1. Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement

Comment #157997 by Apemanblues on April 10, 2008 at 12:32 am

First lying and now possible theft. Dear oh dear. Big Pseudo-science seems to be in big trouble.

2. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #157994 by Apemanblues on April 10, 2008 at 12:23 am

I'm happy to see that the movie (and 'Intelligent Design' in general ) is being resoundly trashed for the nonsense that it is, but it's sad to see the poor and uneducated of the world once again being targeted by parasitic religious con-men.

3. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157387 by Apemanblues on April 9, 2008 at 3:14 am

I cant watch this show on TV, I always end up yelling at it, so I won't be watching it here. I can't be doing with these people anymore.

I'll just read the comments here, chuckle to myself, and continue to pretend that I live in an enlightened scientific age.

4. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #156595 by Apemanblues on April 8, 2008 at 2:17 am

All the atheists and secularists that I personally know plan on becoming old people themselves.

It comes with the whole 'not believing there is anything after death' thing.

5. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142098 by Apemanblues on March 12, 2008 at 2:03 am

You are clearly wrong. as these "nano brains" seem like they might actually be useful.

6. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142084 by Apemanblues on March 12, 2008 at 1:12 am

I hear that the makers of the 'Expelled' movie already use "nano brains".

Ben Stein is living proof.

7. Please Call Earth. We Still Haven't Found You.

Comment #138120 by Apemanblues on March 4, 2008 at 1:01 am

Comment #137687 by robotaholic:

you're right - we're all apes but you guys need to shave

8. It's Make Believe!

Comment #137458 by Apemanblues on March 3, 2008 at 12:01 am

George Carlin is one of the best (if not THE best) Stand Up comedians of all time.

9. A natural phenomenon

Comment #137456 by Apemanblues on March 2, 2008 at 11:57 pm

David Attenborough: Living legend. It was his series 'Life on Earth' that got me hooked on nature and the natural world when I was a child. I'll never forget the impact it had on me.

I'll be really looking foreword to the new series about Darwin

10. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135462 by Apemanblues on February 29, 2008 at 2:11 am

This is the documentary that compelled my partner and I to Join the National Secular Society (when it was originally broadcast in 2005).

I have no problem with people believing the most outlandish ideas, I feel no desire to ridicule them and I hope their ideas make them happy, but I do have a big problem when they try to force everybody else to take those ideas as seriously as they do.

Nobody owns these religious stories, nobody owns these ideas, nobody has the right to tell others what they can or cannot do with them.

11. BREAK THE SCIENCE BARRIER - Available Now on DVD

Comment #123897 by Apemanblues on February 7, 2008 at 11:35 pm

I never got the chance to see this when it was aired on TV.

Nice one!

12. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123896 by Apemanblues on February 7, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Looks like it's time to up my donation to the National Secular Society.

13. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123388 by Apemanblues on February 7, 2008 at 4:39 am

At 2:30 did anyone notice the apparition of Jesus at the window?

14. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek

Comment #122274 by Apemanblues on February 5, 2008 at 4:19 am

Well Steve, rest assured that I will not be doing anything remotely like that. The respectful acknowledgement of a brilliant mans life is enough for me.

Others however are free to do whatever they please. I'm not a member of any 'club' so their 'impressions' don't effect me.

15. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek

Comment #122267 by Apemanblues on February 5, 2008 at 3:36 am

I don't see the need for an 'atheistic celebration', that sounds ridiculous to me also, but If some people feel that Darwin's ideas were integral to them becoming confirmed atheists then how they choose to celebrate Darwin Day is really none of mine or anybody else's business.

For the rest of us Darwin Day is not about atheism, but are we not allowed to celebrate the life and work of a brilliant naturalist and scientific revolutionary, just because of the propaganda that may or may not be spread about by fundamentalist creationist morons?.

I refuse to modify my behaviour just on the off-chance that I might be misunderstood by every god damned idiot who walks the planet earth.

16. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek

Comment #122242 by Apemanblues on February 5, 2008 at 1:42 am

Perhaps it has 'atheistic connotations' over there in Jesusland, but here in Old Blighty I see no reason why the non-religious and religious alike cannot celebrate the birth of one of our great scientific heroes. Hell, I'd go for having a Newton day too. I'd rather celebrate scientific endeavour than all the artificial 'saints' or messiahs that religion can muster.

