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 Zaphod


1. The amazing intelligence of crows

Comment #181070 by Zaphod on May 16, 2008 at 11:40 am

Me and my crow army will destroy you all!

2. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #178954 by Zaphod on May 12, 2008 at 9:51 am

Very interesting interview. I found all the topics discussed to be fascinating. Ideas that I have thought about myself. A nice break from Richard giving the similar responses to the daft religious questions he always gets asked. 47 minutes well spent.

It was amusing at the end when the guy started to gush a bit over meeting Richard and the video ended abruptly.

3. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178233 by Zaphod on May 11, 2008 at 1:22 am

3 minutes, but it got down to the real issue.


Statements like:

I believe it because I believe it.

Or

Why do you believe it god? eh, eh because.


Are ridiculous and should be ridiculed by anyone of intellectual integrity and honesty.

4. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #177091 by Zaphod on May 8, 2008 at 2:30 pm

I wrote this

How you can reason someone out of a position that they haven't reasoned themselves into? I hope you can though, else we might be fucked.


Mphil wrote
I don't think that's a good phrase


I stated it as a question and not a phrase.

I don't know what you mean by good.

Additionally, the people Matt talks about in the article don't even value reason, logic and evidence. You (Mphil) are obviously someone who values these concepts and therefore are able to be influenced by them.

5. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176743 by Zaphod on May 7, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Matt shows that it really is absurd to ask folks like this to be rational, to accept logic and evidence for claims. To even understand what logic and evidence is. They have such a simplistic view of the world and it is deeply tied up with emotions. How can you help someone who doesn't want to help themselves as they saying goes? How you can reason someone out of a position that they haven't reasoned themselves into? I hope you can though, else we might be fucked.

6. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176742 by Zaphod on May 7, 2008 at 11:40 pm

45. Comment #176702 by Spinoza

The Pentecostals love to bust out their acoustic guitar and get everyone to sing terrible, catchy songs (not unlike the "Leader" song from that episode of The Simpsons where they join the cult)... people start closing their eyes, raising their hands in the air, crying, etc etc.


TRUE BELIEVERS : "NANANANANA LEADER, LEADER LEADER"
HOMER: "BATMAN!, I MEAN LEADER"

7. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175793 by Zaphod on May 6, 2008 at 3:33 am

81. Comment #175691 by Diacanu on May 5, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Lotta people getting sick off this video.

It's like Ben Stein is the human equivalent of one of those poison arrow frogs.

I think we have our supervillain.


If by supervillain you mean someone so retarded that it almost makes me think some supernatural source of retardation exists that he has sole access too.

8. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175738 by Zaphod on May 6, 2008 at 12:26 am

@ Diacanu


And how exactly does that shit work?

Where does God get all these souls?

Does he pull 'em out of his pocket?

And where does he restock that pocket?

A supply closet?


Now now to question the logistics of gods plan would show a lack of faith, or is it a lack of thinking? I forget which.

9. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175735 by Zaphod on May 6, 2008 at 12:23 am


I realized something quite quickly, so after explaining all this, I mentioned: "Oh, but the reason you don't like him is that you're a Christian, right?... you believe in a soul put in the person by God at conception?"

And her reply: "Yes."

Me: "Oh. Well that explains why you don't like philosophy."

... conversation over. So stupid.


With philosophy you actually have to think for yourself. I can see that being a problem for someone who prefers that others think for her.

Pathetic.

10. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175723 by Zaphod on May 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Comment #175483 by Spinoza on May 5, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Mr. Beck clearly hasn't actually READ anything Peter Singer has written.


I would be surprised if he has read anything of substance. The vast majority of these fools have only read reviews of works. They think they have the answer to the question they don't even ask.

11. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #175185 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 6:56 pm

@ debbyo

Did Neanderthals have a soul?


If you can provide any evidence that the human imagined concept of the soul actually even exists, then you can ask the above question.

