1. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #202226 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on July 1, 2008 at 4:30 am

The Sparrow is an excellent book, I just can't quite work out what the author is trying to say at the end with the "He's closer to god now than anyone has ever been." Was that meant seriously (in which case, as a conclusion, it flies completely against the rest of the wonderful story) or was it meant as a commentary on how stupid it is to believe that kind of thing? I guess I'm not smart enough to figure that one out.

2. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201307 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 29, 2008 at 3:06 pm

People like to read and write books that are fantasticaly impossible and love to send themselves on fictional journeys in their heads for the fun of it ... and therefor god exists?

Umm, WTF?

3. Evangelical grunts

Comment #201181 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 29, 2008 at 11:29 am

mrjonno...
You should be aware that it is only the fighting infantry and personnel of the, how shall I say, less technical trades who traditionaly come from less educated backgrounds. You'll also note that that article only talks about the army.

So from that article there is evidence that the average army grunt is less educated than the general public, but by no means does that mean the whole military is on average less educated than the general public.

Let's be careful when we say "the vast majority of people who join up are from the poorer less educated parts of society" as this is simply not true.

A more accurate statement would be "the vast majority of people who join the army as fighting infantry are from the poorer less educated parts of society - but this has no bearing on the RAF, Navy or technical trades". It would be a mistake to think the average military person is less educated.

4. Evangelical grunts

Comment #200852 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 28, 2008 at 10:38 am

Blackjack...
Fortunatly most modern military parades (or at least all the ones I've been in) no longer have prayers specfificaly aimed at the troops.
During freedom of the city marches and battle of Britain parades it is common for the cerremonies to be carried out in a church or cathedral, with accompanying bells and whistles in the form of mumbling prayers and singing depressing songs about subjecting yourself to the will of the almighty (bleugh!!). But at no point are you required to say or do anything with a religious bent - all you have to do is sit there. You don't have to take part in the songs or prayers if you don't wish.
In fact it's quite amusing that as the padre goes up and declares "Let us bow our heads in prayer.." everyone around us bows their heads but the majority of the RAF lads keep their heads up looking around at each other, bored, communicating through facial features the "When is this over, I want a beer" look.

There is only one time during your entire RAF career when you are FORCED (and I say that with capitals because it disgusts me so much) to acknowledge some sort of god, and unfortunatly it is when the lads are at their most innocent and dutiful. When you pass out of basic training you have your passing out parade in which a padre makes some horrible whining noises in the form of a prayer (it truely is pathetic). When the old fart stops talking you MUST shout back at him "With the grace of God I will!"

I did it many years ago and despised it, and this last year my little brother was made to do it as well. Straight after the parade he came up to me and said "What a load of bollocks", and I couldn't agree more.

5. Thinking ahead: Bacteria anticipate coming changes in their environment

Comment #196499 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 20, 2008 at 3:51 am

Thanks Greyman, I would have jumped to the conclusion that this was meerly natural selection in action but your last two posts explain the significance of this very well. Thanks.

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

Comment #192812 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 14, 2008 at 2:14 am

You know, for the first half dozen paragraphs I was actualy thinking that this might be a well thought out, well written statement. Not necessarily one I'd agree with, but certainly not one I'd jump all over.

But then he writes this pathetic pile of drivel:
"Thirdly, religious faith potentially has a crucial part to play in shaping the values that can help to guide the modern world. But there is a risk that it either falls prey to extremist and exclusionist tendencies which are latent within each religion, or that faith is seen mainly as an interesting relic, part of the past but with little or nothing to say to the present and the future. But, in fact, faiths can transform and humanise the impersonal forces of globalisation, help to shape the values of the changing set of economic and power relationships of the 21st century, and underpin the responses of individuals and communities to the challenges and opportunities that globalisation creates."

No you dim witted dullard, religion has absolutely nothing beneficial to say about how the values we should hold and has zero to say about the now and the future. The values we hold today as a society were formed in SPITE of traditional religious values, and we still fight every day to overcome those bigotted values of a bunch of desert goatherders who dies thousands of years ago.

