301. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144760 by phasmagigas on March 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm

lee,

you make some fair points and you are well aware of the teaching situation with a PGCE. the head of science in question could have ripped the creationist literature a new asshole but she simply threw it away, it wasnt supposed to be in the school in the first place, it had no place there and was rightly put in the recycle.

no mattter how well a teacher could show the inadequacies of creationism to pupils many are going to reject it anyway as we see the world over. because it can oppose religious beliefs it becomes contentious way above that which it should. It would be great if the creationist idea could be mentioned (as it was) but then have it ripped apart bit by bit but unless a consistently effective teaching method was used it could prove counter productive. Its not even something that could be realistically implemented except with upper ability kids, its difficult enough as it is to get the basics of heredity and evo to the lower/middle kids.

another point, getting really creation savvy isnt easy, im not sure every teacher would have anywhere near enough time or inclination to start identifying false arguments and bogus information, I agree that it would be great to get the kids 'evo savvy' from the onset but it could be asking to much from an already saturated timetable.

interestingly if evolution occupied a more prominent position in the biol curriculum instead of being tagged on at the end in year 11 there could well be a case of looking at the 'contentions' but only from a historical/social viewpoint.

302. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144719 by phasmagigas on March 16, 2008 at 4:36 pm

leeC

I disagree... the best "possible way" would be to use the material in class as a critical reading exercise. Students need to be taught how to read this stuff with a smile :)

im not sure, even mentioning it is a bad idea unless you are very good teacher who knows evolution very well.

Not all science or even biol teachers know evo that well (one could argue that they should!) its like making an omlette, its very easy to do but also easy to get wrong.

A teacher not experienced in creationist arguments might find themselves in a compromised position if they are asked an anti evolution question they cannot answer well.

creationsim was mentioned in the curriculum a few years ago (still now??) but only in historic context of what people generally accepted in times past. The notion of special critical thinking components to lessons is almost impossible in the average UK school and it is dangerous to include creation ideas there as its contentious anyway and bullshit to begin with. why not something like the history of the knowledge of the earths interior as an alternative.

i'll take this a bit further and say that there is a distict possibility that the 'contention' of evolution could reach a critical mass and become a major bugbear for the UK's muslim component, unfortunate that the simple most impressive bit of deductive reasoning from any person could be demonised because it is a natural focal point for anti western/pro religious ideals.

this is useful of course:

http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/homepage/notes_news/oct2007/ScienceEduc_IntelliDesign_Creationism.pdf

says ID isnt science and shouldnt be presented even as a 'controversy'.

good.

303. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144699 by phasmagigas on March 16, 2008 at 4:04 pm

a few years ago i was talking to a head of science of a UK school, she had received some creationist material through the mail and went ballistic, she made sure it was used in the best possible way......via the recycle bin.

304. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144696 by phasmagigas on March 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm

what a laugh, i'd like to see the answers in genesis brigade trying to influence majority islamic schools in the UK.

id be suprised if the vast majority of science teachers in the UK are not totally opposed to teaching creationsim in the UK. what a fucking joke, can you imagine that in the curriculum, i mean, just what would it actually include???? sweet fuck all.

theres no time as it stands to get the basics of science into the heads of kids anyway never mind throwing myths at them too.

lets keep that in those nice RE lesson that the UK has.

there is no way this will actually be realised, remember the religious mind is very good at wishful thinking.

305. The atheist delusion

Comment #144210 by phasmagigas on March 15, 2008 at 10:39 am

There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share

i have never met anybody who I would call a humanist who thought that, that is pure bollocks.

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come.

better the devil you know??

306. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144129 by phasmagigas on March 15, 2008 at 6:46 am

the offended woman, she was the one who had contemplated if we were descended from a fish, an ape or even a rock! yup, she needs to do a bit of reading.

307. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144110 by phasmagigas on March 15, 2008 at 5:40 am

When the caller said there were no transitional fossils, rather than say oh yes there are, why not go though some examples. I would have listed for example the whale transitional forms such as Pakacetus, Amobolocetus,Basilosaurus etc;explaining why they are transitional. This is may not convince the true believers but it might help sway the fence sitters.

when the 'no transitional fossils' rears its idiotic head I think Richard could spend more time going over the basics, indeed he did say that all fossils are transitional (if they leave descendents) and mentions Tiktaalic. I think as this is one of the most obvious and easily disprovable lies out there it deserves extra minutes. creationists have this funny idea that theres just a handful of fossils that are supposed transitionals, they dont know about the 1000's of invert transitional forms, eg trilobits, microfossils, urchins etc. Richard needs to press home there are 1000's of transitional fossils for many, many groups of animals and needs to challenge the listeners to actually visit a museum and ask to see them, they need to be told that the curator WONT run away and say 'oh, well, erm, we dont have any.....' unless of course they mistakenly go to that silly place in kentucky.

308. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144095 by phasmagigas on March 15, 2008 at 4:40 am

talking about the adverts. im a brit living in the USA and i'll say that advertisements on radio and TV are unsophisticated and unbearable, they do little but turn me away from a product! i mention my being a brit as of course there are horrible advertisements in the UK but i feel that generally those in the Uk are a bit more sophisticated (whatever that means).

you know that reaction most people have when you draw your nails over a chalkboard......

309. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142543 by phasmagigas on March 12, 2008 at 5:04 pm

During "erotic things" is the only time I like to hear the Mrs. talk about god.

hahah, quite true, im sure we've all heard 'oh jesus' 'oh christ' 'oh god' during intimate sessions and that applies to both men and women (and they are the polite words!)

310. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141602 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 8:28 pm

so drinking alcohol is a sin too it seems. oops!

311. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141599 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 8:19 pm

wearing a condom puts your soul in mortal danger.

what a bunch of diseased, flaccid old farts. they are a fucking disgrace, thats all i can say, just what type of issues have those guys got, does it boil down to repressed homosexuality?

312. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141583 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm

you ever saw 'the creeping flesh' with Cushing and Lee? watch that and then think about messing with a long dead finger!!

313. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141531 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Gay Jesus?


lol - I thought the same thing.

weird, so did i!! then again its not difficult to look at that picture and think 'gay jesus'

314. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141244 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 7:49 am

That is not a study of supernatural things though. That is the study of people. We can test claims that proport to effect the physical world, if the claim involves testable and predictable situtations. Which isn't the same thing as testing supernatural and non-physical things

is that some type of cop out??

if the prayed to groups brain tumors all vanished overnight would you say that was a study of people or something supernatural? one could say that its the peoples minds that cause the effect, of course that would be indistinguishable from saying goddidit through them.

but guess what? unless im mistaken its been shown that prayer (double blind being prayed to) has no positive effect on patients, so theres not a lot to say about it.

what you say is of course right (unless im missing the point)as by definition you cant study the non physical, basically its a crock of bullshit and thats why i dont pray.

315. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141224 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 7:18 am

its a great shame that the original topic of the salamanders tale has been boiled down to newts tongues and bubbling baby fat again.

316. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141219 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 7:14 am

critical rationalism isn't the only philosophical position

'rationalism' is rather useful though, if an intruder to your home shoots you in the chest and the meds say 'oh dear, we need to get that bullet from the left lung to stop this guy from dying within the hour' you wouldnt realistically say 'no, no, its not a bullet, thats your rationalist assumption, no, no, its not 'left' thats a rationalist assumption, no,no, its not a lung, thats a rationalist assumption, an hour, whats an hour, thats a silly rationalist assumption, leave me alone, leave me alone.

Against their better rationalist judgement the meds would not leave you alone.

317. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141208 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 7:06 am

the problem with followers of the 3 big religions is that they are missing the point.

they have no notion that their gods are but hemigods, ruled by the great old arch god, the book of the great old one is buried somewhere under the atlantic ocean, it is forged from an unknown radioactive material, people are still looking for it, its is there for sure and to say it is not is just like saying that silly thing about 'pluto' not being there before we found it!!

hail to the great old one, who will absorb allah, jesus and yahweh into his left side when the book is found.

318. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141194 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 6:53 am

oh dear, another nutter on board.

319. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141185 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 6:47 am

Second, if you don't believe in God, what the fuck are you swearing about? Then your sickness is a fault of evolution. Then your swearing goes to blindwatcmaker or Darwin or whomever behind this? Stupid air head? He cannot have a baby? So what? What about me what me? What about me?

you cannot hardly assign 'fault' to a blind physical process, it is the cause though. the swearing of course was directed at pitiless, twisted and bigoted believers who feel there is something good or redemptive about pain and suffering.

The swearing cannot go to the blind watchmaker (as TBWM is again a blind physical process-its not some blind pie in the sky supernatural entity, remember the people here then not to believe in that stuff).

It cant go to darwin either, he isnt the cause of deformities or evolution, he 'merely' postulated a mechanism for evolution during his trip to the galapagos many years ago and hes dead now anyway.

you cannot swear at 'whomever behind this' unless you believe in an intervening god as other wise there is no 'mind' behind this.


wipeout, you are not furthering your cause by posts like this, you present yourself as somewhat unstable and people arent going to take you seriously.

320. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141140 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 5:26 am

Ridiculous. If any of us wanted to take a theology class and pass it fair and square, we would have to study their point of view and provide answers based on that. It doesn't mean that you have to believe any of it. For some reason that same fairness doesn't have to be forced upon those theists. How pitifully christian of them.

thats what i was thinking too. so could one go to 'bible class' (whatever that actually is) and start discussing 'descent with modification' and get a pass?

321. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141130 by phasmagigas on March 10, 2008 at 5:10 am

so for earths age a student could put say 6457 years and still get a mark?

i wonder if they have some learned scholar checking these dates?

its amazing the lengths that the christian right will go to get their own way even if it means acting like a big bunch of uberliberal, acid popping, soap opera studies professors.

some students are going to be so excited 'oh, goody, i believe in jesus and i can get a mark too!!'

so i wonder where this could lead, can you imagine a med school student having to explain the reasoning behind using multiple antibiotics in treating infections and he says 'multiple antibiotics not needed as bacteria created by designer as they now stand so no mutations, no evolution, no need for multiple antibiotics' and still gets a mark and still gets to become a doctor. well who knows, as they say, its hard to make this stuff up!

322. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140354 by phasmagigas on March 7, 2008 at 7:33 am

wooter

The parents who lose their kids at very early age will be rewarded in paradise to be together with their kids forever.

but thats a given irrespective of when a parent or kid dies in relation to each other right??

'rewarded in paradise' what a load of honey drizzled bollocks.

323. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140352 by phasmagigas on March 7, 2008 at 7:24 am

question;
How do you handle with the thought of death; one day believers or non-believers will die for sure? So for believers, death is just passing from one room to another but for you, you will be gone forever. For us, we are at the beginning and for you it is the ending - even though it is not but the way you think should bother you? How do you overcome this fear of being gone forever?

interesting that where there is death be it personal family, a school massacre in the USA or a bomb in iraq you see people crying, screaming, shocked, numbed, praying, holding candles and all the rest of it, funnily enough the majority of these are religious and surely should be rejoicing in the notion that their loved ones are now safe in the lap of jesus or whoever it is they believe in. Their response would be no different from mine on an emotional level but i wouldnt do any praying or hold any candles. If you firmly believe that so and so has gone to jesus just why the hell would anybody be even remotely traumatised by their loss?? I dont understand that.

324. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140346 by phasmagigas on March 7, 2008 at 7:08 am

windweaver:

Professor Dawkins,you visit the USA on SUCH a regular basis. Isn't it about time you made a trip down to Australia/NZ? We're a lot more secular down here you know!

haha, i think you answered your own question!!

325. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140344 by phasmagigas on March 7, 2008 at 7:05 am

ive only just looked at this thread and i can see why wooter is providing the entertainment at the moment.

wooters posts are on par with that creationist who used oranges as a demonstration at the recent florida education standards public meeting, you know the guy who said the orange was some dogs mother? and then started rambling on about big bangs, truck wrecks, and turkeys, honestly that guy sounded like a street preacher just starting to come up on acid and amphetamine!!

326. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140339 by phasmagigas on March 7, 2008 at 6:51 am

jonsociologist

For another, our common ancestor with monkeys is much more distant than our common ancestor with chimps. If you shaved a chimp it would look remarkably similar to a human: we have similar arms, extremely similar hands.

i saw an excellent realistic drawing of the 4 great apes (orang, chimp, gorilla, human) next to each other with the hair 'erased', quite incredible, its enough to make creationsists cover their eyes and shout 'i cant see it, i cant see it'.

327. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140308 by phasmagigas on March 7, 2008 at 5:57 am

EDIT: And she also effectively said that scientists would do anything if they thought they could get away with it.

wow, a revelation, sounds like scientists are not really different than anybody else.

The reason why people dont do just as they please is that there generally is a price to pay, (my mind recognises the earthly price but not the celestial price), eat 6000 calories a day in delicious fat ridden foods and the price is bodily fat, punch each person who crosses you even slightly and you get arrested, buy a $40,000 stero system and you owe a lot of money. Have sex with as many partners as possible and you have a good chance of getting an STD (a price as such) although that could be preferable to using a condom and paying the ultimate celestial price!! are their people who think condoms = hell??

again, im feeling my only response to religion is ridicule.

PS i dont want this comment to open a morality debate, i know that i dont kill grannies ONLY because there is a price to pay, i dont kill grannies because it would be 'wrong' and please, please, dont anybody out there tell me its because of god, im wearing my god deflector hat today so its impossible.

328. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140298 by phasmagigas on March 7, 2008 at 5:43 am

phillip, great post.

the religious mind is often perverse. imagine i am talking to a christian one day and they decide for me that one day i will go to hell or have some misery sent to me (or both!) Imagine the next day i get crushed under a truck, 'ah, see goddidit' they would say. Now imagine i win the lottery and live til im 105 and die peacefully in my sleep, the religious person (if still alive) would say 'god will still have the final say with his soul'. basically you cannot win, thats the peverse thing about it.

it reminds me of nursery school (kindergarden) tactics:

kid#1 ive got 2 bars of cholcolate.
kid#2 ive got 5 bars.
kid#1 ive got 20 bars.
kid#2 ive got 70 bars kid.
kid#1 ive got a gazillion bars (then bursts into tears).

the problem is the religious mind has the gazillion bars but being an adult doesnt burst into tears, they just keep that inner delusion to themselves. the religious mind seems to be stuck at around 3-4 years old, I have a hypothesis that its some type of neoteny.

329. Darwin's dangerous idea

Comment #137559 by phasmagigas on March 3, 2008 at 6:42 am

generally i wonder what a created world (ie no evolution)would be like?

assuming that adam and eve had a normal amount of DNA and not all the present genetic variation in humans somehow implanted in them then the notion of the sexs seems silly, if evolution doesnt happen then why the need for recombination? this is supposed to in part provide variation to fight off those varying parasites/diseases (and how do individual parasites vary if theres no evolution?? esp after the flood where they were reduced to two by twos, i supppose the hermaphrodite species got a head start then!)

so no evo, no need for sex, no need for adam and eves, so why didnt god create an individual ( the image of god as such) that budded off new clones which would have its own separate free willed mind (soul) within a 'level playing field body' so all things being equal would at least give us a fair go at getting into heaven or hell.

the clone would of course be perfect, it wouldnt have cell organelles that were rather like bacteria, it wouldnt even need testicles hanging in a sac, it wouldnt need to fight over mates just resources, it wouldnt die of cancer or genetic defects as it would just magically lie down and fade away beautifully without any specific fear.

hmm, so maybe the chosen ones ar actually rotifers, as i read in a certain book of tales, these seemingly have been cloning for a long, long time.

the problem with creationists and polls is that when they are asked questions about 'origins' they are hardly in a position to answer the question simply because they probably dont understand what evolution even is and half of them are probably confused by the questions generally.

a better question could be something like 'are you generally a parochially minded, ignorant of facts and somewhat infantile individual' as most would say 'no' then we could assume that as this predisposes the individual to creationism then we can assume that all things being equal that they would be in support of evolution!!

anyway im taking the piss as its sometimes necessary when thinking about creationists.

330. Fleabytes

Comment #137538 by phasmagigas on March 3, 2008 at 5:24 am

(*) It's a rather strange thought, as Lawrence Krauss has pointed out, that over the entire, possibly infinite, future of the universe, there will only have been a relatively short time in which we could study the Big Bang, and so where we came from.

thankfully the 'easy' evolution bit has/is being done, youd think the creationist minds would have actually been grateful for that, seems they actually like the security of thinking like a four year old.

