1. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180822 by LeeC on May 15, 2008 at 10:44 pm

A storm in a teacup?

Sorry - I'll get my coat

2. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180763 by LeeC on May 15, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Where do I sign?

3. 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Comment #180762 by LeeC on May 15, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Thanks Brian,

Should I hold my breath waiting for the change?

When the churches hear about it their will be trouble.

Lee

4. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180760 by LeeC on May 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Well, I'm offended by this comment from 'offending section' of the site.

In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.

I'm offended - It's insults my religion and beliefs, and because it is my religion I do not have to justify it with reason or logic ?quot; just be very, very offended by it.

Actually, I'm not even going to explain what it is I'm actually offended by ?quot; since this would leave me open to a reasonable discussion about what is right and wrong about this section. By telling you what I am offended by I might even have to justify why I am offended in the first place and this I could only say was due to my deeply held faith and belief in my religion which I cannot of course justify.

No - my religion tells me to be offended, so offended I will be.

Anyone know a good lawyer?

F-wits

I really hope this goes to court; I would love to hear they explanations on how evolution, original sin and the crucifixion and so called resurrection of Jesus all fits together.

Yes, evolution and science goes against what is taught in the bible - get over it children.

Lee

5. 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Comment #180758 by LeeC on May 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Thanks Brian,

I just had a check, and abortion is on the criminal code, yet there are no prosecutions. That's why the government wants to change the law to reflect community attitudes and all that...

So it is against the law, we agree to that â€" my question is why? The government has had long enough to change it, they have not â€" maybe religion is wiser over here and are playing behind the scenes, the fact remains though that because it is deemed a criminal act, getting an abortion will be more difficult than if it were not.

Why is it against the law? Is it because of some holy book? I would dearly like to know, but no idea how to find out.

Lee

6. Bible Theme Park Faces Opposition in Tennessee

Comment #180754 by LeeC on May 15, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Excellent... I want one in Melbourne - so long as no tax payer's money is used at any point.

It would be a great place to take the kids... and think of the food they could provide "Daddy, daddy - can I have a Noah bacon burger pleeeeaaassee"

Lee

7. 'Spiritual' dentist fined $10,000

Comment #180430 by LeeC on May 14, 2008 at 10:26 pm

DasSquid

I'm happily living in Victoria.

Me too.

Cannot complain... well, actually, I'm English so of course I can.

Hurrah for Victoria, and not putting up with any shit from Religion!
...
It's things like this I wonder why Dawkins has referred to Australia as a religious country? Oh, and Ken Ham sooooo doesn't count

Erm... Not sure about this last one.

Probably my ignorance, but does anyone know why abortions are illegal in Victoria the if it is not due to some religious nutjobs in government? (OK, I know under 'special' circumstances it can be done, but it is not the 'norm')

Just wondering - I was shocked when I found this information out. I thought I was living in a country that wasn't governed by religious dimwits, but it wasn't that long ago when the Prime Minster was asking the country to pray (to which God he didn't say) for rain

Anyone from Oz know more about the abortion laws? Just curious.

Lee

8. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180427 by LeeC on May 14, 2008 at 10:08 pm

That's a cool picture of a SNR

9. Mental Disorders In Parents Linked To Autism In Children, Study Shows

Comment #175726 by LeeC on May 5, 2008 at 11:54 pm

I could have SWORN it read: "Mental disorders in parents linked to atheism, in children, study shows"

I like the idea of your study - I always blamed my parents myself.

Lee

10. Record-setting Laser May Aid Searches for Earthlike Planets

Comment #175724 by LeeC on May 5, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Hi James,

The idea of finding planets that can sustain life really helps boost our case in the sense that if we find life elsewhere will that shut the creationists up?

They will just reject the evidence just like the theory of evolution... after all, it is only light that we are receiving - if they can reject evidence like fossils that you can touch what chance is their when it is merely light.

Lee
PS
Like the avatar

11. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #175720 by LeeC on May 5, 2008 at 11:50 pm

Great! Maybe they'll come up with an instrument for sniffing out life on Uranus.

Oh dear... the old bottom joke.

Dave, lower your head in shame

Lee

12. Rover instrument to sniff out life on Mars

Comment #175716 by LeeC on May 5, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Excellent - lots of space posts all of a sudden.