From here the whole thing rapidly shot down hill.

7. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind

Comment #191353 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 10, 2008 at 4:35 pm

I have a personal saying I stick to:
Human's are stupid.

Once you accept that, everything else makes sense.
Plus there's something warm and fluffy about the term Kluge.

8. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189917 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on June 7, 2008 at 4:18 pm

RedPen are you being deliberatly stupid?

Trimming one's fingernails or plucking one's eyebrows are things that your own biology can replace. Your foreskin however has as much chance of regrowing as I have of growing large metal wings, getting covered in hair and declaring I am Batfink.

9. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184266 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on May 24, 2008 at 8:47 am

A memorable scene from the Simpsons was when Marge confronts Lovejoy about what the bible says. Lovejoy tries to argue his way out of it, then gives up and rings the church bells as loud as he can to drown Marge out. If this writer thinks the Simpsons isn't hard on religion then they've not seen a whole bunch of episodes.

10. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170844 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 28, 2008 at 5:07 am

Damn, I was on earlies this morning and so was supposed to get to bed early last night. Instead I stayed up and watched a load of Thunderfoot's stuff. Most impressive. I have now gone 36 hours without sleep - goodnight!

11. Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says

Comment #168489 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

"I wonder why the difference in emphasis?"

Not wishing to stereotype, but CNN being American would market its headlines towards the American extremes of emotion (everything being super awesome or super tragic). So the headline of "humans nearly made extinct" is used.

BBC being British knows that its market is more interested in curiosities and things that are considered QI (quite interesting). Different brandings for different markets.

12. Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

Comment #168462 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 25, 2008 at 6:53 am

Figures I guess, after all crocodile tastes a bit like chicken.

Or does the chicken taste like crocodile?

13. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164155 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 19, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Hi Layla, I think I've got an idea of where you're coming from. I ended up having a bit of a heated discusion with my little brother not six months ago about something similar.

Whilst he proffesed himself to being an atheist, he couldn't help but feel that there was someone looking over him, guiding his life. He reckoned it was the spirit of our grandad. I suppose it's human nature to hope that there is something out there watching us. I'd love to know the reasoning of that.

As to your name - I reckon you should go with what you're comfortable with. If you feel safe with your "fake Islamic name" as you call it, then stick with that. If you feel the need to say hello with another name then do that. I don't reckon anyon's gonna judge you. Heck, my user name comes from one of the funniest films ever, and when I use a real name it's only the nickname my friends call me. What's in a name etc..

Just one thing I should probably warn you on..
"but it helps when somebody takes your feelings seriously!"
There's an awful lot of smart people around here, and they are going to take what you say very seriously. I know, I've been bruised a few times.

14. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164148 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 19, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Hey MonkeyMagoo (I'm on something red and from Chile at the moment, so hooray!)

I reckon I should make it clear that I only used "fucktard" as a description of what I am NOT interested in. That kind of language I guess is justified in those, whom after reasoned dicussion, are immune to any reasoning. But I'm looking for a bit more than that.

Basicaly I would realy love to know what makes a religious person tick. "Fucktard" gets thrown around quite alot on this forum (and ocasionaly with good reason), but I can't quite buy into the whole idea that everyone who believes in a religion is stupid to that degree. I can't remember who expressed the idea, but someone said that if you base your whole world view off of a false premise (belief in a god) then everything after that can be argued in a sensible and logical maner. This would not be a "fucktard".

I'd realy love to know what prevents an intelligent and rational person from questioning that intial false premise. Or in other words - what realy is the hardest step?
I'd realy love to know what was the most difficult move that Layla made to earn her own freedom.


(quick edit to make sure I'm clear - fucktard is used a derogative statement, which is fine if you feel like being derogatory to someone. Personaly I'd would like to learn something much deeper than that - and so would not choose to use that term. My appologies, if by my use of that word in desciribng what I hope NOT to be, I have presented myself worse than I wisehd)

15. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164120 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 19, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Layla, hearing a story like yours gives me great joy. Persevere, keep asking those questions and don't let the bastards drag you down.