331. Fleabytes

Comment #137003 by phasmagigas on March 2, 2008 at 5:41 am

paula

It seems a strange approach in someone who is committed to convincing us of the loving kindness of his god,

as we know theres discontinuous variation in the religious between a granny who says she believes in god but doesnt act specifically on the notion in any way right through to the most piously driven, say like fred phelps or a beheading jihadist, what strikes me is that the further up the piety ladder you go the more i find the individuals become more and more inhuman, they lack humour, their smiles are manic, the eyes stare (think shirley phelps), they become monsters.

Without resorting to argument and reason I simply find the more religious a person is the less I naturally warm to them. What is scary though is that its the most piously driven who often lead those less so, how these people can become leaders is beyond me, I reject them absolutely, can you honestly imagine sitting there listening in agreement to the likes of ted haggard.

i wonder where robertson fits on that line of variation??

332. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136996 by phasmagigas on March 2, 2008 at 5:28 am

This coupled with his entertaining (yet annoying!) excessive appeal to cheap humour is making it difficult for me to follow his comic rants. I wonder if that is putting off the religious as well.

cheap humour is great, its a natural and very human way of dealing with many issues, its a specific way of communicating. his crack about the guy on his 'lousy knees' at the end is cheap but it gets the point across, an important point about not practicing about one preaches. The more that type of persistent hypocrisy is exposed to the layman the better. Its a pathetic dangerous person indeed who rallies against homosexuality in public when in reality its what he yearns for.

a crude bit of humour thrown at them is all they deserve.

notice though that cheap humour from 'this' side is often based in fact wheres the opposite is usually if not always a weak dishonest attempt merely to divert attention instead of ramming home a valid point eg 'your mother wasnt an ape was she??' hahaha, lets all laugh.

i love cheap humour.

333. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #136989 by phasmagigas on March 2, 2008 at 5:10 am

hitches last words, priceless.

thats what you dont often find in the religious mind, honesty and humour, they specialise in hypocrisy instead.

334. Fleabytes

Comment #136251 by phasmagigas on February 29, 2008 at 3:14 pm

steve zara, im not sure my posts represent anything too intellectual, im still hoping that there arent any johnny and marks out there who just wonder how i know about them and their hellbound behaviour. one thing for sure, its fun bouncing ideas around, im just happy i live in a place and a time when i can actually do this without fear.

haha, poirot, yes, an excellent series, well thats the only way i know poirot, the suchet one of course.

335. Fleabytes

Comment #136229 by phasmagigas on February 29, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Yeah, I agree with hello, there is a god. What an ass this god is

I sometimes (and its not something i try to think about as its just to gut wrenchingly morbid and practically unthinkable)wonder if those poor individuals who were unfortunate to be dispatched by the 'head off with knife' method by very pious believers in the middle east actually begged for their lives, begged that some god somewhere would save them, seems to me its possibly a battle of gods, the victims vs the murderers, so jesus dad god vs allah, seems allah won in those cases.

interesting how the most basal act can be carried out without some personal hatred of the victim when one believes they are doing the right thing. of course this says nought about the existence of a possible god but you'd think with a so called holy war going on and two individuals engaged in a bit of one sided butchery that god would perhaps turn away from checking to see that johhny and mark werent sodomising each other yet again (and without condoms).

ah, the freedom of no god and no religion, fantastic.

336. Fleabytes

Comment #135643 by phasmagigas on February 29, 2008 at 7:11 am

artful dodger

That does not worry me. Fortunately there are people like David around who are able to take on board less literalist interpretations of the book of Genesis.

the problem is of course is that for each religious person their own position is the 'right one' and its that which necessarily has people pulling out each others insides from time to time.

maybe you should be explaining to all the jesus is divine believers the error of their ways until the right one (yours) is accepted by them, then move onto the muslims, then once the correct theistic view is established try to persuade some of the people round here.