I'm well past giving a stuff about what religious nutjobs happen to think of me.

17. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122240 by Apemanblues on February 5, 2008 at 1:18 am

Meanwhile religious groups on campus can continue to take "an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of" non-believers.

18. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117904 by Apemanblues on January 30, 2008 at 12:25 am

'The Big Questions' is a bloody awful show.

It's there to fulfil the BBC's religious programming quota, not to actually confront any real 'questions' with any kind of genuine philosophical discourse. They hardly ever have a non-religious or rational speaker on their panel and on the rare occasion when they do they are always vastly outnumbered by a largely religious audience.

I find it best to go out for a walk on Sunday mornings instead and grab a nice fresh breath of honest reality.

19. Islam in Europe

Comment #114829 by Apemanblues on January 23, 2008 at 1:14 am

"I wonder how long it will be before the first European is actually stoned to death for adultery. If that catches on there will be hardly anyone left in France"

Now THATS funny.

20. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114044 by Apemanblues on January 21, 2008 at 9:10 am

He never had a girlfriend, hung around with guys in dresses and loved his mother a lot.

That's all I'm saying...

21. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85500 by Apemanblues on November 6, 2007 at 3:00 am

What makes it even more tragic is that she was only 22 and, as some on this website will surely know, what you believe at 22 might be very different to what what you believe at 32.

She may well have grown up and away from this nonsense, but now nobody will ever know.

22. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83423 by Apemanblues on October 30, 2007 at 2:26 am

It's funny how the real Magisterium are reacting not unlike the fictional Magisterium,

It will only serve to confirm the films message when the children leave the movie theatres wide eyed, only to come face to face with a real life mob of villains vociferously protesting against intellectual freedom.

Plus, the fighting polar bears will be really cool.

23. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72434 by Apemanblues on September 21, 2007 at 4:33 am

Comment #72430 by notsobad

read the new preface or watch it.

24. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72410 by Apemanblues on September 21, 2007 at 2:33 am

Richard Dawkins really, really, really, really, really, really should to write a follow up to The God Delusion. One that purely deals with answering the critics. The God Delusion itself already answers most of the critics (one could argue that the critics/fleas haven't even read/understood what he was saying/doing with TGD) but judging by Richards follow up comments in the media I think it would still make for an excellent read.

Personally, I'm an agnostic (the militant doubter kind) and the main reason why I'm an agnostic is because so many people have so many abstract definitions of God that it's difficult to quite put my finger on what I'm supposed to be beleiveing/disbelieving in. Nobody seems to have a clue what God is/does/wants and everybody appears to be just making stuff up. So I've given up and refuse to define myself on this issue. It's a nonsense. I have no problem with people who have wishy washy abstract beliefs, it's largely a personal thing and usually quite harmless. However, I simply can't stand it when 'believers' accuse the atheist of disbelieving in an inadequate definition of God when they have no definition of God to speak of themselves.

An honest theist would say "I believe in God. It's an emotional thing. I may have no robust argument or evidence to support this position and I could of course be wrong, but I happen to believe none the less.". Many do indeed say this and I have respect for those people. Unfortunately, this sort of honest attitude doesn't sell books or give one a level of authority over other people. So instead they pretend that the non-believers just misunderstand them or claim that non-believers are somehow deficient in some other way.

It's really very tiring when they speak with such certainty and authority about things they know no more about than anyone else. And they get tax payers money to do it too. You're damn right they should listen to Dawkins.

25. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61800 by Apemanblues on August 7, 2007 at 12:37 am

Most of this article is a long winded way of saying "My religion is the only true one" and the rest of it is just an example of how little the author knows about science.

Same old same old.

26. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #59646 by Apemanblues on July 30, 2007 at 3:09 am

I don't agree with all of what he said, I think what Dawkins is doing is great (and very important), but I do think he made some good points. People follow religion for emotional reasons and no matter how much science you throw at them many will still choose their emotion over their intellect.

Personally I get more than enough 'spiritual' (for want of a better word) nourishment from my amateur interest in naturalism, conservation and wildlife. I also get a lot out of my humanistic philosophical outlook. This is the sort of thing that I think the various Humanist groups should be trying to communicate to the public. Promoting care for each other and care for the earth, because we only have one life and there is no planet B.