Can I ask though, what do you reckon has been the hardest thing about your recent experiences? I'd love to understand the mind of someone who believes in a god (or at least used to believe) in a bit more detail than simply calling them a "fucktard". I'd like to know what was the biggest stumbling block for you, the greatest thing that got in your way of feeling free.

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

Comment #160321 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 14, 2008 at 12:14 am

The first three paragraphs are pure drivel written from a position of ignorance.

"But this perpetual state of agnosticism, this lack of commitment, must surely be corrosive."
WTF? You mean we're not allowed to change our minds? We aren't allowed to weigh the evidence as it comes to us to develop a sound conclusion? We must pick an option and stick to it through thick and thin like some half baked fundamentalist? Bullshit!

The rest of the piece reads as though he's not even read Dawkins, but is instead arguing against what he thinks the prof should be rather than what he does say.

What a load of rot.

17. The atheist delusion

Comment #144058 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on March 15, 2008 at 1:51 am

"But the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a derivative of Christianity."

Is there a name for this argument? The argument from "It says we thought of it first in our magic book, because our magic book says so and it's impossible that it might be a human concept, because humans can't think like that because our magic book says so"?

No?

18. Missing link found in Sydney Harbour

Comment #130849 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 21, 2008 at 11:48 am

Is it odd that recently I've been finding the world of the realy realy small far more interesting than our mundane middle world?

19. Fleabytes

Comment #129680 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 19, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Bloody hell ....

You can't see it but currently my metaphorical hat (had I been previously wearing it) has been taken off in saulte. Bravo.

20. 'Frog from hell' fossil unearthed

Comment #129491 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 19, 2008 at 7:51 am

Cool, and I just watched the Life in Cold Blood episode with all the frogs in last night (iplayer).

21. US military accused of harboring fundamentalism

Comment #127525 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 15, 2008 at 11:23 am

"I mean, who gives a shit about those sheep infested islands."


Maybe the people who live in those sheep infested islands? Oh, and the penguins as well.

22. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127002 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 14, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Off topic ... Tried Milton once - loved his initial introduction of Satan. The image of an individual deciding that they would rather spend eternity in hell rather than submit to a tyranical bastard was brilliant. Then Milton goes off on one making Satan evil for no aparent reason, no plot build up, no character development just "Haha, I've now decided I am Evil!". It's only the second book I've ever thrown across the room in disgust (The first being an english version of the koran).

On topic ... this interview was a prime example of belief in belief. At one point Richard says the main difference between himself and Bunting was that he believed in facts (can't recall the exact statement) and that she believed in people. I first question why the two must be exclusive, and secondly I ask what the hell has her belief in humans have to do with whether a god exists or not. She claimed this as a truth without explaining exactly what she ment by that.

It is becoming more clear to me that among moderates there is this tendancy to imagine that every great feeling they get that isn't physicaly induced must have come from some higher plane or being. I wonder if this is related to peoples unwillingness to accept that the brain is capable of explaining conciousness by itself. That it requires some form of soul.

23. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120246 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 1, 2008 at 11:01 am

"An article by Rabbi Boteach: G-d Is Greater Than Christopher Hitchens"



A quick summary - Humans can't be moral without guidance, ergo god exists. Is it just me or is that one getting a bit of a work out at the moment?

Do theists get together and decide they're all going to write bobbins about the same topic for a short while and hope that in the masses of crap they spew out there's at least something credible?

24. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120224 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 1, 2008 at 10:46 am

How PZ manages to keep his cool I'll never know. I've only got an amaturistic enthusiasm for biology and evolution, but I reckon even I could have had a crack at refuting some of the bull that was thrown in his direction - it was that simplistic. However I'd have been too hacked off to be coherent.

