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 ScienceBreath


1. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58735 by ScienceBreath on July 26, 2007 at 2:28 am

What a truly revolting piece of crap. I feel embarrassed for the writer that he, as an adult, would willingly submit this nonsense for publication.

2. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58728 by ScienceBreath on July 26, 2007 at 2:09 am

Bonzai said:

To a utilitarian the whole point is whether a construct is useful, not whether it is true.
...unless it's a subject that actually matters. Is it better to think that I have a million dollars in the bank or is it better that it be true? Is it sufficient for me to think my wife is faithful or is it better if it is true? Is it better to think I have an imaginary friend or is it better to act like a fucking adult.

3. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #50428 by ScienceBreath on June 18, 2007 at 5:28 am

Thanks to maton100 for linking to The Stubborn Curmudgeon. It's well worth a visit just to read the parody of McGrath HERE.

4. I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

Comment #46307 by ScienceBreath on May 30, 2007 at 9:56 pm

MAS2007 wrote:

What a wasted use of technology. Satire it maybe, just not very humorous.
Yeah, good point. Let's only post satire that MAS2007 finds funny. What's your personal e-mail address MAS2007 so we can send it to you for vetting?

5. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34273 by ScienceBreath on April 23, 2007 at 5:28 pm

devolved, you're just not getting it. Science does not provide certainties: all scientific theories are provisional until they are disproven. Your disappointment that science does not provide certainty tells me more about your ignorance of science than about an inherent problem with science.

However, your most egregious gaff is to think that poking around looking for incomplete scientific explanations is somehow support for your creationist beliefs--it isn't. Until you realise that, no one is going to take you seriously.

Finally, I find you rather disingenuous. Your missives often start with a plea for understanding and yet it's clear that you have no real interest in resolving your "issues". Your question about information exposed you as a creation apologist rather than an honest broker looking for help.

6. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33761 by ScienceBreath on April 21, 2007 at 4:20 pm

CF1, (comment #33759) you may have missed the Satire byline.

7. For God's Sake

Comment #31643 by ScienceBreath on April 13, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Skim reading these posts I had The Spaghetti Monster pegged as a loon based solely on his/her use of too many ellipses. On closer inspection my suspicion turned out to be right. What is it about faith heads that make them incapable of crafting a reasonable contribution without gratuitous use of capitals, exclamation marks, ellipses, etc?

This comment, the epitome of intellectual cowardice, means I don't need to read anything from him/her again:

I will take good care to do nothing of the kind, for a God defined is a God dethroned. Again, every positive definition is deniable, the Infinite is the undefined.

***edit by OBC personal will not be tolerated***

8. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Comment #26513 by ScienceBreath on March 20, 2007 at 3:31 am

NormanDoering said

I'm not sure that is good marketing.

Yeah, marketing is so easy, I'm surprised they didn't go with your suggestions.

9. Long live satire

Comment #24404 by ScienceBreath on March 6, 2007 at 12:34 pm

yiggy, I think the article is referring to Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.

10. Darwin's God

Comment #24067 by ScienceBreath on March 4, 2007 at 2:57 pm

"Why do we cross our fingers during turbulence, even the most atheistic among us?" asked Atran...

No. I don't. Nor do I say a little prayer asking for protection. Jebus, it pisses me off when such generalizations are made.

11. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23523 by ScienceBreath on March 1, 2007 at 12:58 pm

I think you incorrectly closed the emphasis tag just after "tour de force".

12. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22539 by ScienceBreath on February 19, 2007 at 2:18 pm

gimlibengloin in Comment #22496 said

...believing in a God one can't see, taste, or touch ...

Should I infer that some christians like to taste their god? Eew!

13. A Familiar and Prescient Voice, Brought to Life

Comment #22294 by ScienceBreath on February 14, 2007 at 12:23 am

...his archive at Cornell, which occupies 1,000 filing cabinets...

Could this be true? That's a shit-load of documents!

14. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21961 by ScienceBreath on February 12, 2007 at 1:49 am

stpetes demonstrates the carefully rehearsed indignation of the ignorant theist who has yet to actually read any of the arguments put forth by either side.

Alister McGrath's recent piece criticizing both TGD and Dawkins was so free of substance that I actually felt embarrassed for him. Dawkins, on the other hand, goes to the trouble of presenting an argument--something McGrath has so far failed to do.

stpetes, if you want to contribute and be taken seriously, why not dismantle Dawkins's arguments with some incisive reasoning of your own? McGrath gets a pasting because his articles are so threadbare that he has to attack Dawkins personally. It's pathetic and predictable.

15. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21064 by ScienceBreath on February 7, 2007 at 1:21 pm

MouthAlmighty said (in comment #20937):

"...complete prat with all the intellectual muscle of a Sun editorial..."

LOL! Can I use this?

16. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20782 by ScienceBreath on February 6, 2007 at 1:47 pm

I think he's rather proud of his lack of pride.

17. Do You Believe in Magic?

Comment #19036 by ScienceBreath on January 24, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I've noticed a strong correlation between gullibility and religious beliefs. My fundie work colleagues are more inclined to get sucked in by urban myths, "suppressed" inventions, that sort of crap. They are also more inclined to like reading fantasy-type books (in addition to the bible).

(All based a sample of ~40 colleagues and ~4 fundies.)

18. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #18109 by ScienceBreath on January 18, 2007 at 11:33 am

Chris Davis [Comment 32], I know you're playing Devil's Advocate, but...

"As a science junkie myself I'd say nonsense - science just uncovers the knowledge. Blame - if you must blame at all - the military and engineers who implement pure scientific knowledge in ways we find repugnant..."

If you admit engineers into this sentence then scientists should be in there too. For example, a lot of physicists and chemists work on bomb design, often performing fundamental research as they do so.

Just saying.

19. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #17967 by ScienceBreath on January 17, 2007 at 6:39 pm

tim_west, if you have any links to mp3s or other resouces relating to Dawkins or TGD, send them to Josh at contact@richarddawkins.net.

20. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #17943 by ScienceBreath on January 17, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Oops. "it's" should be "its".

21. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #17942 by ScienceBreath on January 17, 2007 at 4:23 pm

What a confused panel of idiots. Have they really thought through their positions? This "discussion" is largely a waste of time.

BTW, I think these days Greer mainly likes to be a "personality" with all it's attendant vacuity.

22. Creationism special

Comment #17682 by ScienceBreath on January 15, 2007 at 1:17 pm

I don't think that it's too hard for school students to gain a basic understanding of evolution. It seems unlikely, but perhaps Lewis Wolpert has never seen sites like Evolution 101 at Berkeley: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

It's seems to me that most of this material is accessible and probably understandable by school children.