Humanism generally plays a rather passive role, just being there for non-belivers or defending against the march of religion on public life, but groups like the British Humanist Association (for example) could do well from a publicity drive of this sort. A friendly faced public campaign, advancing the ideas of human solidarity, care for the earth and personal responsibility, purely for their own sake.

Something that unites all the people who want to actively do some good in a world where religion has hijacked 'goodness' and erroneously aligned it with 'faith'.

27. A force for good?

Comment #55071 by Apemanblues on July 10, 2007 at 12:37 am

He's using the slippery bar of soap definition of God.

"God isn't a man in the sky who answers prayers and punishes people on a whim, nobody would be silly enough to believe in that would they? No, no. God is love, God is peace, God is that warm squishy feeling inside I get when I see a basket of kittens."

Somebody should tell all these fluffy 'believers' (agnostics in sheeps clothing) that when priests talk about Jesus and the miracles of the Bible, much of the flock DO actually take that literally. They don't think God is just a metaphor for the warm feeling you get after a nice glass of Cognac, they think God is an actual thinking "being" who answers prayers and performs science breaking 'magic' whenever the mood takes him.

Mr Vallely may believe in something "bigger" than himself, but guess what, so do I. So do a lot of people. We call it 'The universe'. It's big, it's wonderful, it's mysterious and it fills us with awe. However, we don't pretend it cares about what music we listen to, how we choose to dress, the intimate details of our sex lives, or what we decide to do with our Sunday afternoons.

Unfortunately, religion does care about all these things and a whole lot more. It seeks to impose these views upon others and asks for special protection against any kind of criticism. Which is precisely the reason why some of us take umbrage with it. Regardless of your own personal woolly and meaningless definitions.

28. The Panel

Comment #53398 by Apemanblues on July 1, 2007 at 8:50 am

That was pretty funny.

Although, I'm shocked at a scientist not knowing the age of the earth.

29. 'I have never been happier' says the man who won gold but lost God

Comment #52450 by Apemanblues on June 27, 2007 at 3:55 am

Wow. I'm really shocked.

I watched the documentary that he did on St Paul and I didn't think it was half bad. Especially considering that in the documentary he mentioned Paul's 'revelation' was most likely due to an epileptic fit. In hindsight, I remember thinking how odd it must be for him to hold two contradicting thoughts in his head, but that's par for the course when it comes to 'believers', so I just dismissed it.

I've always thought he was a nice enough chap. It's great to see that he has come to reason. I'm happy for the guy.

30. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52395 by Apemanblues on June 27, 2007 at 12:56 am

I've been a heavy metal fan all my life and I can assure you that most metal fans are non-religious and generally unorthodox about most aspects of their lives. Even the ones who promote 'Satanic' imagery.

I'm aware that some people are stupid enough to actually buy into the Satan crap and pretend that it's real, but that's definitely the exception. The vast majority of metal fans (and bands) view it all as a big joke. It's like horror movie fantasy, it's fiction, it's fun.

The fact that it upsets the religious (who do take that kind of thing seriously) just makes the joke funnier.

31. Messiah

Comment #52392 by Apemanblues on June 27, 2007 at 12:33 am

Awesome. I saw this when It was first aired.

With people like Derren Brown around I find it very difficult to believe how ANYBODY, even the scientifically retarded, can be taken in by mediums, spiritualists and the like. Unless of course they are unaware that their 'paranormal experiences' can be faked by anyone willing to take the time to learn how to do it (as Derren Brown humbly admits).

But then, with all the science available I find it difficult to believe how anyone can be taken in by creationists either. I guess I have unrealistic expectations about the reasoning capabilities of human beings in general.

32. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52386 by Apemanblues on June 27, 2007 at 12:21 am

I couldn't believe that he used the 'complexity of the eye' argument and then she went on to mention 'Childbirth' (does she have any idea why it is so painful?). Then I remembered that this is Fox.

Helloooooo? Darwin? Anyone? Beardy guy obsessed with worms? Remember him?

Morons!

33. God Hates the World

Comment #52026 by Apemanblues on June 26, 2007 at 1:03 am

haha. You got me there Thor

That is indeed the most likely scenario.