Never heard his voice before (though I've read pharyngula from time to time), but the chap is an excellent speaker, very clear and very direct. I hope his students consider themselves lucky.

edit - ah, hello Dr Myers, great job.

25. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120180 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on February 1, 2008 at 10:13 am

Al - the polite version of eats, shoots and leaves involves a panda, a bowl of soup, a handgun, an unpaid bill and a poorly written dictionary.

The less respectable version is pretty much the same, but instead of a handgun there's a hooker.

26. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119028 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 31, 2008 at 9:22 am

I think that would be a real shame. I enjoy seeing people's avatars and being able to associate them with their posts. I'd put one up of myself, but I don't have any sort of camera.
After all, I couldn't possibly imagine that the great god Quetzalcoatl (may his beverage forever have two sugars) would change his life like image to that of a human just to placate some fools.

27. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119019 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 31, 2008 at 9:12 am

"Are we seriously still talking to these people after the all of the logical atrocities they've committed?"

Why not, it's been one of the most entertaining threads I've read in ages. Not necesarily one of the most educational (although, as always, certain posters stand far above the mediocre postings of us mere mortals), but certainly worth a giggle :-D

28. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118996 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 31, 2008 at 8:57 am

That's all very interesting, but what sense does a load of made up bollocks mean? Someone waves their hands and goes woo-woo a bit doesn't suddenly change the evidence for or against a god or gods existence.

I think maybe I should have been a bit clearer on something:
"That would be awesome. Now if only you could hear the voice... I wonder why you cannot?"

We went from an awful lot of what ifs - what if a god appeared, what if it was the xtian one, what if it was the one you invented, what if it told me something...what if - and you took that what if and tried to claim it as a hard fact. I'll take conjecture and I'd love to talk about what if's the whole day, but I'm never going to automaticaly jump from a what if to accepting it as a truth.

Otherwise, as you said earlier, I'd never get out of bed in the morning. After all, what if by the action of getting out of bed tomorrow morning I cause the world to explode? Should I stay in bed for the rest of my life purely based on this what if? Similarly your little spiel about living in the kingdom of god is little more than a what if. Conjecture and nothing more - a fart on the breeze.

29. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118980 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 31, 2008 at 8:35 am

"What if that God spoke to you and reassured you that the religions of Abraham had been entirely hijacked, and that actually He loves you very much and needs you for His plan?
Then you would have evidence, and the joyous knowledge that God is not a cunt!"


Ah, such wonderful wordplay, but I think that you might be trying to distract from what I had originaly said.
For I never said that the god of islam and xtians was a cunt (it would be concerning to hate something that in all likelyhood does not exist). I said that the idea of this god was a cunt - it would only be if this god did actualy exist that I started throwing every curse word I knew at it.

So what if this other god of yours turns up and says the Abrahamic god didn't exist? Great, but that in no way proves that this new god of yours (should it exist) was not a cunt. It would have to be taken upon it's own merits. After all the xtians claim that their god is all about loving you - and then it throws you to hell. I'd have to evaluate everything about your new god before I valued it on my personal patented cunto'meter.


"That would be awesome. Now if only you could hear the voice... I wonder why you cannot?"

Maybe because I'm not schizophrenic?

30. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118967 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 31, 2008 at 8:15 am

You can suspect what you like. If the xtian god were to come down tomorrow and tell me I was going to hell then my position as an atheist would be completely changed to that of a theist - that's called evidence. My emotions however would remain exactly the same - that god would still be a cunt.

How I personaly feel about whether I like the idea of a god existing or not makes no difference.
Take Fernando Alonso for instance. The guys a whinning annoying little sod who can bugger off for all I care and F1 would be better off without his little cry baby antics. My personal emotions on the matter doesn't change the evidence, he's still a damn good driver.

31. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118954 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 31, 2008 at 8:02 am

"Many atheists that I have met are recoiling from a very ugly picture of God that reflects the fear and loathing that his unrighteous "followers" loan to the unscrupulous "leaders" that hypocritically seek only power."