I remember when to like Astronomy you only needed physics - now I'm suppose to understand biology as well. How times are changing.

I'm glad they are looking for life - it would be great to find something, I just hope it is very different to anything found on Earth. I would love to here the fundie explanation of life on Mars. Was God just practicing?

Lee

13. Record-setting Laser May Aid Searches for Earthlike Planets

Comment #175715 by LeeC on May 5, 2008 at 11:40 pm

emits 10 billion pulses per second, each lasting about 40 femtoseconds (quadrillionths of a second), with an average power of 650 milliwatts

Now that is just silly numbers... love it.

Rock on - lets find some planets.

Lee

14. German Church admits aiding Nazis

Comment #157946 by LeeC on April 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm

12. Comment #157831 by FightingFalcon

Again, its a hard position to put yourself in. No organized opposition was allowed in Nazi Germany

19. Comment #157941 by Big T

Fighting Falcon has a point. It is easy for people living in a democratic society to say 'I would have stood up to Hitler'.

I'm not buying either of these views, but sorry if I misunderstood you both.

Don't you think if the church (not an individual) stood up and said this is wrong, that maybe, just maybe, millions of Jews and thousands of soldiers would not have had to die in the 1940's?

Here's my reasoning, feel free to shoot me down please...

If the church stood up then, maybe, the UK, France, the US etc would not have waited so long before acting against Hitler.

Would the US been able to say out of the WWII until a Pearl Harbour if their people back home knew what was going on - told by their church it was wrong?

Even this aside, shouldn't the church being showing us all a good example? So what if the church in Germany falls - it is what Jesus would have wanted right?

It merely shows that the church is run by men who have never spoken to God (how could they?) and certainly do not believe in the message 100% themselves. "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind

I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

Lee

EDIT
Big T wrote:

"Which is one reason (among many) why I feel strongly about Europeans opposing fundamentalist Muslim immigrants. The time to oppose evil is BEFORE it comes to power. "

Maybe we are on the same page after all. My point still stands to be shot at though. :)

15. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152439 by LeeC on March 31, 2008 at 3:02 am

I've not baptized my son (2 1/2 years old) but the mother-in-law wants it done (however, being the other side of the globe works wonders in causing a delay)

The problem is, she is planning to get it done at her local church (CoE) the next time we are back to England. Since it isn't costing me any money I have not said no but if it helps in the stats on the religious I may have to put my foot down.

Maybe I will just tattoo 666 on the back of his head to scare the vicar.

Lee

16. Fleabytes

Comment #149622 by LeeC on March 26, 2008 at 2:20 am

Maybe others here already know of this mp3, but I've only found it today.

I've found an mp3 by a certain David Robertson called "The Dawkins Letters" - so not totally unrelated to this thread?

If anyone is interested, I found it at on a blog at:-
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2008/03/ultimate-apologetics-mp3-audio-page.html

Down at the bottom...

over an hour of listening pleasure - there are loads of other stuff on this blog page but I would not try them all at once.

Lee

17. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148029 by LeeC on March 21, 2008 at 9:04 pm

No fair... I'm at work, and cannot see this.

It will have to wait...

Lee

18. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #146290 by LeeC on March 18, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Hi Pathfinder,

I seemed to have missed a comment of yours, sorry about that.

Alan and Lee C - my, are you seriosly deludded!

Can we put it to a vote? Or maybe you are able to show the errors in my logic?

Whilst I'd be the first to admit my sceince is not of the first order it is still interesting you have both failed MISERABLY to adress the point's I have been making.

So you freely admit that your "sceince is not of the first order" (or spell checker as it has been noted) yet YOU feel able to tell us all how wrong we are in thinking the theory of evolution has more evidence to support its claims, then say, creationism? You have not shown any evidence you understand evolution at all, this would be the first step.

However - OK ?quot; tell me, which "MISERABLY" point have I failed to address?

The reason why CREATIONISM should and MUST be taught in sceince classe's

I have not said at any point that creationism should not be taught in school, if you look back at my earlier comments you will see I actually support the idea.

What I do object too is creationism being taught in the science class ?quot; it is not science ?quot; plain and simple. There is more than enough to teach in the science class as it is (Unless of course can show it to actually be a scientific theory? Maybe then you could change my mind)

Note however that scientists do not demand the theory of evolution to be taught in the religious classes in school, or in Sunday school, or in the churches.

