Comments by JAMCAM87

Comment #232794 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Diancanu,

Does AllanW think I'm fucking stupid? How do you go about deciding who's fucking stupid? Lets give people a chance.

I accept your other points.

:)

302. A flea we missed?

Comment #232790 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:30 pm

So it took a joke before you stopped calling me idiot and fool? How shallow of you. Good night.

303. A flea we missed?

Comment #232787 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:25 pm

AlanW,

I'm sure I'm not religious. I'm sure I'm not religious.

304. A flea we missed?

Comment #232780 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Alan,

"Toughen them up"

Like I said previously, it's easy to pretend to talk tough when you're on the internet but I doubt you would speak to me like that in person.

305. A flea we missed?

Comment #232778 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Decius,

"You confuse categories. Expletives have literary value and scurrilous language is acceptable when not gratuitous and in extremely poor taste."

Ok thanks for pointing that out to me.

AllanW,

Your accusations of softnest are totally wrong. I have never been one for the soft approach and in fact have lost friends over my stubborn views about religion. I believe in a strong and consistent critisism of religion and with people's opinions in general and am rarely offended by what others say.

I'm just warning you that calling people "idiots" and "fools" isn't the right way to go about critisizing someone's opinion.

306. A flea we missed?

Comment #232767 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Allan W

I can assure you that you haven't hurt my feelings once. Don't think you're so important. All you have done is embarrass yourself.

307. A flea we missed?

Comment #232763 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 3:01 pm

AlanW

"Abusive? Seriosly? Get into the real world once in a while. This is cyberspace; it doesn't really hurt you, ok?"

The internet is like driving a car. People are free from the consequences of their actions and are more abusive than they would otherwise be.

Would you call me an idiot if we were talking face to face? No you probably wouldn't.

This leads me to think that you are just a coward.

308. A flea we missed?

Comment #232755 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Diancanu,

It's nothing to do with "bad words". I use them all the time but not on a forum where it should be about argument and discussion not about trying to make people feel stupid.

Decius,

It may be a matter of style but in any case what will happen is that visitors to the site will never come back.

Cheers.

309. A flea we missed?

Comment #232750 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Quetz,

Name names - AllanW:

"There is no atheist cause you supercillious fool."

Is there any need to call me a fool? Abusive? Elitist?

Diancanu - I enjoy some of your posts immensely, actually I was just rocking-the-boat.

310. A flea we missed?

Comment #232741 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 2:43 pm

If Hitler posted on this site I would not speak to him using foul language. There is always a better way of arguing with nutcases.

311. A flea we missed?

Comment #232732 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Lol Diacanu, you think you can take it? I studied plath extensively and can assure you that you don't compare. :)

312. A flea we missed?

Comment #232728 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I refer mostly to the treatment of David Robertson. If you can't be polite even to people who are indoctrinated (and therefore deserve our sympathy) then there is no hope for the atheist cause.

313. A flea we missed?

Comment #232725 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 2:31 pm

phatbat you are absolutely right.

314. A flea we missed?

Comment #232724 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I think the discussions have become elitist, cliquey, abusive and are dominated by certain members who love the sound of their own voice.

To compare Diacanu with Plath is ridiculous. Plath was a genius. Diacanu's "poetry" is nothing more than a string of expletives. It's more like rap music than poetry.

315. A flea we missed?

Comment #232655 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Steve,

Do we really want this site to reduce to that level? It has been a place of inspiring discussions; a place where some of us have been educated - where minds have been changed.

This is essentially what I was saying earlier but you disagreed with me. These were my words:

Yes that's what I said. He DOESN'T deserve respect but let's give it to him anyway. It will annoy him even more if we keep a consistent, calm and rational tone in reply to him. It's more tactful and won't have the effect of putting those, as fizhburn says, "virgin ears" off.

As regards to this thread, I think that everyone is doing a disservice to RD.net and to atheism. People who read comments by the regular members of this site will be put off. There is an element of cliqueness about it. And surely we come off looking better if we treat David with the utmost respect even though he doesn't deserve it?

Please tell me how this is different from what you said in comment 232616? I too want to see the high standards maintained on RD.net especially in the treatment of people like David Robertson! :)

J

316. A flea we missed?

Comment #232646 by JAMCAM87 on August 18, 2008 at 12:31 pm

David,

I think you are right in saying that Hitchens won the argument. However, there are two ways of winning an argument.

There is winning the audience over which is what Lennox did (in a mostly christian audience I must add).

Then there is winning an argument based on what was actually said. I repeat, Hitchens cannot lose an argument with someone who believes in the virgin birth. My questions to you on the virgin birth still remained unanswered by the way.