You are right in that many atheists see this image of a totalitarian bigot and cunt of a god that xtians and muslims follow and recoil in horror that anyone might enjoy the idea of it existing. But if you were to sugest that this is the reason for those people being atheists in the first place then you would be sadly mistaken.

32. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #117893 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 29, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Gaah! Sometimes I get a headache from hearing these rediculous arguments. They generaly run along the lines of;
"We believe this is wrong and that this is right."
"But why do you believe that?"
"Because it is what we believe."
"But why?"
"Because it is what we believe."
"But why?"
"How dare you question what I believe!"

My mum doesn't like debating with me anymore for exactly this reason. She sits there on her high horse declaring that we must agree to disagree, and then gets upset when I disagree with that.

33. Did mozzies, not a meteor, do for the dinosaurs?

Comment #108628 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 7, 2008 at 11:13 am

Nah, that was what the daily express ran with. The daily mail would have gone with "Mosquitos clear the way for hoodies to take over our streets!!1!!1!"

34. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107927 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 5, 2008 at 3:21 pm

"I don't think you would be very impressed with a God ..., who made polite and reasonable requests,...and then who failed to act decisively when his expectations were entirely rejected."


017: And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee,

026: But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.


Apparently this is polite and reasonable - personaly it sounds like a homicidal, egotisitcal, psychotic and petulant, murdering bastard. But, hey, that's just a difference in opinion.

35. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107923 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 5, 2008 at 3:17 pm

"The flood may be such a case. If the writer says that the whole earth was flooded and everyone on it destroyed....that may well have been his understanding from his limited point of view."

Oh, your one of those. Sorry didn't realise.

So, asuming the flood as described by the writer was limited to his apreciation of what the world contained (and considering the situation and lack of understanding of what lay more than two hills away at that time), then we are safe to say that you don't consider that the entire world was flooded and that it was only a localised flooding - or are you going somewhere else with your beliefs, because if you are I think we'd all appreciate it if you made your understanding of the biblical flood clear.

So, if it is a localised flood, then God having petty vengance on a small area of the Earth doesn't make sense - he's pissed off with all humanity but only floods a small area?

So we come back to the original thought. All things bright and beatiful the lord god drowned them all.
But according to what you've just suggested he only drowned a small proportion of them. Why?

36. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107889 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm

".....am I? "

Interesting, please enlighten me. I was under the impression the flood was a complete slaughter of every living thing on the planet (aside from one man and his dog, the family, oh and two of every living creature on earth, including the ones on continents that hadn't even been discovered at that time).

I think this was the same understanding which led to eepeist saying that Earth would become a giant ball of plasma. If you have a different understanding of THE flood, please could you explain your understanding of it, how you came to the conclusions you have and what evidence supports your ideas.

Cheers.

37. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107872 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 5, 2008 at 2:30 pm

"We've had pretty severe floods in the world since."

Pretty severe? Let's imagine the flooding that occured after Katrina. That was considered pretty severe. Yet it covered less than 0.01% of the earths surface.

You are talking about a total 100% flood of the earths surface. The difference is immense.

As an aside, I'd be very interested as to why the earth would turn into a ball of plasma - sounds hella cool!

38. Stop House Resolution 888

Comment #107866 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 5, 2008 at 2:20 pm

"I would like to know in what sense "Christianity" has been able to rewrite history"


How about we start with "001: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." and see where we go from there.

39. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107776 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 5, 2008 at 9:33 am

"If I open my fridge and there is absence of evidence for beer, that is evidence for absence of beer."

Now why didn't someone tell me this earlier. Two hours I spent staring at my fridge expecting that beer to turn up and it turns out it probably wasn't there all along!
On the other hand it might have been an intangible beer. Which is reassuring as it means I've always got beer, but is let down by the fact I can never see or taste it.

On another forum I regularly visit one of the mods has "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" as their signature.
In my signature I've added "...but it is a bloody good indication."
I don't think she approves.

40. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #107097 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 4, 2008 at 4:10 am

I'll never knock anybody for using a second language, but sometimes the attempts are unreadable. Here's a bit of a clean up of what I think Hihino was trying to say. Please, if I got anything wrong in translation then tell me.

Oh and welcome to the forum - though I think the response to your first post is that people are either going to ignore it or their going to tear apart your rather peculiar little personal religion.


Originaly by Hihino, with editing by Henry (all translation errors are the fault of Henry);

"Hello everyone, i'm new here. I have a mother, who used to be a buddhist but is now a christian, and my father is an atheist. My sister and I are the same as my mother but I will regard myself as half atheist and half christian.

"This week i have studied a lot of Prof R Dawkins' philosophy of atheism. I just have few comments about atheism and religion, for whoever to answer.

"Just put this simple way, why does religion hate or disbelieve those who are atheist, and why are atheists the same way? Is it because of a different perception on life? Well most likely a christian will be christian if they born in the US, a Muslim will be muslim if they were born in the middle east. So they are just influenced by their environment, family, school and friends. And for atheists, they are more likely to use their inteligence to get all the answers of what, why, when and what so ever, so that explains why they are different. From my own opinion, why do most of you hate or disagree with each other? Well we live in an imperfect world (as are humans) do you still expect to get a perfect answer? Let me put this simple. If you as a GOD have seen two kind of people in the world. The first believes in God and does whatever the bible says but they also hate and some of them kill the ones who disbelieve in God. Second are the people who don't believe the existence of God because they couldn't see any evidence but they live peacefully with ethics and good morals and behaviour in the society. Well i'm pretty sure God would prefer to have the second one.

"I'm a christian, but i have never seen or spoke to him directly, but i have a faith and believe that God created two things in this world which are good and evil and the reason is He wanted to ask us to learn both so that we would know what is the difference between them and know which one we want to choose. God wants you to live happily, get experience in your life, love everyone who have different beliefs than yourselves. Why do you make a problem of the existence of a God if they is no true evidence? See what you really need to do, (ask?) is it true to hate those who disbelive God? Will Jesus do the same thing if today he arrived in the world for the second time? Will he punnish or give love to the one who didn't believe in him? The answer is yours to be kept.
(edit - Think they mean that this is a personal question we should all ask ourselves, not sure)

"The next thing I want to comment on is the truthness of all information provided by the holy bible. There are always debate about dinosaurus, noah etc. well the bible is written by human's hand and humans are imperfect creatures but some christians argue that angels personally guide them to write the bible? the answer is "how do you know exactly?" I'm not saying that what all the bible said is wrong or true but what i'm trying to say is take those things in balance so you wont blame or debate with each other over the truthness. The truth is "as long as we live in this imperfect world (as we are imperfect as well?), we won't have any definite answers".
From my own perception, i believe the earth was created 5 billion years ago, but in the same time i also believe that it was created by God 6000 years ago. My belief is the belief to consider things which have different explanations and see that all of them have the possibility of the answer. As i said again there are no definite answers as long as we are still in Earth. There is always something beyond what you can reach.

"Some parts of the bible, im sure to say that almost 100%, i do not believe even though i am a christian. The Bible said that (well is not word by word said but its roughly) every human that has sins or evil followers will be put in hell "forever". lets put it this way, take the most evil men from the 21 century, who are Hitler and the emperor of Japan in WW2. And i want you to think of when the two of them had just been born into this world. How pure the heart of Hitler when he was 1 day old, how innocent he is, did he have an evil mind? Did he have a willing to murder someone? I would like to say he can be evil as you said, because his ideology which come from what he has gone through from his experience. If Hitler was born in Alaska or some tiny part in the world, would he become evil? If no, how can the bible put him to hell for the rest of the time, knowing that for some part he is a compltely innocent. If you want to believe he is in hell for the rest of time, you have to believe that he had an evil heart since the day he was born in the world.

