religion keeps palm reading and astrology at bay.

Isn't that because religion is just a load of superstitious nonsense as well?

Mollie Zeigler should get a brain transplant.

272. Natural selection

Comment #247947 by JAMCAM87 on September 15, 2008 at 10:07 am

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet but I'll post it anyway, Dara O'Briain is great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWwrWNV8HNE

273. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #247944 by JAMCAM87 on September 15, 2008 at 10:05 am

I personally can't stand Rod Lidle and find it ironic that he is attacking Islam when he should take a good look at his own ridiculous beliefs.

274. Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert

Comment #245788 by JAMCAM87 on September 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Comment #245780 by Ultraviolet G

"I agree that maybe some of you Brits ought to write in to the Royal Society. (Very politely and very carefully: try and do a better job than the PZ Myers debacle where most of the letters from supporters seemed to be about themselves, or how stupid Catholics were)."

I agree and I will write a letter.

275. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243312 by JAMCAM87 on September 5, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Al,

"I am pained to live in a 2 party system."

This is the biggest problem with American politics. Bring in propotional representation and a great deal of problems will be solved.

Does anyone else think that an alien lifeform is inhabiting Johh McCain's body? He just has such a vacant, glazed-over look. Do the republicans deliberately choose candiates who look dumb? Eyes close together, twisted smile, high pitched voice. Am I the only one noticing this?

276. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242290 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 2:18 pm

464. Comment #242282 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm

You are right but it's a question of whether the ends justifies the means.

If George Bush increased taxes on the rich and gave more to the poor because God told him to is that a good thing??? Or if Bush announced that Faith schools should be banned because God told him so, is that good?

277. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242284 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Decius,

Do you live in Denmark? I've been there many times. Copenhagen is my favourite city in Europe.

278. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242278 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 2:09 pm

So I ask you deicus and others who will you be voting for in your ridiculous two party system???

Edit - Apologies Decius, read your post! :)

279. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242274 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Ian, Al, Fanusi,

I'm not saying Obama is perfect because obviously he isn't and I don't "worship" him if that's what you're implying. But he is the lesser of two evils, that cannot be denied.

Obama is PRETENDING to be religious. If you read his autobiography you will see that he is clearly atheistic. So yes, he is a liar but at least he will not let God intervene in his policy making.

280. Faith schools may be Blair's most damaging legacy

Comment #242261 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 1:59 pm

There is one simple thing we can do to abolish faith schools.

COMPLAIN!

I've been writing to the government about it. Hope everyone else can too. Life's short and a well worded letter can be enormously effective!

:)

281. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242241 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 1:45 pm

There IS a clear cut choice Sciros.

Choose McCain and it will be more of the same. Illegal wars, pandering to big companies, and the general raping and pillaging of the land for resources.

Choose Obama and I can just begin to see a small glimmer of hope for the world.

If the American electorate system wasn't so bloody appalling you wouldn't have to make these clear cut choices in the first place. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION could be a simple way to solve a lot of America's problems.

282. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242233 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 1:37 pm

416. Comment #242225 by jabber on September 3, 2008 at 1:29 pm

well, jamcam at last - some perspective in the duologue! Thankyou. DO you think Palin is an improvement?

No. Like Brandy said "we don't know yet". She might be even worse. But with the world in its present shithole I find it hard to imagine that it could get worse than Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

283. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242223 by JAMCAM87 on September 3, 2008 at 1:27 pm

I don't know what the big deal is. They voted in someone even worse than this woman - GEORGE W BUSH.

284. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241575 by JAMCAM87 on September 2, 2008 at 3:46 pm

The canned laughter is UNBEARABLE!

285. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238383 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 4:16 am

Dhamma,

Yes the rebuttal is not NOMA, but it is not an article - it is a rebuttal. That's why I was confused. I would refer to the article as the one which appeared in nature.

286. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238357 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 3:16 am

"Atheism could be science's contribution to religion"

This doesn't make any sense. Does it mean atheism is damaging religion? Like a negative contribution? Or does it mean that science is creating the religion of atheism ? What a terrible sentence.

287. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238355 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 3:13 am

22. Comment #238347 by Angels On a Pin Head on August 28, 2008 at 3:00 am

I'm rather fond of NOMA myself. But then the question we have to ask is then "what are the magisteria of science and of religion?". I tentatively propose the following:

Science: REALITY.
Religion: Everything else

I assume you are joking. There isn't an "everything else" I'm afraid.

288. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238354 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 3:10 am

16. Comment #238325 by Dhamma

Anyway, the article was spot-on. They made it quite clear religion and science can never co-exist peacefully.

I took the opposite reading Dhamma. I think the article is clearly NOMA.

But critics' total opposition to the Templeton Foundation's unusual mix of science and spirituality is unwarranted.

I am disapponited in Nature.

289. The Darwin Lectures

Comment #236866 by JAMCAM87 on August 25, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I was wondering if someone would be so kind as to edit the letter I am about to send to my local council.

Dear Sir/Madam,

"I am writing to you about a matter of great urgency and I hope you can take serious action in response to this letter. I believe our public education system is one of our society's most valuable possessions. What a shame then that it is failing many thousands of children with respect to an understanding of evolution. My experience of the subject of evolution by natural selection involves a few lessons in my fifth year of school when I was 16/17 years of age. I would like to point out that many students who do not take Higher Biology are not being brought into contact with one of the most important scientific theories of all time. Consequently, many leave school ignorant of the facts of evolution. I was one of the lucky ones.

