1. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231981 by Monosilabbiq on August 17, 2008 at 11:41 am

Free will? Luke Reinhart discussed this in "The Diceman". But his strand started a religion and morals went out of the window !

2. Faith is not the answer

Comment #221173 by Monosilabbiq on July 29, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Well, once Faith would have been the answer. She was bloody gorgeous ! But she married someone else - so am having to do without Faith.

3. The Return of Religion

Comment #212305 by Monosilabbiq on July 17, 2008 at 2:05 am

So all I need to be led back into the fold of the god fearing religious community is to stick my head ostrich-like in the sand for a few hundred years so I can ignore the Enlightenment and then wake up with my hands over my ears while saying "Na na na na na - I can't hear any strident atheists !"

Oh Bugger ! Yet another person who thinks I am a gullible twat who is thick as two short planks.

Bejesus !!!!!

4. Religion's role in the climate debate

Comment #205269 by Monosilabbiq on July 7, 2008 at 1:57 am

I am with dlitt (Comment 6). The article was well worth reading just for the laugh generated by the last sentence. It has made my day !!

5. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192811 by Monosilabbiq on June 14, 2008 at 2:13 am

Poor old Tony. I don't think his smoke and mirrors political philosophy is going to suddenly make the religious start to love each other. Not a hope in hell.

Keep all religions out of civilisation's moral compass. Even if Tony has shopped around and chosen his own particular sect of christianity, he hasn't shown much moral backbone in how he publicised that choice.

6. Pelosi, Reid shunning Ten Commandments?

Comment #181356 by Monosilabbiq on May 17, 2008 at 2:43 am

Re Comment 5

I am not so sure 2 out of ten is a very good assessment of the ten commandments.

Do not kill. In my country (UK) you are allowed to kill in self defence and as a member of the armed forces in certain proscribed circumstances.

Do not steal. It has been said many times on this site that there are better books - some even fiction, like Shakespeare's plays - that discuss morality rather better than the bible. For stealing I prefer the dictum expressed by Richard Sharpe in Bernard Cornwall's Sharpe series. "Don't steal unless you are starving."

One out of ten for the pathetic effort.

7. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166313 by Monosilabbiq on April 23, 2008 at 5:51 am

Flying Goose and Irate.

The current cure for mental illness is to equip the sufferer with a load of helium filled balloons and a GPS. They not only get cured but win a Darwin Award.

p.s. I hope they find him alive.

8. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166182 by Monosilabbiq on April 23, 2008 at 1:27 am

I agree with Bonzai. You should be allowed to argue with the "site moderator" without being shouted down.
The "site moderator" was being too fundamentalist. It is the first time I have read him agreeing with D'Souza, Mc Grath etc that only experts can rationally comment on a topic. Everyone knows that the only people that can reliably talk about the existence of god are those that have studied Theology.

How do I mark this as tongue in cheek ?

9. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164360 by Monosilabbiq on April 20, 2008 at 5:50 am

Although this article may not have a fundamental impact on the validity or not for a belief in god, it can serve a useful purpose.

For lots of people it is a revelation that their spiritual leaders are fallible. "I didn't know it was OK not to believe in god" is a thread that recurs. Well, this story - while not being philosophically a clincher - may help some people to start being sceptical about their individual spiritual gurus.

As well as helping me become more sceptical, logical and rational, I also find that this site helps me be a little bit more positive. I am very easily able to skim past the negative doom sayers who post here.

10. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158018 by Monosilabbiq on April 10, 2008 at 1:41 am

Fucktards.

Please vote for "none of the above".

11. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156328 by Monosilabbiq on April 7, 2008 at 10:49 am

Blimey ! It was difficult to follow the thinking behind the verbal attack made by Davis. The comments on other sites show that she has upset a lot of people within her own constituency.

Lets hope that democracy is seen to work.

12. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153208 by Monosilabbiq on April 1, 2008 at 7:52 am

I am afraid you are far too accurate Hungarianelephant. Sadly I concur that UK cannot "lecture" any other country - and that is because successive governments have not learnt the lesson given to Neville Chamberlain. Appeasement is easy, but usually incorrect. Standing up for your principles sometimes means stepping on someone else's toes. Tough.