If not you may as well be asking if Neanderthal's had pet dragons.

12. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175182 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 6:43 pm

It wasn't that I didn't understand that an argument can be logical but based on a false premise. I was simply wondering if this was what brought Pascal to put forward his infamous wager (i.e. a false premise).


His famous wager is part of a larger work and supposedly it isn't as stupid (I'm told) when in its larger context. Also it was written in a different time.

I am guessing he did have a false premise, after all he was a believer but when he sculpted his argument I don't know if he was using his own biased false premise when regarding an atheist. The wager sounds like the argument of a huckster to me. As if an omnipotent being couldn't tell if you just pretended to believe.

13. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175166 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I imagine that, as Sam Harris has pointed out, if you already accept certain premises (e.g. in this case, God = God of Christianity), it might follow logically.

An argument can be logical but based on a false premise. I mean you can have internally consistent arguments regarding any type of palpable nonsense.

14. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175165 by Zaphod on May 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm

In regards to intelligent people believing stupid stuff. I understand Richards feelings of why anyone intelligent would believe something to obviously stupid. He is sceptical that they are in fact intelligent. I think it is about rational, critical thinking. Logic and thinking in a scientific manner. Someone can be intelligent but just not in a discipline that trains them to be sceptical and think critically. Even scientists aren't always great critical thinkers. This is stuff you have to learn. Humans aren't really born to be sceptical or particularly rational. The sceptical and scientific mind set have to be learned. Teaching people how to think critically, making them aware of cognitive foibles and human psychology. Teaching them logic and how to examine arguments, claims and evidence. Most people just aren't taught these things.

15. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174598 by Zaphod on May 2, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Images can be fabricated and anecdote is almost useless.

Anyone watch this TED talk about tissue regeneration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tijEl8I38mo

16. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174207 by Zaphod on May 1, 2008 at 9:56 pm

KEEEEE-RIST

A guy calls and actually brings up the debunked argument regarding the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Something that has been shown to be totally false. It made me cringe when that guy brought up this patently false argument. I mean a quick internet search will inform him that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. I watched a talk by Ken Miller and he tore Behe's argument about 10 new ass holes.

It just shows how intellectually lazy IDiots and Creotards are. They don't even spend two minutes doing an internet search. They parrot from their favourite cdesign proponentsist website or book and don't check the arguments that debunk them.

17. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #171493 by Zaphod on April 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.


What about Primo Levi?

18. Science leads to killing people

Comment #171476 by Zaphod on April 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm



29. Comment #170742 by Quine on April 27, 2008 at 11:40 pm

I think I need to listen to some Vogon poetry to recover from that.


Haha nice one.

19. Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

Comment #169794 by Zaphod on April 26, 2008 at 8:24 pm

"People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!"


I also heard that Jesus came down from heaven for a week and wrote the constitution himself.

20. Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

Comment #168923 by Zaphod on April 25, 2008 at 1:05 pm

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080424-dino-birds.html

21. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167673 by Zaphod on April 24, 2008 at 8:56 am

Richard Dawkins is a molecular biologist who currently holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.


http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhocontemporary.html


I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

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

Comment #166117 by Zaphod on April 22, 2008 at 7:00 pm

[sarcasm] I see the five most recent MacArthur fellows have written in. [/sarcasm]

23. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165111 by Zaphod on April 21, 2008 at 4:26 am

Don't read this article folks. It is a ploy. I actually feel dumber after having read it.

24. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164824 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm

"Nazis! It's all about Nazis. In a parallel universe even crazier than our own, Ben Stein is making a documentary about how the Nazis utilized the controversial theory of gravity to make bombs that fall from the sky to the earth, and so the theory of gravity must be wrong. But we are here, and here, Ben Stein is telling us with a straight face that because the Nazis thought it would be a good idea to breed people like people breed animals, the theory of evolution must be wrong."