I think it is imperative that children are exposed to the theory from an early age, say, by the end of primary school. Evolution should not be a controversial topic but should be as contentious a theory as the theory of gravity or the four laws of thermodynamics. I am proposing then that Darwin's theory of evolution be taught, in its basic form, to those between the ages of 10 and 12 in all schools across Great Britain. We owe it to future generations and it is the right of each individual to know the truth about our origins.

Yours Sincerely,"

290. A Letter From Hell

Comment #235780 by JAMCAM87 on August 23, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Comment #117657 by Steve Zara

Indeed. I call my "civil partner" my "husband", as the term "civil partner is just so ugly. It also kind of implies that we are just on speaking terms, and I may have uncivil ones. I mean, if they did not want us to use the same terms, they could have come up with something a bit gayer ("cuddly bed buddy"?).

Steve this made me laugh,

But can I ask, why did you bother getting married? I can't see myself getting married for a few reasons. You can only get divorced if you're married I suppose. What were your reasons if you don't mind me asking?

291. A Letter From Hell

Comment #235754 by JAMCAM87 on August 23, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Excellent response AlanW.

292. A flea we missed?

Comment #235659 by JAMCAM87 on August 23, 2008 at 11:15 am

David,

The Bible disapproves of homosexuality. The Bible consistently tells us that homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Homosexuality is described as an abomination. Romans 1:26-27 teaches explicitly that homosexuality is a result of a continual rebellion against God. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. It is a perversion of the "natural order" and more importantly, God's view of sex.

So as well as believing homophobia is stupid and evil you also believe that homosexuals are condemmed to eternal suffering by your oh-so-loving God?

Do you see the contradiction or have you developed acute multiple personality disorder?

293. A flea we missed?

Comment #235624 by JAMCAM87 on August 23, 2008 at 9:57 am

Comment #235455 by Steve Zara

Some past comments by Robertson regarding homosexuality:

351. Comment #60450 by The Wee Flea on August 2, 2007 at 1:33 am

"On what possible basis can anyone say that a baby is born with a predisposition towards homosexuality/alcoholism/a bad temper/heterosexuality/intelligence?"

(A truly bizarre lack of understanding of biology)

Comment #46649 by The Wee Flea on June 1, 2007 at 2:32 am

"Yet again you give an extremely simplistic answer. What if the paedophilia was consenting? What if other forms of sexuality, even though consenting, lead to feelings of worthlessness and increase sexual diseases?

"Should a Homosexual be head of your church?" obviously you understand neither the Bible nor my church. We do not have a Head. But homosexuals are welcome to be members in the church and even ministers. As are heterosexuals. Providing they live in accordance with the Bible's teaching on sexuality and marriage."

Comment #47290 by The Wee Flea on June 4, 2007 at 2:02 am

"Steve, I've had a look at a significant amount of the literature on the subject. It is not the case that the majority of studies indicate that homosexuality is normal and natural. The most that can be said is that homosexuality occurs in different species."

So, let's review the evidence.

According to David Robertson...

Homosexuality leads to feelings of worthlessness and increases sexual diseases.

Homosexuals are welcome to be members of the church, providing they live in accordance with the Bible's teaching on sexuality and marriage - in other words, not have sex and not get married.

Homosexuality is not normal or natural.

And yet he says he is not a homophobe.

I was in the process of compiling the evidence which shows that DR is homophobic and I noticed you had already done it. Thanks!

294. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234466 by JAMCAM87 on August 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm

16. Comment #234464 by Steve Zara

Vince Cable reminded me of when Charlie Kennedy was appointed leader. It's a shame. An opportunity wasted. They won't be getting my vote come election time unfortunately.

295. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234463 by JAMCAM87 on August 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Comment 9 by Cartomancer

Clement Atlee was the greatest British prime minister who ever lived. Interesting to find out he was an atheist.

Steve,

The liberal democrats have been truly appalling at winning the support of the public. They simply aren't radical enough. They are guilty of this "move to the centre" nonsense that Labour and the Conservatives have been doing.

296. A flea we missed?

Comment #233746 by JAMCAM87 on August 20, 2008 at 11:21 am

Comment #233745 by Star Spangled Eagle

"I have no need to post my crappy opinion when there are so many brilliant minds at work here."

I feel the same but don't let that stop you! The more I post the more I learn. :)

297. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #233716 by JAMCAM87 on August 20, 2008 at 10:14 am

isthatclear

Your posts are totally incomprehensible, I won't bother reading them in the future.

298. A flea we missed?

Comment #233712 by JAMCAM87 on August 20, 2008 at 10:07 am

And who made the rule that one must always go for the simple explanation? Is this a new part of the atheist creed? I can understand why some would like that to be the case but what is your evidence for this new absolute rule?

It is plain common sense David. I see that you have been indoctrinated beyond reason. I no longer want to discuss with you. I see also that you are homophobic.

Steve, Decius, Diancanu, AllanW and others - I apologise for defending DR. I take back everything I said. He deserves no respect whatsoever. I guess you are going to say "I told you so."

299. A flea we missed?

Comment #233201 by JAMCAM87 on August 19, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #233006 by David A Robertson

I will never be able to say anything sensible because anyone who believes in the virgin birth is de facto wrong.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You argue that there cannot be an almighty God because there cannot be virgin births or resurrections. You miss out the rather obvious point that if there is an almighty God then virgin births and resurrections are perfectly logical.

Yes this may seem logical but you avoided the main point that I was making. Why choose the complicated explanation (virgin birth) over the simple explanation (mistranslation of virgin)?

Jam.

300. A flea we missed?

Comment #232796 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:38 pm

AllanW,

So you're drunk? That would explain the shit you were spewing. Anyway, look forward to speaking to you in the future. ;)

J.