What right do the creationists have to make their demand then? I would love to hear it.

is everything in our phenomenelogical world has a creator.

Excellent ?quot; then you can tell me who created God?

My "evidence", as you call it, is everywhere around me, and in front of me, from the coffee in the coffee cup in front of this keyboard

These are all evidence for the existence of the universe - After the Big Bang the science theories are pretty good in explaining the observations you have just described - not perfect, but if you want to pick at the gaps, you can find only the God of the gaps.

As for the other evidence: well, Jesus speak's to me.

If I told you that Napoleon speaks to me - would you believe me, or just call for the doctors?

What is the difference between a group delusion, and the delusion of one?

I KNOW you'll dismiss this as not "testable"

Here you are wrong, your claim that Jesus talks to you CAN be tested.

Jesus is the son of God and all that I hear - this means you should be able to tell me some divine knowledge IF Jesus is really talking to you.

Something that is not known by man today and could not be guessed - a prediction that is risky, but easily confirmed after you predicted - an observation that is not open to debate.

You make the claim that Jesus talks to you, can you back it up with testable prediction?

So, you see, I do not dismiss your claim as "not testable" - merely than you have not shown you have passed a valid test. You have made a claim, prove it.

, but hey, all those teeming BILLIONS from Tierra Del Fuego to Christchurch NZ must be WRONG, mustn't they?

There are many people who do not believe in Jesus than do - so what is your point again?

While we're on the subject of Divine Guydunce, some ill-informed reprobate's have cast aspertions on my spelling.

I cannot think why ?quot; sorry.

I'm trying but I realise my lack of education is no BARRIER. So stop carping about IRRELEVINT detail's and do me the courtesy of listening to the point's I'm trying to make. I thought you guy's were hot on this subject of communication.

If you have not noticed, I AM giving you the courtesy of listening, and replying to all your points.

However, it is difficult sometimes to guess what you are saying due to the misspelling - but I am a poor speller myself, and make plenty of grammar mistakes, I would however recommend maybe word2003 to correct some of them?

Lee

19. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #146250 by LeeC on March 18, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Hi Jac123458

Fibonacci left them out of his famous series!

Sorry... but they were not famous where I grew up, guess we were all talking about football instead.

RE: "What is the debate/discusion?"

You'll just have to scroll through the last few pages, or else click on Other Comments by jac12358... It is hard enough finding the time and exerting the thought to commit these ideas to text the first time and all the subsequent times clarifying all the ensuing miscommunication, so sorry to say I am not about to retype all my main ideas and the counterarguments of others.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I merely wanted a couple of bullet points to give me a heads up without have to read many pages of text.

My time is short on this site, and getting shorter as work is getting busier so I merely wanted to be focused so I could jump in straight away.

It seems that we are talking about philosopher? Erm... an interesting topic, but I don't know how much I can add apart from my own personal experiences since I've no education in philosophy.


RE:"You mentioned free will and determinism - are you for or against?"

To me the question is as uncomfortable as asking if I believe in God - the question to me isn't if I BELIEVE in these things or not, but whether, in fact, God OR free will exist, or can we, in principle, know if they exist or not?

Eek â€" this is philosophy talk.

So does a theistic God exist in your opinion? I've little argument with a deist.

Right there is the relevance to the question of God, since Dawkins assumes the existance of one thing which more people believe in more than religion: free will (simply by not challenging the notion) WHILE arguing about the existence of god and one's CHOICE to "believe" in him or not. I had, in fact, gone on quite a bit about faith itself and how it functions psychologically and as a phenomenon is completely divorced from the reality of whether the thing one has faith in does in fact exists or not, or is known by someone to exist or not, or can in principle be know with certainty to exist or not.

even though in practical terms many ordinary non-scientists cannot or do not independently corroborrate scientific hypotheses and therefore at some level or some percentage of inflowing information must simply take the claims of scientists and the textbooks they write "on faith"

The difference though is the person COULD go out and test some of the ideas in science. Maybe not all, I'll accept that - is trust the same as faith? Maybe, I just try not to get too hung up about it.

This, in essence, is what they do with their pastors and priests, and so many do not see the difference

And what does the priest say to someone who says that God has not been answering their prayers? Or that maybe they do not "feel" the presence of God?