"Gay and lesbian, its a common debate for this century. Let me put this way. If you dont agree with such term, what makes you disagree? Is it because it's disgusting? ethicaly incorect? It just seems wrong? Well what ever the answer is, it is totally up to them who are gay or lesbian to choose the answer because they have their own lives and they know the consequences. For lesbian and gay I have a comment for you. If you are gay and you adopt a child, and when your child becomes an adult and chooses to become gay as well, will you accept that? If you dont, dont be a gay, if yes, you may be a gay. Thats how I put things. If you feel your religion allowed you to kill your enemy in the name of your God, will you accept for your enemy to kill you in the name of their God? If not stop killing them, if yes, you know the consequences.

"For atheism, there are some parts where I disagree with you but of course at the end I can't put the evidence for my beliefs. But i truly understand atheism starting last week. Ad the only reason when i will "hate" them is at the time when they die, and they see God as the whole answers of questions and it would be enough evidence to explain all being and at the same time they still claim they are atheists, that is the time i will hate those believers. But as long as we are in this world, I dont seems have enough explanations to hate or disagree with them and at the same time that goes for all religion in the world.

"Live happily in this world, life is so precious, every single moment of time we spend is precious, love your belonging, love your parents, friends, teacher, even your enemy (i know it's hard but currently i'm dealing with it) and love your existence of human kind in this world. Stop arguing about God when science and religion do not have definite evindence to prove it. I'm pretty sure whether God exists or not, it is the best thing to live your life without regret, do something useful, love each other without any boundaries. Well if you are so desperate to have a God in your life that you can have proof of, then i think the best God in the earth is the earth itself. Where do you stand right know? Who supplies you with food, air, water? Of course the answers is to be kept for you.
(edit - it's that odd sentence again. ?)

"The greatest mysteries of universe and life will be answered when science and religion have come together."

41. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106898 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on January 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Hey theantitheist,
it's worth knowing that the immaculate conception wasn't the conception of Jesus - it was the conception of Mary (according to Catholic dogma). Them fruitcakes reckon we are all born into sin due to two people in a garden thinking that they might like to better themselves and learn some stuff, but the big bad dog turns around and says "no - I want you to remain ignorant and stupid" and so punishes humankind to be forever with sin.

Due to the immaculate conception Mary was without sin, so when god got her knocked up at a party, after he'd given her a few drinks and slipped some rohipnol in there, Jesus too was without sin.

Don't ask me to explain this stupidity, it's not my make believe friend. I can understand why somebody not of the religion might not know the difference between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth, but the funny thing is that most religious people aren't aware of the difference.

Cheers.

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

Comment #99641 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 17, 2007 at 8:35 am

Splitter!

43. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #99625 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 17, 2007 at 8:04 am

Genuinely makes me bounce up and down with giddiness. But then we shouldn't be surprised, this stuff was a common theme for SF writers in the late 90's/early part of the century. Where SF leads, science isn't too far behind. (Just so long as nobody tries to copy JC Grimwood's idea of a ferrous eating super bacteria)

The deffinitions of what is alive and what isn't just get kicked about when stuff like this crops up.

44. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97566 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 12, 2007 at 11:14 am

Ban the Koran - oh dear, this bloke just shot himself in the foot. Plank.

On the other hand I was interested to read;
"The Koran is a matter of interpretation, just like the Bible and the Torah. You need to interpret, not take it literally."

That's possibly the first time I've ever seen that kind of statement. Would be interesting to see the reaction of a number of mosques if they were presented with that idea.

45. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95869 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 9, 2007 at 11:33 am

"(though I think that, to be fair, we should hear the other side of the story)."

What other side of the story, do you mean the university's? Because we've already seen Abraham's version of events and already it doesn't add up.



"What about theistic evolutionists or ID proponents with credentials equivalent to those of Michael Behe?"