Lennox may be very familiar with Hume's work but this does not mean that he is right to dismiss Hume as rubbish. Hume's argument against miracles is one of the most powerful arguments there is. What's more likely? That all the laws of physics were momentarily superseeded or some Jews lied? (Hitchens' words, not mine)

As for my conspiracy theory, it was just an unfunny joke.

Enjoying the discussion David!

J.

317. A flea we missed?

Comment #231803 by JAMCAM87 on August 17, 2008 at 5:42 am

"the validity of its myth"

Seems like there is a contradiction here Polydactyl. :)

Whenever someone tries to teach me about the morality inspired by following Christ's teachings I just repeat what they say but using Gandalf's teachings instead. It's amazing how you can use any good book to back up a moral claim.

318. A flea we missed?

Comment #231793 by JAMCAM87 on August 17, 2008 at 5:11 am

David has repeatedly demonstrated that he deserves no such respect.

Yes that's what I said. He DOESN'T deserve respect but let's give it to him anyway. It will annoy him even more if we keep a consistent, calm and rational tone in reply to him. It's more tactful and won't have the effect of putting those, as fizhburn says, "virgin ears" off.

319. A flea we missed?

Comment #231787 by JAMCAM87 on August 17, 2008 at 4:53 am

Re. Hitchens/Lennox

Apathy - As I posted on an earlier thread. There were 1500 people. Before the debate the voting was approx 35% for the motion (the new Europe would prefer the new atheism), 40% against and 25% don't know. After it was 40%, 50% and 10%. Your first statement does not make sense - why would religious people vote that they did not know whether atheism was a good thing for Europe? And Hitchens conceded in that he admited the vote at the end was against him - not that he thought Lennox was right. What is striking about RD and other atheists who were there is their stunning silence since the event. It speaks volumes. If Hitch had done what was clearly expected - wiped the floor with Lennox - I am sure we would have heard about it.

David I am amazed at your ability to count thousands of hands within a few seconds. 35%? 25%? Really? Your brain must be a computer of huge processing capacity. I was at the debate and couldn't have done the same. Your level of confidence in the accuracy of the percentiles is truly astounding. I just can't agree with those figures.

As for the people who changed their minds and decided to vote against Hitchens I have a small conspiracy theory.

Those who were unsure (i.e. in the don't know camp) at the start were all christians. Isn't it odd that there were no "don't knows" at the end? This led me to wonder if it hadn't been planned. Anyway I've said it once and I'll say it again, I was disappointed in the folk from Edinburgh. Poor atheist turn-out.

As regards to this thread, I think that everyone is doing a diservice to RD.net and to atheism. People who read comments by the regular members of this site will be put off. There is an element of cliqueness about it. And surely we come off looking better if we treat David with the utmost respect even though he doesn't deserve it?

320. A flea we missed?

Comment #231579 by JAMCAM87 on August 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm

David you still haven't answered questions from our previous discussion, I asked:

Clearthinker please answer this question if you will:

Presuming for one moment that God does not exist, is a virgin birth possible? (by virgin birth I take the biblical definition - the spontaneous creation of a child without male interference).

The answer is an obvious no.

Taking the simple explanation (God does not exist) over the more complicated one (there was a virgin birth) is the more logical conclusion wouldn't you agree clearthinker? Isn't it just plain common sense? I mean I could see these sorts of fallacies when I was a child, can you not be persauded now?

Thanks Clear,

Jam.

Any thoughts yet David?

321. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230340 by JAMCAM87 on August 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Comment #230327 by Goldy

I disagree, articles like this one are few and far between. That is why it was such a delight reading it.

322. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230318 by JAMCAM87 on August 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Comments which involve the following two phrases make me want to gouge my own eyes out.

"that offends me/my..."

"you shouldn't judge..."

On another note, I think this article can be seen on a more personal day-to-day level. I find that there are very few people around these days who stand up for what is right. Sometimes I feel trapped in a city of cowards. If I was attacked on the street would people step in to defend me? I certainly would interfere were I an onlooker to a robbery/fight etc and have done in the past.

We have created a culture of non-interference. People "don't want to get involved". I'm not trying to encourage a hero-complex or anything but I do think we need to start standing up for each other on the street. We need to be MORE judgemental and a great deal braver.

323. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #228050 by JAMCAM87 on August 11, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I have to confess I actually had a collection of about 20 Charlie Brooker articles. I threw them away recently after I decided it was a bit sad. Well, he's the only journalist who can really make me laugh out loud.

324. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227709 by JAMCAM87 on August 10, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Lennox gave a fireworks display of mind boggling intellectual masturbation.