I'm not sure this is the same of the investigation someone could do to test a scientific theory.

Faith is greater in the religious camp then the "atheist" camp.

So when one multiplies or averages or combines (or whatever) the fact that:
1) MOST people don't check on the facts and so either believe or not ON FAITH

Does that change the fact that the theistic God either exists or doesn't?

2) if there is no universal meaning except that which we create ourselves (who, the majority or the self-appointed "elite/powerful"?) then there is no SHOULD or BETTER if we endeavor to embrace science or not,

Surely one is backed up with more repeatable evidence? Has made more positive claims that have later been shown true? Allow in there thought process a falsifiable element?

Basically, between belief in the theistic God and belief in the scientific method, mankind can make a judgment?

Too much philosophy talk for me.

3) as an evolutionary biologist, peculiar human behavior is inherently animal at its core, no matter how much gray matter one heaps upon it, and so what else can one expect from the majority of us, or damn one observed bahavior over the other?

We are all talking monkeys after all.

4) if we have no free will (and if we do, where is the objective evidence?)

Freewill â€" now that's a biggie. I don't go for all this religious freewill stuff, unless someone shows me God.

But since observations at the quantum level are seen to be random and indeterminist, the evidence is pointing to the conclusion of freewill isn't it?

There is an "arrow of time" - entropy increases in a system - I cannot change the past, and I have no memory of the future... all hints surely of freewill?

Or are you saying that this is just an illusion of freewill? Then can you please explain your idea a little further?

then all of our behavior and seeming "choices" and even Dawkins' finger-wagging and utopian-dreaming are surely as they should be, if futile and silly.

Why bother to live if that is the conclusion? I know - the illusion I have in my head suggests I have a choice, so I will live for the illusion.

This is philosophy again I think.

Well hopefully I cleared things up for you in regards to my feelings on the issue. If you agree 100% then that is fine if YOU offer no debate, but there is a community out here with whom I have been debating.

Not sure I 100% understand your point yet, so I cannot agree 100% at this stage.

However, I'm not sure if my level of philosophy (i.e. the level of a bloke in a pub) is the type of discussion you are looking for.

For those still not sold on the whole "The Free Will Delusion" concept, my arguments are yet to come!

I would be interested in reading it... I just need to understand how the randomness of quantum mechanics comes in, and if I have no freewill - why do I have the illusion? Maybe it is just the brain at play again.

Cheers

Lee

20. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #146191 by LeeC on March 18, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Hi Saerain,

Yeah, I forgot about the shouting... I've listened to two debates with the guy now, and I don't like him, his style and I disagree with his arguments. Why does the man argue using physics when not talking to a physicist?

So maybe I should correct my earlier comment, and say "sounds good in places, when he is not shouting and you do not listen to the words"

I also didn't like the obnoxious voice when used when he was characterising the other person argument. Childish.

Still... I think Dennett lost the debate, but is the better thinker and writer - that was my point.

Cheers

Lee

21. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #146186 by LeeC on March 18, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Hi Pathfinder,

I take youre point about the Big Bang theory, of course only a "theory" and a "model". I know this is a matter of semantic's but it is not PROVEN FACT, is it, by any stretsh of the imagination?

Semantics indeed - and a misunderstanding what science does and the difference between what we observe and how we describe them.

I would say gravity is a FACT (agree or disagree?) but my understanding of gravity is from a theory.

Do you deny gravity? Do you deny the theory of gravity? (many physicists do BTW)

So let's not confuse the observation with the theory used to describe it.

Why do you deny evolution? This is not a trivial question - many Christians accept evolution, and see if as evidence for the Christian God, why do you reject it out of hand and without understanding of what it is?

Also, for the record, I don't recall God being a "PROVEN FACT" or did I miss it?

You cannot have one rule for one, and another. This is a logical fallacy.

Just like EVOLUTION. Oh yes, I've heard evolutionist's talk nonsense about the Peppered Moth from Industrial Time's in the UK, how it was OBSERVED to change in responce to the smoke belching out of the factories and effecting the flora around so the moth wouldnt stand out and be vulnerabble to predators. The point is HOW DO YOU KNOW GOD DIDN'T AFFECT THAT CHANGE? Wheres youre proof?

Interesting. You want to be prove a negative - prove God didn't do it?