337. Fleabytes

Comment #135615 by phasmagigas on February 29, 2008 at 6:26 am

That means that Christians should (apologies when they don't) think of people as infinitely valuable, but that doesn't mean that you can't see the flaw in that beauty. The good news is that, of course there is redemption for that marred beauty.

this is the kind of drivel that means nothing to me and pushes me away from religion.

'infinitely valuable' means little but i understand the sentiment, its nothing ontop of my desire to not want to harm someone etc.

'flaw in the beauty' again, meaningless nonsense that should be limited to discussing art and not people.

'redemption for the marred beauty' thats nothing less than insulting.

mind junk.

338. Fleabytes

Comment #135567 by phasmagigas on February 29, 2008 at 5:17 am

artfuldoger:

I assure you that there are sites (atheist and theist) where Christians engage with atheists and agnostics in meaningful, respectful debate. This, by a long stretch, is not one of them.

please provide links to these sites.

thanks.

phasmagigas

339. Fleabytes

Comment #135098 by phasmagigas on February 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Me too, I,ve seen this "questioning" before, then BAM all of asudden they become a YEC fundie or something. Too may "buzz words" being thrown around for my likeing. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now, but if his intention is something else, I would much rather he be honest about it.

its actually suprising that there arent more religious people battling it out on this site, they appear for a while, make a few posts and then vanish esp when they start babbling on about eyes and slime and jesus, i think the last one was a certain ruht who was a half fish half crocodile type if i remember rightly.

340. Fleabytes

Comment #135087 by phasmagigas on February 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Actual Dawkins quote:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

That's actually a beautiful sentiment.

its interesting that generally the most grotesque actions possible are carried out by the most pious, maybe they inherit the pitiless part but just dont realise it.

341. Fleabytes

Comment #135064 by phasmagigas on February 28, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Pmurdock.

in a world where 99% of everything is junk i feel thats also the case with theism, ie, its junk. its surplus thats not required, things are far simpler and more managable without. heres an example.

sept 11th. tv's on, the first towers burning, then the second. now how many 100's of millions of people watching this are praying??? praying for the safety of those in the tower, they probably arent expecting the towers to fall but some will no doubt have 'predicted' it and prayed for them not to collapse/fall over. the towers did fall killing 1000's.

So the questions are (amongst many others):did god ignore the prayers? did god not hear them, did god want it to happen?? and finally 'how could god let that happen?'. now thats the thing, think how many muslims would have been praying for the opposite, so we now need to ask more questions: did allah deliberately set in motion the events? did allah aid the hijackers? did allah beat the christian god in a battle of wills? is there only allah therefore? many christians and muslims would have many contradicting and conflicing ideas about the whole event.

Now, you may see the atheist view and its very, very simple, its almost 'pure' dare i say it. some guys hijacked a plane, flew them into two big buildings and physics did the rest, end of story. A dreadful event but asking crazy unanswerable questions will get people nowhere and indeed its in those unanswerable questions that the whole thing happened in the first place.

having a theistic mind must be like being one of those oprah or montel audience members, they sit there like a monkey and go hysterical when a celebrity walks on, jump up and down when you are given a free car, cry on demand, and believe everyting that is said without contesting a single word, i bet half of that audience also spends most of their leisure time searching through clothes shops, looking for junk they dont need, some people are simply needy, maybe its because we are possibly neotenous apes???? anyway im babbling and just grateful to not need any superstitious nonsense in my life, i reserve that for when i read ghost stories.

342. Fleabytes

Comment #134817 by phasmagigas on February 28, 2008 at 8:28 am

al rawandi:

So Muslims can marry off their slutty daughter to some unsuspecting bumpkin from the Pakistani Punjab.

actually that about sums it up, basically means that shes not a whore anymore.

343. Fleabytes

Comment #134806 by phasmagigas on February 28, 2008 at 8:21 am

quote 'I copied the following from that site:

What does hymen restoration surgery do? |

* It restores virginity after the hymen has been ruptured. It can be performed soon after the rupture or much later. The hymen may rupture during rape, agreed intercourse, insertion of tampons, sports, falls, etc.
* If the hymeneal remnants are not big enough to be used for the reconstruction or if you a woman who were born without a hymen, the surgeon can reduce the opening of the vagina using a small portion of the vaginal mucous tissue. During the first intercourse, there will be a small rupture of this newly reconstructed hymen that will be very similar to the rupture of a natural hymen.