No matter how he says it, all he is essentially saying is "I believe in MAGIC!"

325. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227698 by JAMCAM87 on August 10, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Epeist

I suppose my previous post was just another way of saying God=Universe which is similar to what Quetz said .

Skye is wonderful - I thoroughly reccommend going to Elgol!

326. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227599 by JAMCAM87 on August 10, 2008 at 11:13 am

Yeh maybe God was infinitely simple at the beginning and is now approaching infinite complexity. :)

327. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #227595 by JAMCAM87 on August 10, 2008 at 11:07 am

I totally agree with the paragraph about Dawkins' house. What a wonderful library and a first edition Origin too!

328. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227556 by JAMCAM87 on August 10, 2008 at 9:42 am

Thanks for your questions. I have tried to answer every one of them. Is a virgim birth possible without the male sex cell? No. Can God create a child in the womb? - yes. By definition the one who created the whole universe can create a child in a womb. The question is not about the virgin birth (which I cannot prove anyway) but whether an Almighty God exists. Your presumption seems to be that a virgin birth cannot happen therefore God cannot exist. You will forgive me saying that this is a circular argument and not one that appears immediately logical.

Clearthinker please answer this question if you will:

Presuming for one moment that God does not exist, is a virgin birth possible? (by virgin birth I take the biblical definition - the spontaneous creation of a child without male interference).

The answer is an obvious no.

Taking the simple explanation (God does not exist) over the more complicated one (there was a virgin birth) is the more logical conclusion wouldn't you agree clearthinker? Isn't it just plain common sense? I mean I could see these sorts of fallacies when I was a child, can you not be persauded now?

Thanks Clear,

Jam.

329. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227264 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

As regards your latest comments. Of course a virgin birth (that is birth without sex) is possible. As for how Mary became pregnant - I don't know the details. But there is no logical fallacy in thinking that God could work that kind of miracle.

I would never argue that because there was a virgin birth there is a god. Therefore your opposite position (there was no virgin birth - a position by the way which is as much a faith position as mine - because you cannot prove or know that) does not apply.

You haven't answered my questions. I asked if a virgin birth, WITHOUT THE MALE SEX CELL, was possible. You avoided answering this question because you have no good answer.

If there was proof that there was a virgin birth then I would say that God exists. There is no proof.

At the expense of my popularity I have to say I find nothing offensive about clearthinker's posts. In fact I think they are mild. His inability to answer questions and to use logic is annoying however.

Also I think that clearmind even shows courage coming to this site. He is exposing himself to the other side of the argument and I think that is commendable. Most Christians just don't even want to hear it. At least he is entering discussion.

Goodnight.

330. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227213 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm

clearmind,

But basically you cannot logically argue that because you think virgin births are impossible there is no God.

I would argue that you are perfectly entitled to say "because there was a virgin birth there is a god" (By virgin birth I mean, without the use of a male sex cell).

The fact is, clearmind, there was no Virgin birth. Ergo there is no God.

331. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227209 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm

clearmind,

For some reason I upset them.

Well you certainly haven't upset me so far clearmind. And I looked through your previous posts and I must say I found nothing offensive. Maybe I will come to discover your true colours in my own time.

It is possible to have a child without sex

It is impossible without the sex cells of both the male and the female..

Are you saying that God artificially inseminated Mary? Are you denying that both a sperm and an egg are required to create a zygote? What exactly are you saying here? Can you outline the mechanism by which God created a baby born of a virgin?

Let's suppose for a moment that God does not exist. Would you agree that a virgin birth is impossible?

332. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227176 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 1:04 pm

ok thanks!

333. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227171 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Steve do you think you could show me Clear's old comments?

334. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227166 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Can someone please show me this vile shit? Thanks.

335. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227161 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I'm sorry but I don't understand why clearthinker is seen as a troll. If anything his posts remind everyone of why we need an atheist movement. I think it is also difficult to convey the correct tone when you are writing on the internet and his may seem quite unpleasant at times. He is probably quite a nice guy. Am I right clearthinker?

336. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227155 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Clearthinker, I would agree with you on your objective assessment of the debate. However, I strongly disagree with you when you say that Lennox kept to the motion. He never mentioned Europe once! Hitchens was the only one who kept to the (bad) motion to his own demise sadly.

337. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227153 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Thanks for your comments. They seem fair. Obviously Hitchens won the argument because of course in your eyes there really is no argument at all. Anyone who believes in the Virgin Birth is de facto stupid - so when it comes to debating the virgin birth it is kind of a no brainer for you (this is what we call in other circles - the fundamentalist mindset. You ask to debate a subject but you exclude from debate those who disagree with you on that subject in the first place).