Do I also have to prove this change was not done by the big blue evolution goblin? What about the invisible pink unicorn, Zeus, Woden etc etc.

Your argument is a fallacy - I cannot disprove such a change was done by any number of gods, including your Christian God, but do YOU believe the change was done by the invisible pink unicorn? Why have you dismissed this idea?

The theory of evolution provides a good understand how such an observation occurred. It is backed up with repeatable evidence, and such a change is predicted by the theory itself. It offers the simplest explanation and has provided positive evidence for it claims.

Can you provide any positive evidence for your claims? Where is your proof for God making this change in moths? Why the Christian God and not Hara Krishna? Where is YOUR proof?

You talk of the billion to one chance of life starting here on Earth and the probablility's being sufficient, given all the star's in the galaxy. OK, I'm with you on this one:

Thank you...

but what are the PROBABILITIES life doesn't exist elsewhere and we haven't been visited yet, as the PROBABILITIES this civilitzation would be more advanced than ours are much greater? Something wrong with your sadistical analysis there!

Something is wrong? Then please explain it to me.

Your ignorance is no excuse on this matter.

(BTW - "sadistical" do you mean statistical analysis or that my analysis is sadistic?)

With the numbers I used (which could be wrong) - I said life could be a billion to one, and in a galaxy of 100 billion stars in a galaxy - life is almost certainly going to happen.

You are happy with this you said.

Using my simple numbers then, we have 100 star systems that could have life in our galaxy.

What I have NOT discussed is the likelihood of intelligent life, like ourselves, or the timelines or distances involves for likely "contact" with other species of life. How long an intelligent species expected to live, the changes of intelligent life within a galaxy ?quot; the list goes on.

(I think you are talking about the Fermi paradox, you should take a read )

The point is, once the simplest self-replicating chemistry started - evolution takes over, and the rest is history. Unless of course you can prove evolution false? It is a theory after all and therefore is falsifiable.

The only VIABLE explanation why we are unique in the universe MUST BE down to GOD!!!

You are off on another fallacy again.

You already agreed that even with the large odds I gave, life in our universe is almost guaranteed ?quot; I am actually more certain then this, and will say it is a "PROVEN FACT" because I am here typing a response :)

As I said before, if you think the odds are too great for life (the simplest form of self replicating chemistry) to come from non-life ?quot; then you most be able to provide the odds that God came into existence AND decided to create the life that we observe in the universe ?quot; we need this for a comparison. So what are the chances of God?

Praise be to Quetzalcoatl, may all our tea to sweet and hot.

Lee

22. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145644 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Hi ghuckin

To Pathfinder, although I honestly don't know why we are wasting so much space on this website:

For the fun of it?

If you spent as little time concentrating in Science class as you apparently did in English class, it is of little wonder that your views on evolution are so uninformed.

Nice one centurion

23. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145643 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Hi Pathfinder,

My point, Lee C about the Steady State and the Big Bang must have missed you by about the size of the Grand Canyon.

Oh how I love the insults... it makes it all worth while :)

And you "missed" the rest of my post because of what?

The former has bin discreditted, has it not?

Any ideas why preacher boy?

And the latter?

Made a prediction that the cosmic background radiation would be found in the microwave part of the EM spectrum at around a few degrees above absolute zero.

The steady state theory made no such prediction, and could not explain such occurrence if it was found.

Experiments were made, measurements taken - and guess what? The cosmic background radiation was found at around 2.7K (a few degrees above absolute zero) - BINGO!

The scientific method worked it magic once again… steady state theory was rejected, the Big Bang model (so named by the proponent of the steady state theory, Fred Hoyle, to insult and slander the idea... the name stuck, but his theory was rejected - funny old world)

Do YOU have proof life just came into being, JUST LIKE THAT

Just like what precisely?

The simplest form of chemistry that could be called life just coming into existence could be 1 billion to one for all I care - with a 100 billion (or more) stars in a galaxy, this gives rather good likelihood of life (the evidence is life on Earth - just look at all those monkeys)

However, if you want to compare probabilities, you have to tell me the probability of God just coming into existence and creating life...

any more than I have proof God exist's?

Have I asked for proof of God's existence? 100% proof for anything is impossible in science.

What I ask for is the likelihood of God's existence (which one though with so many to choose from - now that is another question)

Can either of these proposittions be observed in the lab?