34. God Hates the World

Comment #52019 by Apemanblues on June 26, 2007 at 12:48 am

Whenever Westboro Baptist material is posted on the internet you always get Christians come out and yell "This doesn't represent my faith, we are so much nicer and fluffier than these people!".

However, if you push them and ask a few questions (mainly with evangelicals), more often than not, it will go a little like this:

Sceptic: These people are nuts man, they are so wrong. Really messed up!
Believer: I totally agree.
Sceptic: What?
Believer: I said I agree with you.
Sceptic: What the ... really? You also think these Westboro people are wrong?
Believer: Yes. They are appalling people. They don't represent us at all.
Sceptic: I'm sorry. I thought they had the same beliefs as you.
Believer: Good God no. That's just an ugly strawman.
Sceptic: Ok. Sorry about that. So, you think god approves of homosexuality then?
Believer: No. That's not what I'm saying. It's very clearly written that He doesn't approve of gays. But they can repent, just like the rest of us. We can all be saved. God loves us all!
Sceptic: So, what then happens to homosexuals when they die, if they don't repent, or simply aren't believers?
Believer: They go to hell, just like everybody who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their saviour. If they did, then they would be saved.
Sceptic: Yet, you accept that most of the world is not Christian, right?
Believer: Yes.
Sceptic: So most of the world is not 'saved', right?
Believer: Right.
Sceptic: So they are all going to hell, to suffer and burn for eternity, right?
Believer: I suppose so. It's up to Gods grace, but if they don't accept Jesus, then yes, they go to hell.
Sceptic: And gays specifically, even if they accept Jesus, yet still want to have a homosexual relationship, they go to hell, right?
Believer: Yes.
Sceptic: I'm assuming you believe God created the world.
Believer: Well of course.
Sceptic: A world where the vast majority of people will burn in hell for all eternity.
Sceptic: Where are you going with this?
Sceptic: Well, If Westboro thinks that all homosexuals and non-believers are going to burn in hell for all eternity and you believe that all homosexuals and non-believers are going to burn in hell for al eternity, then what's the difference between Westbro's beliefs and your own?
Believer: The Westboro freaks like to shout about it and we, well, we prefer not to be so loud.
Sceptic: .....
Believer: What?
Sceptic: Nothing *Whistles* "God hates the world...". "Catchy tune huh?".
Believer: .....

35. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51470 by Apemanblues on June 23, 2007 at 2:57 am

I would absolutely love to see a test case involving a kid wearing a FSM baseball cap to school. I know some of you would complain that this is only manipulating a child, just as the religious do, but man that would that be funny and if the kid was around 16 and fully aware that it is only meant as a humorous stunt, then it might not be such a bad thing.

I'd like to see that go all the way to the court of human rights. Seriously. But It would take one smart, legal savvy, media friendly atheist, with good acting skills and some massive balls.

36. His word

Comment #51467 by Apemanblues on June 23, 2007 at 2:43 am

David Baddiel is a successful media darling, but Rob Newman (the other half of the 90's double act) is the most intelligent and funny stand-up comedian in the country today.

Search Google Video for Newmans 'History of Oil' act. You won't regret it.

37. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51335 by Apemanblues on June 22, 2007 at 11:47 am

For torture to exist there needs to be at least one mind. A mind of some kind, no matter how rudimentary, needs to exist to feel pain (otherwise it's not torture) and to make a value judgement on it (ouch, ouch, this hurts, it feels wrong). Nowhere in the universe, independent of mind, can torture be 'wrong', because torture cannot exist independent of mind. A rock cannot torture another rock.

The question "Do you think torture of children/puppies/fluffythings is objectively wrong?" is a flawed question. Torture depends upon mind for it's very existence and the ethical opinions of minds are subjective by definition. This question is purely invented to get an emotional response. To say "Hey, I think it is even MORE wrong than you non-believers do, because I think it is MAGICALLY wrong as well".

It's the usual trite nonsense.

38. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51282 by Apemanblues on June 22, 2007 at 7:47 am

When nature was handing out the brains in that family it appears it gave them all to the shambling drunk.

By the way, do I have to preface every comment I make about Hitchens with "I don't agree with his position on the Iraq war but..", or can we now all just take it as red that most people are here to comment on the mans atheistic arguments rather than his political affiliations?

It is after all the theme of this site.

39. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51273 by Apemanblues on June 22, 2007 at 7:30 am

Storm in a tea cup.

Whilst I couldn't give a damn whether a child of Christian parents 'chooses' to wear a chastity ring at school or not, it's obvious that this is just an evangelical group trying to play the persecuted minority for the free perk of publicity.

What an utter waste of everybody's time.

40. Religious bias colors doctors' views: survey

Comment #31120 by Apemanblues on April 11, 2007 at 4:16 am

I'm not sure whether this poll, based on who simply happened to reply, is an accurate reflection of the medical profession.

Most non-religious people that I know don't put themselves out to get involved in religious/spiritual polls, arguments or debates. They generally avoid that kind of guff altogether and just go about their lives.

This is anecdotal though, so I could well be wrong.

41. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31106 by Apemanblues on April 11, 2007 at 3:02 am

This video is great.

I can't help thinking that the father, sitting there quietly, is thinking: "Son, I'm an atheist too, but you want a quiet life don't you? For Christ sake, can't you just pretend like the rest of us? At least you're not married to this lunatic."

42. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28360 by Apemanblues on March 29, 2007 at 12:43 am

Awesome!

Well deserved.

43. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28108 by Apemanblues on March 28, 2007 at 3:21 am

Hell is the pandemic of AIDS in Africa. A suffering compunded by the criminally negligent, anti-contraception, sexual health misadvice of one rather wealthy and celibate religious white European with a predilection for pontificating all day about fantasy realms.

44. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28107 by Apemanblues on March 28, 2007 at 3:13 am

Skeptic presents logical arguments, 'believer' presents emotional pleas. Same old same old.

McGrath exhibited an excellent example of doublethink in regards to science and the miracles of the Christ myth. His intelligence tells him it's bullshit, but his emotions tell him it's 'true', so It's both bullshit and true at the same time.

He's an intelligent man. You almost want to shake him and ask him to snap out of it.

45. Religion

Comment #27064 by Apemanblues on March 23, 2007 at 4:15 am

George Carlin is one of the best (if not THE best) stand-up comedians of all time.

46. Free Speech

Comment #25768 by Apemanblues on March 15, 2007 at 4:41 am

I deleted my last post NMcC , because I thought I've been posting way too much in this thread already, but you have already read it, so that's cool.

Anyway, moving on.

47. Free Speech

Comment #25756 by Apemanblues on March 15, 2007 at 3:08 am

MorituriMax

I never put forward the argument that you are referring to, nor would I, because I agree with you, it is indeed an infantile argument.

You are confusing me with someone else.

I suggest you scroll up the page a little to see the poster who actually made the remark that you are referring to.

48. What We Need More Of Is Science

Comment #25742 by Apemanblues on March 15, 2007 at 12:33 am

If you get to hear more 'MC Hawking', check out the song 'Entropy'.

It's pure genius.

49. Free Speech

Comment #25740 by Apemanblues on March 15, 2007 at 12:30 am

"Actually, I get 'it' quite easily. For example, I get it (the hump, that is) when somone like you praises someone like Hitchens with the phrase 'I agree with every word'." - Comment #25644 by NMcC

No, you don't get it and I don't think you want to.

The "every word" comment was aimed at his comments on free speech, your extrapolation on that to include his views about the Iraq war (or other views that he may have) has nothing to do with what I have said. Maybe It was a flippant remark to say "every word", when In fact I meant "I agree with the overall tone of his speech". It was just a turn of phrase.

If you have a problem with Hitchens, that's fine, but it's not my problem.

50. Free Speech

Comment #25628 by Apemanblues on March 14, 2007 at 11:16 am

"You are the drama queen. 'Oh mister Hitchens, you are so funny and witty and...and..I agree with EVERY word you say!' You are easily impressed (and amused), is all I can say." - Comment #25533 by NMcC

Oh dear. You really don't get it do you. Unless of course you are deliberately misrepresenting me (In which case, go back under your bridge Mr Troll).

I agree with his comments on free speech and I find the man funny when he has a knockabout on TV with the usual rogues gallery of religious speakers. That amuses me (easily apparently). However, I actually happen to disagree with his stance on the Iraq war (and no doubt a whole host of other things).

So, stop waving your handbag at me, sit down, and have a nice cup of tea.