What happens when good men do nothing ?

13. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153187 by Monosilabbiq on April 1, 2008 at 7:22 am

Hungarianelephant you are a very naughty boy ! How dare you tell some truth ! Your post #111 may be considered a hate speech - by the UK government.

I agree with the proposal to establish an alternative body to the UN made up of grown-up and responsible democratic nations. I hope that in due course the UK would be able to get its act together and qualify for membership.

14. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153094 by Monosilabbiq on April 1, 2008 at 3:04 am

Presumably I am now able to go on the Hajj and offer to sell FSM material (and TGD, since it represents my religious views)to my fellow humans getting dizzy walking round a black stone. And British Airways no longer needs to insist that their staff don't wear crosses when they fly in and out of Saudi Arabia.

15. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128179 by Monosilabbiq on February 16, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Wow !

16. Map reveals extent of human damage to oceans

Comment #127442 by Monosilabbiq on February 15, 2008 at 9:46 am

Thre is an elephant in the room. Global warming, oceans polluted, transport systems breaking down, power generation not able to keep up with demand, etc etc.

If the world population continues to rise then individual efforts to be green will be largely meaningless.

Spaceship Earth is probably well capable of correcting the balance of nature in her own sweet way.

17. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127434 by Monosilabbiq on February 15, 2008 at 9:34 am

It sounds to me as if a few more Universities need a Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite the gloom I can say that the Americans I met at my British university knew a lot more about their own country than I did about mine. They were proud of America and wanted to know everything about it. It would have helped if someone had equally inspired them to learn about the rest of the world. They certainly showed no lack of ability to absorb/retain information.

18. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99964 by Monosilabbiq on December 18, 2007 at 1:43 am

I do like Mithrastide/Winter Solstice/Christmas. Everyone is so cheerful and generally nice to each other. It is a fun time of the year. And I have enjoyed reading the comments on this article.
Epicure was spot on for me. Libby sees a druid as a human invention but fails to make the logical step to appreciate the Abrahamic pantomimes in the same light.
I can only agree with Epeeist. Yes, the Messiah is wonderful to listen to and to sing. But the vast majority of carols - both music and lyrics (but especially the lyrics) - precipitate the gag reflex.
Inferno, the same goes for pop songs. If they are good musically then I will sing along. I boogeyed on down to "young, gifted and black" when one out of three seemed enough justification for me. But what the heck - I may try a few steps if I hear it at a party even though it is now none out of three.

19. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99407 by Monosilabbiq on December 16, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Yet another sad sad story. It beggars belief. If I was a cynical chap I would have to assume this father acted in accordance with the 5th (?) commandment.

I also assume he will not have to wait for hell after death. Although I am not a father myself, every father I have met would be going through hell now if he had to contemplate the fact that he had murdered one of his own children.

I wish I had some advice for the next Aqsa.

20. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #98958 by Monosilabbiq on December 15, 2007 at 2:52 am

By Mithras, this winter solstice can be a minefield!

21. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90568 by Monosilabbiq on November 25, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Having just read through the posts I find that I haven't changed my mind one iota from my post numero 3. The geezer doesn't like it but he agrees that there isn't any scope for a supernatural whatever or any need to look for one.

He also clearly shows that he wishes that this wasn't so by smoke and mirrors. If he can persuade enough people that if anything can be brought together under the heading "faith" then it must all be the same thing.

A reputation is something that takes a long time to develop. It is hard fought for and often well deserved. It usually takes far less time to demolish that reputation. If the author has a reputation, I am surprised he puts it on the line with such a shallow article.

22. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90396 by Monosilabbiq on November 25, 2007 at 2:13 am

I wouldn't discard this article entirely as it's conclusions in the very last paragraph echo those to be found in TGD. The disappointing aspect of the article is the manner in which it flirts with "God" and "faith". A deeply religious (OK any religious) believer will read the article and think that it backs up the individual's right and rightness to believe. Actually at no time does the article specifically say that the author's take on science demonstrates a case for there being a god.