Depends if you can first define your God... I don't know what I am trying to observe on the God front yet until you tell me.

Isnt that what for the Godless passeth as evidence?

What do you know of evidence?

Please explain the evidence you used to decide that your God exists and how you used your evidence to select your god of choice?

Also, how would you use your evidence to convince someone of another faith to change their faith and follow your God (say a Muslim - assuming that you are Christian)

Praise be

Praise be to Quetzalcoatl - the maker of the finest tea!

Lee

24. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145635 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Hi phasmagigas

pathfinder is surely a wind up merchant, ignore.

Of course you are right, but every so often I enjoy a silly "debate".

It's like a car accident - I know I shouldn't look...

Lee

25. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145536 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Hi Pathfinder,

Yep... confirmed.

What kind of twisted Atheistic "reason" beleives salvation to be a joke?

Salvation from what? An all-loving God? Now that is a joke.

It is THE issue of our time's!

Why?

OK, feel free to dissmiss my magnificent point's as you see fit

"magnificent"? Is this another "humble" theist talking again?

(I notice noones come up with a valid refuttation yet.)

To what?

Creation has to be taught in SCHOOL'S because it is MORALLY RIGHT. Don't you UNDERSTAND?

I have no problem with creation being taught in school - just not in the science class, it could however be taught by a science teacher.

You say it is morally right? Why? Please explain.

I mean, the sheer drooling absurditty of a mass of hydrogen and helium suddenly, MIRACULOUSLY, sparking off our world as we know it!

"absurditty"?

You don't know much physics or biology do you? Your ignorance does not help you here.

The complexitty of life evolving from a mear gas! HA HA HA

The very idea of a poisonous deadly gas and a metal so reactive it would burn in our hands forming into something nice to put on your French Fries would seem just as crazy to you as well I suppose.

(Hint, since you do not seem to be much conversed with science. Sodium chloride is better known as common salt)

if it wasnt so funny it would be truly pathetic the Three Soogi's couldnt make that one up.

Have you read the bible? Now THAT is a joke… a very bad one.

The fact is, you DONT KNOW how life came into existeance, you just think you no.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into "existeance" (or is that existence?)

Do you know how your God came into existence, or do you just think you know?

Creationism is as valid an explanation as any other:

Prove it (or prove evolution wrong ?quot; take your pick)

Big Bang, Steady State, all about as probable as Professor Dawkin's himself going on the Hajj!

Well, the Steady State theory has already been rejected by science, so I don't understand your point here.

What would be the more probable solution then, in your eyes?

Thanks

Lee

26. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145522 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 5:09 pm

RE: Comment #145282 by SilentMike

My position on the topic of Dinesh D`Souza is that I really don't care about his crap anymore. I've listened to what he had to say, my intelligence was sufficiently insulted and my time sufficiently wasted, and now I'm done.

Having just listened to D'Souza debate Dennett (from another old thread) - I think I agree,

So is it, see the name D'Souza and know you are only going to get a strawman argument?

Lee

PS
"D'Souza is skeptical of skepticism" - is that possible?

27. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #145501 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Dennett cannot debate - though he has the better arguments.

D'Souza sounds good - a good debater, but he is talking rubbish - talking from a script almost?

Lee

28. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145497 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Well, if it is a joke from Pathfinder - he writes a lot of it on fleabytes.

Lee

29. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145494 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Hi Pathfinder,

This has to be a joke... you have to be a joke -no really, you must be joking.

Lee

30. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145467 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 3:56 pm

The problem is that the umbrella of "faith" is protecting the likes of Professor Andrew McIntosh - Head of Thermodynamics at Leeds University - a YE creationist.

My old uni... the shame, the shame. I sure it wasn't like that in my day?

Lee

31. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #145457 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Hi Jac12358 (What happened to 4,6 & 7?)

What is the debate/discusion?

You mentioned free will and determinism - are you for or against?

Personally, I'm against - if we agree we do not have much of a debate. It also seems to have little to do with the title of the thread, not that this bothers me much.

See ya

Lee

32. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #145424 by LeeC on March 17, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Just found, and started listening to this debate.

How I missed it back in December I don't know - but I've got it now.

Just got to D'Souza talk - Is it me our does he only build strawmen?

Anyway - this thread seems dead now, but maybe with me posting someone else will find the mp3 and listen.