From Lies, Damned Lies, and "Intelligent Design"

25. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164815 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 6:06 pm

47. Comment #164805 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm
OK...I have plenty of reading material on that one.

Here's an new question to make you sigh and groan...but I would like an answer to.

I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?


Convergence is evidence that selection has operated. For instance in the evolutionary lineages leading to langurs and cows, changes have occurred at the same five sites in the lysozyme protein (a widespread enzyme, used in defense against bacteria), and the changes have been similar or identical.

I just realised you might not be talking about the evolutionary term convergence. It is defined as

The process by which a similar character evolves independently in two species. It is a synonym for homoplasy, i.e., an instance of a convergently evolved character is a similar character in two species that was not present in their common ancestor.



If you don't mean this do you mean multi-disciplinary research? Like astrobiology.

26. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164796 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Another good book is "Primates and Philosophers - How Morality Evolved" By Frans De Waal.

27. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164788 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I have a book called "Auschwitz - The Nazis and The 'Final Solution' " by Laurence Rees. It won History Book Of The Year from the British book awards 2006.

Imagine this

Darwin or evolution do not appear in the index.

28. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164781 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Comment #164748 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm

I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?


Darwinism? Or Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory of how life forms changed throughout the history of life on this planet. It isn't a philosophy. The concept of social Darwinism is a bastardisation of evolution. Darwin didn't come up with the "survival of the fittest" Herbert Spencer did. It should be called social Spencerism. What Hitler did as the letter above states (did you read it?) was artificial selection, known well before Darwin.

As for a naturalistic basis for morality you can look up terms like reciprocal altruism, kin selection etc. Books that talk about "morality" in an evolutionary way are "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, "Moral Minds" By Marc Hauser or "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. Also you could look up something called ethics.

29. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164738 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 4:32 pm

I have sympathy for anyone who had lost family members and especially those who lost family members in the manner of those millions who died in the holocaust.

I have to admit thought that I feel less sympathy for a Jewish person who ignorantly verbally assaults Michael Shermer just because said Jewish person is ignorant of what actually happened in the holocaust and the events that led up to it.


The theory of evolution had as much to do with the holocaust as the theory gravity has to do with apartheid in South Africa.

Read your history Mr J

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164254 by Zaphod on April 19, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Then shut the fuck up already, you tedious assclown.

Put your money where your mouth is, and take your herpes sore of a personality, and your sociopathically solipsitic worldview back to whatever christ-cult echo chamber it came from.

Fuckin' snapper head.

Kee-RIST.


Wow. I almost feel butt hurt for Remnant after that verbal bashing. You know the way you get watching the office, you feel embarrassed for them. It was like that but in the ass. Pardon the pun.

31. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164185 by Zaphod on April 19, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Remnant said

The fossil record

Most honest evolutionary scientists will admit that the fossil record provides weak evidence of transition between species. There have been over 200 million fossils found. These have been grouped into around 250 thousand different species. The fossil record better reflects the sudden extinction of species and the sudden appearance of new, entirely different species rather than transition between species. In spite of over 200 million fossil finds, there are less than 100 fossils that scientists even can SPECULATE that MIGHT be evidence of POTENTIAL transition between species. That represents a mere .000001 % of all know fossil discoveries that scientists can even use for their SPECULATIONS to support their FAITH in their RELIGION of evolution. Oh if there were just any evidence that just 1% of the 200 million fossils that could be open to SPECULATION, then they could INVENT scenarios and fairy tales about 2,000,000 fossils. No, they are stuck with a mere 100 FOSSILS out of 200,000,000 fossils to support their FAITH. You have to give them credit though, for they sure do have a tremendous amount of BLIND FAITH.