The curious use of the term "faith" will obviously also chime with the religiously inclined. My understanding of science and scientists is that any scientist would love to be able to disprove any of the "Laws" of science. To be able to do that in a way that could be peer reviewed and accepted would certainly lead to Nobel prizes and eternal fame. The "faith" that a scientist has in the Laws of physics is more of an acceptance of previous, accepted, work. Each new discovery does not require a scientist to start by justifying gravity. The strength of science in this respect is that it progresses. A world view that uses as it's foundation a book that was written centuries ago and was subsequently edited by political power brokers, is unlikely to progress.

23. Getting Overheated

Comment #89511 by Monosilabbiq on November 21, 2007 at 1:32 am

The taster above means that I will visit Mr Fry's blog. But I will be disappointed if it doesn't address the elephant in the room. This isn't the price of oil or the fact that it may run out. It is that global warming is caused by humans. Spaceship Earth is overpopulated. The aspirations of each and every person is to achieve as fulfilling a life as possible (after all, it's the only one we have got !) and that results in a carbon footprint. Tinkering with the individual's size of footprint is of no consequence if the number of humans continues to rocket.

The sensible discussion of this topic is so distressing that most people would prefer to ignore it. Can a person of reason afford to do so?

24. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #88077 by Monosilabbiq on November 14, 2007 at 2:08 pm

The pillars of creationism and ID are testable by science. The problem comes that if you prove scientifically that any of those pilars is false the prople who hold those "beliefs" change their mind and erect yet another set of pillars in slightly different words. Let us say one of the pillars of creationism was that the world came into existence less than 10,000 years ago - that can be examined by scientists. Those scientists findings can be peer reviewed. If they find that the "theory" has been disproved by the facts then the "theory" is discarded.

To my mind this has already happened. The idea of creationism is a failed and rejected theory, and should on no account ever be accorded the respect of being referred to as a "theory".

25. Onward Science Soldiers

Comment #87854 by Monosilabbiq on November 13, 2007 at 11:50 am

This is the sadest article I have read on this site. I wish the article had explained what the role of the Bush appointee was on the NASA board.

I can just imagine the howls of laughter ringing around the office when the e-mail arrived - followed by a deathly silence that it had actually been written in earnest by someone in a position of power.

26. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87609 by Monosilabbiq on November 12, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Once upon time in a land far away there was this chap who made a living out of reciting tales of days gone by and the traditions of the land. He became a bit of a guru and a trend setter and started putting out advice on life style and cooking - a bit like Martha in the USA and Nigella in the UK. He built up a following of people who conscripted to his newsletter and he made pots of money. So much that they called him Profit. Fame went to his head and one day he took so many drugs that he thought he was on a horse with wings flying across the country from one town to another. It scared the shit out of him. In his next news letter he advised everyone not to take any drugs at all, not even the mildest intoxicant. The event is still recognised today - taking lots of drugs is called having a trip.
But he was still self confident and cocky. He boasted to his buddies "The average person is so gullible that I could even start my own religion!" "I bet you couldn't!" they all replied. "If I can find someone who can write, I could even start a religion based on which hand you wipe your arse with." He boasted.

I just wonder after all this time whether he won his bet?

27. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #87590 by Monosilabbiq on November 12, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Mr fides-et-ratio I hope you are not a christian because that fairy belief says that not being truthful is naughty. What is a catholic teacher anyway? I understand what a Chemistry teacher is !
Oxford and Cambridge have a very poor history of open discussion and unbiased discussion of life the universe and everything. In particular they kicked out a student who was sincere enough to write a pamphlet about the importance of being an atheist despite the consequences. Lets not start on their reluctance to admit female students.
The honest view would be that they were both started by benefactors who were convinced by the tooth fairies that endowing a religious college would get them a better seat at the table in the next life. A bit of extra money and they would even employ a bloke to do their praying for them. Education for educations sake - don't make me laugh !
Any person in Britain who wishes to have the very best education should no longer be put off by the exceptionally dubious reasons why the oldest universities were funded. Go to Oxford and Cambridge and follow in the student body's history of applying skeptiscism and original thought to the subjects that matter - i.e. not theology

28. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82552 by Monosilabbiq on October 26, 2007 at 5:16 pm

It is sad that the standards of journalism are being eroded. There can be no doubt that this article was not written by anyone who was awake while they read TGD.

