Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Geoff


351. The atheist delusion

Comment #144150 by Geoff on March 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

"atheist creed"
Stalin, Hitler...

Nothing new to see here, move along...

352. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #143090 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm


You the Reverend and several others are looking after making him look like an idiot...


Naah, he manages that quite well by himself.

353. Deadly Sins 101

Comment #143085 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Anna, I think you've just initiated a new game!

Chance card: You are lustful; pay the church £200.

354. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143081 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 12:22 pm


Get tae Fuck ya tube!


Error 404 Page not found

355. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143062 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 12:00 pm

5, yep, apologies, but I type so slowly the full list would take forever.

I was brought up (by my grandmother) as a christian scientist, (pretty much from age zero) so I do know quite a lot about them. I think I was about 3 or 4 before I started to ask "awkward questions".

Edit: I think the first one was:
"Granny, why doesn't it work?"

356. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143055 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 11:53 am

Reverend: it wouldn't be so bad if it was only the catholics we had to conspire against, but there's the muslims, the creationists, the Baptists, the scientologists, JW's, Mormons, wooters...so many fucktards, so little time...

357. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143042 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 11:41 am

Civil partnerships are "an abuse" of the church's teaching on marriage...


Well done Steve! Keep abusing the fucktards!

He wants to lock up Gandalf? Maybe he should be given the Saruman treatment?

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/saruman.shtml

358. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143032 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 11:33 am

By his criterion, the bible would be banned, too. Catholic doctrine now admits evolution and "old Earth" chronology as factual.

Presumably he'd ban newspapers, too?

359. Fleabytes

Comment #143027 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 11:24 am

David:


The defence of abortion by so called humanists is one of the scandals of the 20th century.

Is that one of your moral absolutes? Sharon & Anna have already dealt with that one, so I won't say anymore.


Geoff - 4689 - you made a comparative statement and you have not provided
any evidence for it. Something simple â€" like the percentage of income given
to charity in 1970 as contrasted with 2007. Until you do that your view
remains a matter of personal opinion.


I provided a link; did you not read it?

The opening sentence read:
"Charitable giving in the United States reached a record high of $295.02 billion..."

Since I only said "improved", not by how much, that clearly makes the case. Incidentally (of course) you ignored my other examples of improved morals.
Coindidentally, Paula kindly provided another, more recent example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7294193.stm

"He also singled out Oscar-winning actor Sir Ian McKellen, who has been honoured for his services to gay rights, pointing out that Oscar Wilde had been jailed for homosexual acts 100 years ago."

Here's a reminder of the bits you avoided:


Ask any member of one of the groups I mentioned [women, homosexuals, disabled, minority races...] whether they feel more or less discriminated against than they would have a century ago (or even 50 years ago). OK, that's perhaps subjective and anecdotal, so how about the various pieces of legislation brought in specifically to address those inequalities?

360. Fleabytes

Comment #142894 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 7:22 am

I'd delete this one if he did

361. Fleabytes

Comment #142881 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 7:11 am

irate: I'm claiming at least one armpit!

362. Fleabytes

Comment #142867 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 6:49 am

Steve, thanks for another coffee>keyboard monment...

363. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142862 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 6:43 am

35. Comment #142607 by Bonzai

"ugsome"?

364. Fleabytes

Comment #142858 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 6:40 am

irate: Hot & Cold are relative, surely? Where would a fine brandy, served at slightly over room temperature, stand?

365. Fleabytes

Comment #142803 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 5:38 am

Diacanu: Yeah, didn't we all?

366. Fleabytes

Comment #142795 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 5:31 am

I hope everyone's going to let Paula have the #5k post?

367. Fleabytes

Comment #142786 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 5:19 am

but Steve, voting is an action, and is thus "imposing".

I see it as analogous to "thou shalt not covet"; as long as no action (of any kind) is taken, what's the harm in thinking about it?

368. Two More Fleas

Comment #142774 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 5:07 am

David, I'd like to repeat Steve's question: which books do you see as "written on the back of" TGD "? Most of them preceded TGD, or were contemporaneous with it. And which ones had "Dawkins" or "delusion" in the title?

369. Fleabytes

Comment #142751 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 4:40 am

912. Comment #142743 by Steve Zara

Umm. Thoughtcrime?

I think "impose" covers any actions.

370. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142748 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 4:37 am

29. Comment #142677 by AfraidToDie


Is there anyone else in your top 10 that I haven't mentioned already?



Dr. Benway
MPhil
Cartomancer
epeeist
wooter

371. Fleabytes

Comment #142741 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 4:20 am

Catching up again:

Did I miss something between Al and Richard?

4873. Comment #142614 by keith: Excellent post. I'm a teacher, and you're absolutely right about those two classes of names! I don't get a "paper" paper anymore, but I'm still technically a Telegraph reader.

Cartomancer: welcome back!

884. Comment #142709 by epeeist: you've gone up even higher in my estimation! Green & Black's indeed! And coffee, certainly; never tea!

Steve:


We also need to insist that religious beliefs are kept as a personal matter...


Absolutely. That's always my answer to those theists who seem to think we want to do away with their delusions. As Hitchens says, keep your Bronze Age superstitions; just don't try to impose them on me or my family.

372. Two More Fleas

Comment #142590 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Odd, it works for me. Google:

Religious Decline in U.S. Follows Europe

- that brings it up.

373. Two More Fleas

Comment #142585 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 7:49 pm

http://humaniststudies.org/enews/index.php?id=281&article=0

374. Two More Fleas

Comment #142560 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Relax, Paula, Diacanu's already sorted him!

Richard #38:

coffee>nose>keyboard...

can't wait!

"Quote Minor" indeed!

375. Special Guest: Richard Dawkins

Comment #142556 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 6:04 pm

I love hearing Richard, of course, but I'm afraid I found the interviewers somewhat sycophantic, and I could do without the songs at the start, and in the breaks.

376. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #142407 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Sneezy #360: So if something happens very slowly, it doesn't happen?

#361: How can we ignore something which isn't there? That's like saying we ignore invisible pink unicorns.

Our existence has lots of purpose, but it's purpose that we put in ourselves: it might be raising our children as well as we can, for example. This life is all we have; let's make the most of it.

377. Fleabytes

Comment #142393 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 12:44 pm

al-rawandi: I get the impression you don't like Foucault; can't think why, his pendulum is simply awesome!


(yeah, I know, Leon, not Michel, but it was too good to pass up!)

378. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142383 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm

I think the ads should be banned: they're clearly trying to insinuate that prayer has some effect.

379. Fleabytes

Comment #142312 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 9:49 am

clodhopper, I think you can only post a link to it: img tags don't seem to work here.

380. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #142290 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 9:09 am

Wooter, the difference between evolution and abiogenesis has been explained to you several hundred times.

381. Fleabytes

Comment #142275 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 8:44 am

ForestMist:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/egging.html

382. Fleabytes

Comment #142159 by Geoff on March 12, 2008 at 5:10 am

Steve: re the Vox Day review, many thanks. excellent work, and very few solecisms ;)

David: (quotes fixed)

Massive improvement in the way that previously oppressed or marginalised groups are regarded (such as minority races, women, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled). Much more charitable giving. Knowledgeable, surely, is obvious (OK, I should qualify that; obvious to any rational person. If you need examples, any of us could provide several hundred)


Really Geoff. Is this an impression you have or can you provide empirical evidence? Is there really much more charitable giving in this era of the new capitalism? Do you think that killing the disabled within the womb is not an oppression? If women are better treated then why is it that 25 years ago my sister could walk through the Meadows in Edinburgh but now she is told not to do that â€" because of fear of sexual attack? Could you explain why slavery has been reintroduced to Britain?


Don't be disingenuous: I said "improved", not "perfect". Ask any member of one of the groups I mentioned whether they feel more or less discriminated against than they would have a century ago (or even 50 years ago). OK, that's perhaps subjective and anecdotal, so how about the various pieces of legislation brought in specifically to address those inequalities?
I could have added the greater transparency regarding the depredations of the Catholic Church, successfully coveerd up for such a very long time.
Charity examples: the tsunami appeal? Katrina?
A quick Google brought up this article:

http://www.charityjobs.org/ka/ka-3.cfm?content_item_id=24114&folder_id=2345

Charitable giving in the United States reached a record high of $295.02 billion, and most subsectors saw increases in contributions, according to Giving USA 2007.
Indidentally, I found this bit (in the same article) interesting:

Religious congregations continued to be far and away the largest recipients of gifts. Donors contributed $96.82 billion, or 32.8 percent of all giving, to congregations.

383. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141975 by Geoff on March 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Philip, I'm aready shagging Cleopatra; Helen's free though...?

al: lust is great! Even when only "window shopping".

My 25-year old marriage (err, been married 25 years, not married to a 25-year-old...) started with lust, and still going strong!

384. Fleabytes

Comment #141972 by Geoff on March 11, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Steve: I'll read your review tomorrow (the pub is calling...!) - I did take a quick look, and it looks to be as expertly done as I would expect.

If I may nitpick (in a somewhat pedantic manner...?), though...I'll be happy to proofread any of your articles/reviews/debates/whatever. if you like...?

This is the box "The Irrational Atheist" by "Vox Day".


;)

385. Oklahoma: One Step from Doom

Comment #141890 by Geoff on March 11, 2008 at 10:26 am

81. Comment #141774 by lxlqlxl

Actually, I've seen a study that seems to show the reverse.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/comp2001/HomeSchoolAchievement.pdf

It's not just the religious that home-school.

A couple of topics on the fora discussing it, too:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38432

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=29911

386. Fleabytes

Comment #141850 by Geoff on March 11, 2008 at 9:41 am

I'll just pick up on one bit of David's ...errr.....contribution...?


The fantasy continues. What is your empirical evidence that 21st century morality is 'considerably more compassionate, tolerant and knowledgeable'? This is just wishful thinking and chronological snobbery.



Massive improvement in the way that previously oppressed or marginalised groups are regarded (such as minority races, women, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled). Much more charitable giving. Knowledgeable, surely, is obvious (OK, I should qualify that; obvious to any rational person. If you need examples, any of us could provide several hundred)

387. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141508 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Just in case anyone hasn't yet seen this oldy but goody...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFGrQMD6Uqc&feature=related

388. Fleabytes

Comment #141483 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 1:45 pm

What Steve said!

389. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141463 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 1:11 pm

I think it was the treachery that let me down. And the violence: I'm basically a coward at heart (and don't have a crossbow...). I only scored "high" for levels 7,8 & 9.

Sharing with Helen of Troy & Cleopatra in level 2 sounds ok to me, though...

390. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141460 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Yeah..I was so hoping (as was epeeist) to see him on the "debunking creationism" forum, though. He'd have been such a welcome visitor...

391. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141450 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I'm quite pleased with mine: got "extreme" for Lustful and "very high" for Heretic.

392. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141446 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 12:37 pm

http://lolcats.com/images/u/07/24/lolcatsdotcomiy0hwr7nqv87ch3g.jpg

393. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141348 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 9:38 am

irate_atheist, waiting for you on the Ben Stein thread...

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2268,Ben-Stein-Wins-Intelligent-Design-Money,SCIAM-Observations,page2#140885

394. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141341 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 9:34 am

Steve:


I do hope the Catholic Church will be providing tinfoil hats.


But then there would be a schism. Shiny side in vs shiny side out.

395. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141336 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 9:31 am

wooter, I know you don't like clicking on links, but you really should post some of your ideas in this forum:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=46&sid=0aa6b7fca9bbe24655fe1ce57c7c8545

You'll be really welcome!

396. Out of the Blue

Comment #141333 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 9:27 am

chauvinj:

It bothers me when scientists make such outlandish claims. It reflects poorly on all academics, making us look cocky and incabable of doing on honest assessment of the prospects of our research. This bothers me since people are less likely to take our research seriuosly (and less likely to fund it) if we are thought to just be making wildly irresponsible claims. Well, that's enough ranting for a Monday morning...


I agree with you, although quite often it's the press that exaggerate the scientists' claims. That seems not to be the case in this instance, though.

397. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141325 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 9:18 am

Comment #141295 by Mitchell Gilks
Mostly ones I've found on the fora. I remembered the vibrator one from ages ago, just googled it

398. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141318 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 9:09 am

Lust & Sloth have always been my favourites.

399. Fleabytes

Comment #141309 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 9:00 am

http://lolcats.com/images/u/07/39/lolcatsdotcom6rfzyrg2hq73u3rt.jpg

400. Fleabytes

Comment #141304 by Geoff on March 10, 2008 at 8:50 am

Doc B:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.

Each man that's in the side that's in, goes out, and when he's out, he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.

When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that's the end of the game.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | Next