Lee

33. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #144785 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Hi jac12358

Now I know that I don't know everyone's situation or schedule, and that individually some might be too busy or have forgotten, but an uncoordinated concensus of silence tempts me to conclude…

That this is an old thread?

Is there any debating happening here, then care to summarise so a late comer like myself can join in?

I was hoping for, if not a resolution, then a more multi-faceted debate...

Well, my experience is whenever a debate between a theist and an atheist gets interesting... the theist finds something else to do.

Sad but true... happy to be shown wrong though :)

Lee

34. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144780 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 6:03 pm

Hi phasmagigas,

you make some fair points and you are well aware of the teaching situation with a PGCE.

Thanks, but I'm actually not that aware anymore, it was many years ago and I never went into teaching "for real" and even felt the need to leave the country for a warmer climate :)

I was never happy that I, a physicist with no biology qualifications, was teaching biology - it was/is wrong, but that is another story.

the head of science in question could have ripped the creationist literature a new asshole

And THAT would have been a great lesson - I would have paid to see it

but she simply threw it away, it wasnt supposed to be in the school in the first place, it had no place there and was rightly put in the recycle.

You are winning me over a little, but still want to know how a child is to learn how to read this type of literature if it is not taught to them at school. This is my only point really.

It would be great if the creationist idea could be mentioned (as it was) but then have it ripped apart bit by bit but unless a consistently effective teaching method was used it could prove counter productive.

Not sure how it could be counter productive if the purpose of the lesson is critical thinking/reading. Unless of course it was a priest or something who was taking the lesson do you mean?

Its not even something that could be realistically implemented except with upper ability kids, its difficult enough as it is to get the basics of heredity and evo to the lower/middle kids.

Oh that is true... the happy days of "baby sitting" children under the heading of a science class.

Though, all I am "pushing" here is critical reading even the less enabled kids could join in the fun on that... maybe only the "smart kids" tackle the evolution/creation debate but just think of the fun the kids could have ripping at the "science" used in the latest blockbuster movie.

Anyway... I'm getting WAY off-topic.

Cheers

Lee

35. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144766 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Hi phasmagigas,

I missed some of your post it seems.

Thanks for the link to the pdf... very interesting - liked most of it, about from this little bit in the introduction…

"An important professional challenge for science teachers is the need to develop a sensitivity to the many belief systems which will permeate a group of learners and to ensure that, should questions of belief arise, they are well prepared to offer an appropriate level of engagement which retains a focus on science and what constitutes a viable scientific theory, whilst respecting the personal belief systems of individual learners."

I understand what they are saying with "respect", but if those beliefs are unscientific the child needs to be told. The child should not expect to get a pass if they write in an exam that the Earth is 10,000 years old for example.

Cheers

Lee

36. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144752 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 5:21 pm

RE: Comment #144719

Hi phasmagigas,

im not sure, even mentioning it is a bad idea unless you are very good teacher who knows evolution very well.

You said this person was "head of science" didn't you?

I'm sorry, but I think they should have enough knowledge of evolution to rip this literature apart. (If not, I want to know how they got the position)

Not all science or even biol teachers know evo that well (one could argue that they should!) its like making an omlette, its very easy to do but also easy to get wrong.

I know what you mean, to a point - I got myself on a PGCE course many years back, and with only a physics degree to protect me - I was teaching Biology to 15 year old kids... scary.

However, I am more talking about critical reading - the lesson is more for an English class than science but it could (and probably should) still be done in a science class in case technical questions are raised. (Cross curriculum actives I think they use to call it)

You most have read a few of these creationist books in your time; they are more about misquoting scientists and evolution than giving anything new that needs to be challenge. The premise of the lesson would be to question what is provided.

The follow-up lesson could then be evolution (and in the RE class they can talk about other creation myths)

I personally think it would be fun to teach (and this normally makes it a good lesson)

A teacher not experienced in creationist arguments might find themselves in a compromised position if they are asked an anti evolution question they cannot answer well.

A teacher prepares for the class - they read the creationist book first and have answers to each point in the book "in hand" ready for any such question. This is what a good teacher does before every lesson - prepare.

They are teaching students at a school with kids between 11-16, if a teacher does not know how to handle a "tough question" then they will not be lasting long teaching science I would have thought.