I would not wish to be dogmatic or harsh about this subject, but there are one or two things that are important. Every child must be taught that they have a choice about these things. And they must be taught that they MUST question everything that they are told by their teachers/elders. It is up there with don't accept sweeties from strangers - don't accept stuff that isn't rational from anyone. If you are open minded people will throw all sorts of rubbish in.

Everyone, at some time in their lives, should consider that they have a choice.

29. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81075 by Monosilabbiq on October 24, 2007 at 2:42 am

Hitchens has used the argument about "heaven" not interferring in earthly matters during the first 98000 years of Homo Sapiens' existence on a number of occasions now. His presumtion (and I agree, in that I can see no other conclusion) being that all the people in that time were consigned to "hell" as they didn't aver a faith in gentle jesus meak and mild. However, this argument hasn't worked. Why not??? Because the christians couldn't give a fig about all those people.

Hitchens is going to have to continue making up different lines of argument because the christian debaters will prepare their defence. This is what the christians do - they change their stance on a daily basis. The only consistent strand of the christian rhetoric is "and send your donation to..."

30. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81072 by Monosilabbiq on October 24, 2007 at 2:28 am

I read a book some time ago (I think it was The Ugly American) set in a third world eastern country. Western diplomacy included the sending of masses of food as aid to the starving population. Each crate of food was marked "Produced and provided by the USA". But it was written in English. As the crates came through customs they were stamped with a sign that said in the local language "Provided by your fraternal communist friends from the USSR". As the American diplomats didn't speak the local language they didn't complain. D'Souza uses this technique when he tells Hitchens that he only gives blood and feels good about it because he has been brought up in christian world. And D'Souza's audience understood his language and not Hitchins' ! What a wonderful, illogical, argument for the religious world - everything good has been done because of religion.

Of course, any thinking person would translate D'Souza's statements into the thinking of a citizen of a country whose state religion is not christianity. They would realise that this would confirm the correctness of that religion as well. Hang on though - that means there are two gods that are the only ones in the cosmos????? Or is it three? Or four? Sod it - lets have one god for Wars and we can call him Mars, and another for ......

31. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78279 by Monosilabbiq on October 12, 2007 at 10:55 am

That was fairly bland reporting. Their bias was not hidden, totally open, and any thinking person would have picked up on it. But any news is good news. Even Fox News listeners have been given the details on where to find the radio broadcast.

It will be interesting to see how the programme does. Not purely in commercial terms, but in its ability to remain rational and topical. I would like to hear it and will look for the links on the internet.

Good luck Free Thought Radio!

32. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77308 by Monosilabbiq on October 9, 2007 at 2:18 am

I found Mr Hitchins' article quite even handed. I think he was correct to discuss the issues from both sides and demonstrate that he abhors things that are WRONG. The condemnation of the threats against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or any other critic of a paricular religion or ideolgy, should be based on first principles. If the religion or ideology percieves that condemnation as purely an attack based on hatred of that religion or ideology, then the critiscism will be easily dismissed.

A reputation takes a long time to build, but only seconds to destroy. I have no doubt that the Netherlands understand why their reputation took a knock in Srebrenica, and their desire to do a bit of rebuilding.

33. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76083 by Monosilabbiq on October 4, 2007 at 4:18 pm

This was not a debate - it was an ambush. And having walked into it the Prof got a bit of a kicking. After a while I recognised the style and tactics of Dr Lennox - it was remarkably similar to some training in dealing with the media that I had undergone. Don't bother with answering the question - say what it is that you want to say! And Dr Lennox certainly didn't listen to anything said by the Prof, and even put words in his mouth so that he could demonise him as the classic bogeyman atheist.

Shouting at this level of stubborn-ness might provide some satisfaction, but probably will not be effective. The suggestion in previous discussions has been to use ridicule. That appeals to me. Certainly the atheist protagonists have no shortage of material.

I would recommend a slightly different form of "debate". A Balloon debate would be entertaining with each of the major religions allowed an entrant. The "None of the above" candidate would have to be the Prof, seconded by Mr Hitchins in his role as attack dog.