Behe has no credentials - he's a joke. No peer reviewed work, ID discredited as the costumed creationism that it is and not a shred of science around. No, he wouldn't get a job because he falls at the first hurdle of being a scientist - that is get the evidence and then use that to construct a conclusion. Behe likes to do it the other way round. ID has no evidence to back it up, despite many years of searching and is about as unscientific as you can get. Any scientist working so closely with evolution who starts spouting ID should get the sack immediatly for being so unscientific.

What about a theistic evolutionist? Well, for the few of them that actualy exist (because quite frankly they are rarer than honest politicians), I can't realy see a problem. Those theistic evolutionists that I've read are very adept at compartmentalising. While at work they are good scientists, following all the good scientific practices and not letting their religion interfere with the science. After all, they are some of the biggest proponents of that old lie "science and faith are compatible".

46. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95840 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on December 9, 2007 at 10:29 am

"Plaintiff does not acknowledge evolution as an undisputed scientific fact, but rather as a scientific theory."


Wierd, I just don't get this. The plaintiff seems to appreciate what the rest of the scientific community already knows - that it's not a fact but a theory. But then he whines on as though this is a bad thing?! Truely this shows the person is an incompetant plank if he can't understand basic scientific principles.

I smell a rat. It seems very apparent that this was a setup. It would be nice if the plaintiff's recolection of events was true, but some how I get the feeling he's being just a little misleading with his story telling.

Personaly I hope this goes to court - it would be a good opportunity to completely destroy that creationist bullshit about it being "only a theory".

47. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #88516 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on November 17, 2007 at 9:14 am

Just watching through it now. It seems to me the guy in part three is an atheist rather than an agnostic, he just doesn't use the term because he doesn't understand what it realy means and doesn't like the emotional bagage that other people apply to it. Could be because it would piss his wife even more than she already is - could be one truth too many for her and he doesn't want to harm the marriage.

It's interesting to watch Sam Harris talk about not using the term atheist and then seeing someone doing it.

48. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87236 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on November 11, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Sorry for the double post, but...

"Terrorists are terrorists, they may use religion but we shouldn't say Muslim terrorists, it stigmatises the whole community. We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists."

That would be because the IRA didn't go about claiming that what they were doing was in the name of their god or their religion. The chaps who murder people while blowing themselves up in the process are claiming they do it specificaly because of their religion.

Classic use of the no-true-Scotsman routine with the "That's not my god/religion/faith" excuse.

49. Dr Bari: Government stoking Muslim tension

Comment #87231 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on November 11, 2007 at 2:38 pm

"Sex before marriage is unacceptable..."
"On adultery and living together we should try to go back to the religiously informed style of life"
"Homosexuality is unacceptable"
"It depends what sort of stoning"
"You shouldn't be revealing your body so much that it can be tempting to other people"


And people wonder why there is so much tension in the air - how about because the prat who said these statements is the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain.
These ideas are NOT compatable with the freedoms we enjoy as a democratic country.

Dr Bari ... go fornicate with yourself. (oops, can't do that, the invisible space magicican might see it and send you to hell!)

50. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71992 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on September 20, 2007 at 5:02 am

"Dawkins is very angry with anyone who says there are mysteries, but science cannot answer some questions."

What a load of utter rubbish (aside from not being able to answer everything - at the moment). We know there are things we don't know (uh, oh, I think I did a Bushism with the known unknowns). This silly sentence is the exact thinking that lies behind ever fundie who claims that scientists or atheists are arrogant. They still don't get it.


"We raise all sorts of questions beyond the material world."

Bayond the material world would be where exactly? I think I might have dropped mine down the back of the sofa.


"Then it's understanding we're after rather than information."

No, it's not. It's that warm fuzzy feeling of reassurance you are after. It's the comfy blanket of warmth and the safety net of not having to engage your brain.


"These are not questions like "is there a box on the table?" but questions of inner life, that can't be settled in the lab."

Inner life? Is that in the same location as that beyond the material world place? Damn these wishful realities are hard to keep track of. Any time you think you've got one nailed down, poof, someone invents another one.