Comments by Martin S

Comment #244566 by Martin S on September 9, 2008 at 6:55 am

That Youtube video is by a retard for retards

Why do we put up with this stuff? No further comment.

Comment #244503 by Martin S on September 9, 2008 at 1:04 am

Locri

It's a variant of Pascal's Wager. It says: If there is a choice of two or more positions you can hold on an issue, then, after proper and full risk assessment, you should adopt the one that offers minimum risk with maximum gain. That's all. The risk of an asteroid impact is tiny. And the level of investment to mitigate that risk (small scale sky surveys) is proportionate.

The guy in the YouTube vid mentioned earlier says it far better than I can here.

3. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244375 by Martin S on September 8, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Thanks to weavehole for the YouTube link. Say's it far better than I could. "Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic..."

4. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244182 by Martin S on September 8, 2008 at 12:15 pm

It's odd but looking at the debate over man-made climate change provokes a version of Pascal's Wager to pop into my head. People listen to the media and then decide what they believe: either man-made climate change is a reality, or it isn't. But unlike the multiple gods choice which is the downfall of Pascal's Wager there is only one climate change. And when you look at the possible outcomes of each belief, this time there really is a huge and genuine asymmetry in the consequences. If we reject man-made climate change and it is a reality, then, worst case scenario, the Earth turns into another Venus. ALL life perishes. But if we accept man-made climate change as a reality, and it turns out to be an over-reaction, well, what have we lost? Apart from the overhead of building a few wind turbines, solar panels, wave machines etc, not a lot. And since the World is a closed economy most of the money spent on this stuff will just cycle round in the system anyway. Won't it? To me it's a no-brainer. If there is reasonable evidence that climate change is happening and that it is man-made, we have to take action. We have to.

5. The Afterlife for Scientologists

Comment #229235 by Martin S on August 13, 2008 at 8:54 am

Members of the elite church cadre known as Sea Org, for example, sign contracts that pledge a billion years of service throughout successive lives.

What happens then? Doesn't seem like much of a deal when other religions are offering "All Eternity". A billion years barely scratches the surface. Ah but wait - I think I know. You probably just keep renewing your contract - for all eternity.

6. Council ban on atheist websites

Comment #221317 by Martin S on July 29, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Hasn't the BCC got its categories wrong? Witchcraft, Satanism, occult practices, voodoo and mysticism all belong in the same category as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and other religions. Whereas atheism stands apart (even aloft and aloof).

7. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155192 by Martin S on April 4, 2008 at 8:19 am

Whereas if Allah exists...

Hey that's an idea - why not cover yourself and believe in them all Art?

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

Comment #132636 by Martin S on February 25, 2008 at 4:15 am

He's claiming that if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else.

There's only one entry in the second list and that is the fact that the first list is empty.

9. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #124985 by Martin S on February 10, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Richard Morgan

That's a very high horse you're sitting on there. It might help to pick your words more carefully. Calling people stupid for calling people stupid doesn't quite sound sound - if you know what I mean.

10. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119918 by Martin S on February 1, 2008 at 2:53 am

the Golden Rule exists independently of any religion: it is a mathematical fact.

I like that. I never came across that before. If it's true I wonder more isn't made of it when debating the theists.

11. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102643 by Martin S on December 23, 2007 at 10:53 am

What is going through this man's head? This man who was the leader of my country for so long.

I feel cheated and deceived.

Does he think his god was deceived? Was it ok in the eyes of his god for him to act as though he had no particular religious allegiance solely to hold on to political high office? And finally now to cynically turn round and admit he was a raving loony all along. Top marks to all those who spotted it years ago. I'm afraid I missed it.

I confess I feel slightly disgusted.

12. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94814 by Martin S on December 6, 2007 at 4:33 pm

For me gold and the top spot on the winners podium goes to primate Ratzinger.

Primate D'Souza gets silver.

The rest are going to have to share out the bronze somehow - I can't choose between them. Whilst they're all good I'm still not convinced they're putting enough effort into promoting their beliefs in their cloud clowns.

13. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92823 by Martin S on December 1, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Watching the contrasting styles of these two has confused me. Somebody remind me. Is it atheists or the religious who are supposed to be "strident and shrill"???

14. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85642 by Martin S on November 6, 2007 at 2:55 pm

RD says...

I've been accused of wanting to seize people's children and take them away from their parents…

I know how he feels there. So have I. Not to mention a totalitarian.

15. Face to faith

Comment #82990 by Martin S on October 28, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Seeing scientific knowledge as limitless erodes our capacity for contemplative wonder, says Mark Vernon

Does Mark Vernon mean limitless as in the way one might describe his arrogance?

Contrary to what Vernon seems to suggest it might surprise him to know that there are scientists who have reason to doubt whether the laws of the universe are in fact wholly knowable at all. It may be that human cognitive capability is simply inadequate to make the necessary steps toward a final theory. I think it's probably a example of a form of solipsism to assume that it is. Why should it be after all? What's special about us? What if another million years of cognitive evolution is necessary before the answer to Douglas Adams' "Life, The Universe and Everything" question will finally be understood.

No harm in trying though.

16. God's honest truth?

Comment #79947 by Martin S on October 19, 2007 at 7:51 am

What is your proposal then? Confiscate the child from his parents just because......

Can I just stop you there please? If I want someone to put words into my mouth for me (post 34 re: post 30) rest assured Bonzai - I'll come straight to you first.

17. God's honest truth?

Comment #79794 by Martin S on October 18, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Of course it does not go so far as the Dawkins policy of prohibiting parents from trying to pass on their doctrines even in their own families - and, if it did, it would certainly run foul of the European convention on human rights.

What about the human rights of the child? The right to grow up with a clear and unpolluted mind devoid of the reason suppressing virus of faith.

People so often carp on about their "rights" to bring up "their" child as they see fit. But parents don't "own" their child. It belongs to itself.

18. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68533 by Martin S on September 7, 2007 at 1:08 pm

The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty

... which is exactly what ALL scientists do - Occams Razor. So by Hobson's reasoning Einstein was an intellectual coward. Whereas the Pope, believeing as he presumably does in his extra cosmic sky daddy, is a brave intellectual hero.

The sad thing is these people seem to really truly believe this nonsense they all spout.

19. In God we doubt

Comment #67474 by Martin S on September 3, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Why does Humphreys (and many others) always insist on hanging the "militant" adjective onto "atheist"? Who amongst atheists is running around behaving in a "militant" fashion? It's complete unjustified rubbish.
The real reason is to try and make us into an undesirable, socially unacceptable "out-group". History has shown us you can do what you like with out-groups.
Use of the word militant is unnecessary and weak Humphreys. To me it always seems to give arguments in favour of an extra cosmic space daddy a certain desperate quality.

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

Comment #61511 by Martin S on August 5, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"It belittles our universe. To have astrologers demeaning astronomy by tapping into the spine-tingling wonder of the universe is . . ." he struggles briefly for a word, then finds one and pronounces it with a keen awareness of the irony: "Sacrilegious!"

Yeah well as a Capricorn that's just the sort of thing he would say.

(Sorry - couldn't resist)

21. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #40540 by Martin S on May 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm

blasphemy is a victimless crime

Love it. Is that an original Richard Dawkins quote? That's got to be worth some T-shirt space.

22. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #40011 by Martin S on May 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Is it not deeply shocking that Munsey gives all of the credit for his daughter's well being to a deity and yet completely disregards her medical team?

Might it not have been more gracious of him to at least point out that they may also have had a tiny part to play in it all?

23. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #31843 by Martin S on April 14, 2007 at 3:26 pm