This is very unfair clearthinker, you don't even know me. I am very open to other peoples' point of view. A virgin birth is a physical impossibilty, especially 2000 years ago. I really don't think this is part of my fundamentalist mindset. If you could present some evidence that there was a virgin birth then I would happily change my mind.

Lennoxs' dismissal of Humemian philosophy was a very weak point. Also can you remind me of your question, I seem to remember it being very confusing. Can you also explain why secularism and atheism are so very different? I take it you are part of the Edinburgh University Christian Union?

338. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227145 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Comment #227125 by clearthinker

Perhaps Jamcam could bus them in and a better show could be had than today?

I wasn't going to go to the Dawkins book event, as I've met him before, but I will now. Atheists obviously need to start making more of an effort.

Clearthinker or (Dave Robertson?) are you at Edinburgh Uni?

339. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227138 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 12:02 pm

I thought that the audience found Lennox more persausive than Hitchens. Hitchens was too intelligent and he made the fatal flaw of sticking to the proposed motion which was "Should the New Europe embrace the New Atheism?" which is a boring motion to say the least. Lennox just went through Hitchens' book "God is Not Great" pointing out the various "flaws".

So Lennox "won" the debate if one jugded by the audience reaction. But obviously in my eyes Hitchens won the argument. How can you NOT win an argument with someone who believes in the virgin birth?

I was disappointed with the Edinburgers, all I can say is that they must have advertised in churches around Edinburgh. But yes, clearthinker, it was not one of Hitchens' best encounters. He should have kept it simple and really questioned Lennox about some of his ridiculous beliefs. He should have made more of Lennoxs' views that atheism and communism come as a package and also about Lennoxs' insane views on eternal damnation. He actually said that one of the audience members would go to hell.

Meeting Hitchens was awesome though!

340. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227109 by JAMCAM87 on August 9, 2008 at 10:47 am

Went to see Hitch vs. John Lennox today in Edinburgh. Got a chance to speak to Christopher and apologised to him for the modest atheist turn-out (as judged by the motion vote). He said he expected more of a show especially in Edinburgh. Later my brother told me that it was a Christian organised event so that could explain it. :)

341. Gerin Oil

Comment #226741 by JAMCAM87 on August 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Gerin Oil sounds like Geraniol which is an unsaturated alcohol used in flavourings.

342. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225996 by JAMCAM87 on August 7, 2008 at 3:08 pm

This is journalism at its worst, not just because of the content, but because of the appalling quality of the writing.

343. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #225166 by JAMCAM87 on August 6, 2008 at 10:01 am

Re Telegraph review

Why do people not get it? Dawkins has a purpose -to start a movement, the atheist movement. People keep saying that Dawkins has an obsession with religion. Of coarse he does! We all do, because we bloody well want rid of it! Would the feminists have gotten anywhere if they took the nicely nicely approach? Were they not obsessed with equality of the sexes? Would they have gotten anywhere if they were say, mildly interested in equality?

On another note, there is a great show on at the Edinburgh Festival at the Pleasance (where I work) which is called "how the giraffe got its neck". Putting evolution into entertainment is essential. The author of the telegraph is wrong about evolution being accepted in Britain. Most kids don't have the first clue about how we got here. I didn't know about it until I was 17 years old for christ's sake.

344. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #222412 by JAMCAM87 on July 31, 2008 at 12:20 pm

This is why religion is immoral. It makes people say stupid things like "I love jesus more than my wife". He should be ashamed of a statement like that.

345. Write to UCF

Comment #222366 by JAMCAM87 on July 31, 2008 at 9:46 am

What a truly appalling reply. Typical managerial speak. Void-of-substance. Why do they always quote the law? We don't care about the law; we care about basic human decency. A reply like this could have been written by an automated machine. They can FUCK off.

346. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221991 by JAMCAM87 on July 30, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Don't dismiss the study just because the article was rubbish. I doubt the study was this simplistic. It probably drew very little conclusions from its findings. Journalists pick and choose parts of scietific journals which make an interesting read.

347. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221381 by JAMCAM87 on July 29, 2008 at 2:59 pm

What about Gohan? I thought he was better?

348. Breeding for God

Comment #221378 by JAMCAM87 on July 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Abolishing faith schools would be a start but Tony Blair threw that policy out of the window.

349. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221372 by JAMCAM87 on July 29, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I always preferred Gandalf to Jesus. He died and was reborn after a gruelling fight with the Balrog.

He always stood up to the bad guys. None of that turn-the-other-cheek nonsense.

Anyone else got a Jesus-like hero/heroine?

350. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221367 by JAMCAM87 on July 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #221336 by Mitchell Gilks