I'm sorry. That is just fucked up.
Ste5e endquote'



its so the husband can keep his fragile status by being tricked into believeing that his bride is a virgin so that he can take pleasure in knowing that any kids that arrive are his. and as we know any man who believes that is utterly deluded.

sex drive before marriage: easily explained by natural selection

requirement for hymen surgery prior to marriage: easily explained by male fragile ego (probably due to NS) and religion.

344. Fleabytes

Comment #134799 by phasmagigas on February 28, 2008 at 8:13 am

funny how creationists always bring up the same examples to support their claims:the eye, the bonmbardier beetle, the flagellum, jees, dont they have any imagination, why not the complexity of a nerve cell, the ball and socket joint, a sebaceous gland, a sperm cell, the penis! each is as exquisite as the next, well save the latter!!!

345. Fleabytes

Comment #134782 by phasmagigas on February 28, 2008 at 7:53 am

peacebeuponme

- You accept that Beethoven's is music is beautiful. Well, its not objectively, but you feel it is and thats great. That you have a feeling that Beethoven's music is beautiful requires no truth claim on your part and is thefore no comparison to the god question.

i was thinking about that the other day, believers often cite 'beautiful' music/art as evidence for god (why else would be be capable of producing such beautiful things and appreciating them) but of course theres a full on continuum from finger smudges/mindless doodles/manic scrapes on a cell wall to the mona lisa, from a primal scream/war cry to an opera singer. where does beauty or god begin and the sounds/fumblings of an ape end??

Most of us generally agree on what constitutes beautiful art/music but its no more sohisticated than having people agree that boiled potatos and ham! tastes better than a incredibly bitter privet leaf, its a matter of degrees.

A starving man could find ephiphany in a tiny crust of dry bread, an obese televangelist might not find that in a banquet, i digress..... I have music that i consider to be beautiful and im sure required a lot of thought to manifest but others find the same a wall of indecipherable, hideous noise. Again, the whole notion is far simpler without any god at all.

i'll (ironically) admit though that if one thing could push me to belief its the flavour of a crispy bacon sandwich (British bacon that is), now thats a different matter altogether :)

346. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #134019 by phasmagigas on February 27, 2008 at 6:32 am

richard morgan.

Could you be a little more precise please? Was she reacting to the tarantula or you?

hahah

well, now you say it i was assuming it was the spider!! and no, i didnt take a young woman to my spider room to show her something that could be considered rightly ugly (wink), and thats another good question for creationists regarding ugly things!!

347. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #134016 by phasmagigas on February 27, 2008 at 6:29 am

rev dark.

the 'why would god make such an ugly creature'is a perfect demonstration of general ignorance. I could have been a complete ass at the time and said (had i thought quickly enough, she has no idea im a godless heathen) and give her a disdained look of horror and said 'WHAT, are you saying that the lord could possibly make something UGLY???? I think we need to pray together this very minute, the lord is perfect and his creation is perfect, what you have just said could put your very soul in jeapordy.'

of course she mustnt have even realised that beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. The thing that i noticed by the comment is quite simply how the question seeked an answer that gave no real explanation.

348. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133993 by phasmagigas on February 27, 2008 at 5:55 am

generally, a while back i showed an aquaintence one of my tarantulas, a large, healthy goliath bird eater. She shrieked and asked 'why would god make such an ugly creature?' (she is a born again) anyway i just kind of ignored the comment as i couldnt be bothered arguing with a creationist but next time that question is ever posed i will say something like 'now that is a very good question, please come back when you have a good answer, i'd be interested to know, maybe you could ask your pastor, just why would god make such an ugly creature??'

349. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133985 by phasmagigas on February 27, 2008 at 5:48 am

Cacti, surely?

(re cactuses)

shhh, if that is indeed an error on dawkins part then that will render the whole video as lies in the eyes of the creationist.

350. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133775 by phasmagigas on February 26, 2008 at 6:51 pm

a useful definition of supernatural judging by what it usually describes is simply 'something that doesnt actually exist', its just a fancy word for baloney, the word has way to much credibility.