First of all, the fossil evidence is flawed and imperfect, which every evolutionary biologist will tell you, and as creationists are fond of quoting. Even Darwin's Origin goes on at length to document the imperfection of the geological record �" all it can do is demonstrate a long pattern of change and diversity over earth's history (which does contradict literalist interpretations of the bible) and hint at transitions and connections between lineages … and even the fossil lineages are a product of a connect-the-dots sort of exercise. Fossils disprove a literal Genesis, which is probably why the creationists focus on them so much, but they provide only a sketch outline of the history of life on earth and are not the key evidence for the process and mechanisms for evolution.

For that, we rely on evidence in living organisms. Read this summary of the evidence for evolution, for instance; a small part of it is a description of transitional fossil forms, but most of it is molecules, comparative phylogenies, development, genetics, biogeography, experiments … and especially molecules, molecules, molecules. Modern evolutionary biology is dominated by molecular analyses �" everything from traditional ecological field work to embryology has become reliant on looking at genes and proteins. In the field I follow most closely, evo-devo, there is virtually no fossil evidence of any kind, nor can there be �" we're interested in the dynamic process of gene expression and interaction during the formation of embryos, and none of that can fossilize. You can read some of my articles on evolution, and you'll find relatively few fossils discussed �" it's mostly about molecular mechanisms. Similarly, my Seed articles have all been on evo-devo and molecular genetics. That's where all the action is at, not in fossils.

This isn't even new. Darwin himself vested little effort in a discussion of fossils as evidence, but instead discussed variations under domestication and in nature, his mechanism of natural selection, hybrids, biogeography, and development, and prefaced his chapter "On The Geological Succession Of Organic Beings" with a chapter "On The Imperfection Of The Geological Record". This has always been the case in evolutionary biology, that the primary evidence has come from extant forms, not old bones.

Fossils have just always been handy tools to bonk creationists over the head with, while telling them their myth is wrong.

- from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/four_bad_arguments_against_evo.php

32. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164124 by Zaphod on April 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm

""a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

It is a summary of every creationist argument.

33. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164077 by Zaphod on April 19, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Remnant and Pacman leave like every creationist before them, with their respective tails between their legs. All they do is attack their perceived holes in evolutionary theory which aren't a problem for anyone with an education in it to answer. They parrot what other creationists have told them. When asked for evidence they are, as always, empty handed and absent minded. To borrow from Shakespeare "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

34. Gods and earthlings

Comment #163644 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm

It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.


Well said Richard.

35. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163636 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm

2476. Comment #163632 by pacman71192 on April 18, 2008 at 4:46 pm
It's kind of funny that several years ago (circa 1976) I was told that what offends many today will not be in the future (circa 2008) and beliefs held today (circa 1976) will be offensive in the future. Isn't it funny that on college campusses (or is it campii) that someone such as Ellen Degeneres would be accepted and someone such as Billy Graham would be considered offensive.


What a person finds offensive is of no interest to me. It is entirely subjective. I care about the objective reality of the physical world. The scientific method is the best method we have found at finding this out. Faith gets you nowhere. The truth can be offensive. If it is, tough.

36. Flea of the week

Comment #163631 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Boring.

37. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163628 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Billy,

Fair enough. I should have just spoken for myself. I am not really offended am I saddened. Saddened that they haven't learned how to think properly. Critical thinking isn't a skill they have. So every argument they make is full of logical fallacies and misconceptions, not to mention the down right lies and falsehoods.

38. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163623 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

It is not that we find it offensive. We just don't think faith is a reliable method of discerning reality. Faith is just believing what you feel is good. In other words it is open to all forms of selfish biases. This is why I respect the scientific method. It is a collective effort of many scientists to have some objectivity when they try and figure out reality.

Creation science is pseudoscience. You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works. We don't find your opinions offensive we find them stupid. Being stupid they are ripe for ridicule. You talk to fervently about stuff you simply do not understand. How you can be so ignorant of a subject and at the same time to arrogant is amazing. It is being reason.

Case in point

You who cannot accept OUR science are pathetic imbeciles


No actual scientist would say "OUR science". Science simply doesn't include the supernatural(things that don't exist). Hence your god.

39. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163618 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 4:05 pm

To pacman71192,

What is a Darwinist or Evolutionist anyway? Before I heard that people existed who are so retarded they think genesis is a scientific paper, I was aware of, understood and accepted the theory of evolution. I never called myself a Darwinist or Evolutionist just like I didn't call myself a Gravitationist or Plate Techtonicist or a Atomist or Special Relativist.

Creationists are so warped by their own psychology that they don't realise I don't share it. I don't need authority to tell what is real. I think for myself. They don't understand the view point of someone who doesn't have a religion and isn't retarded and bastardised by it. So this brings them to label people Darwinists as if we are following Darwin or something. Darwin who was a Christian for a large part of his life and later became disillusioned because his daughter died and other factors. I don't even know if he became an atheist. The fact is this, I am a scientific sceptic. I don't accept anecdote or special pleading as evidence. The only thing I am attached to is the scientific method and that is because it works. Pacman, you are too emotionally caught up in your religious beliefs to have any objective view about them.

I can't reason someone out of beliefs that they didn't reason themselves into. I hope you escape the shackles of your mind stultifying religion and join the rest of us in reality. It is beautiful.

Evolution deniers are pathetic.

40. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162942 by Zaphod on April 17, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Expelled is a parody of itself but this video is still great fun.

41. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162914 by Zaphod on April 17, 2008 at 4:52 pm

FDI,

Bacteria routinely transport plasmids(pieces of DNA) to each other all the time. Giving the recipient more genetic code.

Also look up a type of mutation called an insertion mutation.

Definition - Insertion mutation is a mutation caused by the insertion of at least one extra nucleotide base in a DNA sequence. a type of mutation where part of a genetic sequence is added to a chromosome, causing a frameshift in the genetic information on that chromosome.

For another response to your claim see talkorigins.org as always.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

42. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161897 by Zaphod on April 15, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Once again we have to hear the views of people who think the omnipotent creator of 400 billion stars in this galaxy alone cares about whomever you put your cock in. I am sick and tired of these blatantly stupid concepts.

43. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160959 by Zaphod on April 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Another article that can be added to the vacuous moron pile.

44. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157845 by Zaphod on April 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Hitler wasn't evil in the sense that some cosmic evil exists. Please get historians and psychologists on this show. A mayoral candidate for London who looks at least 60yrs old doesn't understand how the holocaust came to be. That is astounding.

The black evangelical woman is a moron. Sorry it has to be said.

45. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156384 by Zaphod on April 7, 2008 at 12:44 pm

What a nut bag. She is so misinformed and ignorant.

It is hard to decide what a suitable response would have been.

1. Karate chop to the neck or
2. Explain articulately what an atheist is and what it is not.

My emotions are strongly voting for option 1.

46. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150112 by Zaphod on March 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Hello Richard,

Congratulations on making it once again round the big light of our solar system that we call the sun.

Kind Regards and Happy Birthday

Steven

47. Expelled Overview

Comment #149514 by Zaphod on March 25, 2008 at 7:39 pm

This sounds like a truly awful and morally reprehensible piece of trash of a movie.

48. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149003 by Zaphod on March 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm

I love how the threads attached to articles on this site wonder away from what the original article was about.

49. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148863 by Zaphod on March 24, 2008 at 11:23 am

"Yet another example of Lying for Jesus?"

How true

Here is another

http://cantmakeadifference.blogspot.com/2008/03/retarding-for-jesus.html

50. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147987 by Zaphod on March 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm

What these ignorant bastards don't seem to get is that no matter what Dawkins gets conned into saying with duplicitous interviewers or dishonest video editing, the rest of us who understand what science is, can read and examine evidence for ourselves. Although I enjoy Richard's books they never convinced me that the theory of evolution is the best theory for how the variety of life on this planet came to be and that evolution happened. Anyone not devoid of the capability to critically think understands it that it did once the see the evidence.

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next