The notion of special critical thinking components to lessons is almost impossible in the average UK school and it is dangerous to include creation ideas there as its contentious anyway and bullshit to begin with. why not something like the history of the knowledge of the earths interior as an alternative.

I remember as an under-grad being set a homework from a lecture which involved me having to read a chapter from "a journey to the centre of the Earth" and point out what was physically wrong with the story - it was fun - but challenging books of fiction and challenging the creationist writing is a little different (OK still fiction, but sold as non-fiction which is the point).

If the science teacher is not prepared to challenge the creationist literature in lessons, who will? Would you prefer it goes unchallenged and the student to work it out for themselves later in life?

I personally think the teacher should be up to the challenge, but "easier" topics could be tackled as you suggest. Maybe the teacher could "warm up" on an easier target like alien landings or something.

Lee

37. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144704 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 4:12 pm

RE Comment #144699 by phasmagigas

a few years ago i was talking to a head of science of a UK school, she had received some creationist material through the mail and went ballistic, she made sure it was used in the best possible way......via the recycle bin.

I disagree... the best "possible way" would be to use the material in class as a critical reading exercise. Students need to be taught how to read this stuff with a smile :)

38. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144703 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm

RE: Comment #144694 by mattTR

It seems this Answers in Genesis group is touring the UK over the nxt few months - anyone fancy going to the events & asking awkward questions? Or standing outside flyering people as they go in & out?

There's no use decrying the slow creep of creationism if we atheists arent willing to go out n challenge it

I would love to do that - handout leaflets, then go in and watch the show/lecture for a laugh... but I live in the wrong country now (and no longer a student so feel I am getting too old for such things).

You will need to think of what you put on the flyers... erm, any tips?

Lee

39. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144698 by LeeC on March 16, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Isn't the problem to all this creationist nonsense easily resolved?

Just teach it in the schools (not in the science class of course, that is for science)

Kids should be "forced" to learn this stuff in their religious classes. That will put a stop to it. The religious nutters get what they want - no problem.

Of course, all the creation theories have to be taught, not just a single bible cult - all the major creation theories have to be taught, without bias, with just the facts - at the end of the term the students will be given an exam and asked "Which creation theory is right and why?"

Should be a laugh...

Lee

40. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143233 by LeeC on March 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Hi mesomodel,

RE: 38. Comment #142904 by mesomodel

comment #22 LeeC
Of course, we cannot "blame" religion can we for one nutter can we? He was only human after all.

In this case, I think we can. It's pretty clear in his letter to Jesus that he's figured out that religion (and Christianity in particular) is a sham. He's just unable to take the final step to recognizing he's an atheist. Instead, his mind has meltdown trying to reconcile his indoctrination (aka parental child abuse) and reality.

I actually agree with you mesomodel - my sarcasm was just set "way high", sorry I wasn't clear ? - I was merely mocking the religious (or "neutral") response.

This kid thought there was something wrong with him, and this was brought on by his religious upbringing.

However, it is an extreme case, that was more my point.

If you read some of the additional links, you'll notice various clergy stating that this is how the devil works. It's the devil's fault. And, when you realize that this kid was brought up in this environment, it's pretty clear to me that if he accepts the reality of atheism, he's basically evil. The emotional baggage was too much and he went postal.

I didn't have time to read the additional links, but I'm not surprised with your summary.

This seems then to be the problem of allowing religious indoctrination - yet where do you stop (or even start?) Ban the right for parents to teach their child their religion? Force them to teach all religions? Ban churches? What about banning guns?

It is not a simple solution - my dollar is on teaching all religions and not allow the teaching of just one religion - yet kids going "crazy" will happen, maybe if they only had a sling-shot it will not be as messy?

So, is it right to solely blame religion? Probably not, but in this case it was more than likely the major cause.

Lee

41. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142600 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Hi mesomodel,

Yeah. He could update it with something that has more punch. Like discussing this kid. His reason couldn't override his parents' indoctrination. Solution? Kill.

Edit: in-line link doesn't seem to want to work. Try http://tinyurl.com/3depq6

WOW... thanks for the news story - scared the crap out of me, but thanks.

Of course, we cannot "blame" religion can we for one nutter can we? He was only human after all.

Lee

42. Fleabytes

Comment #142568 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Responding to comment #142253
Responding to comment #142258
(How many pages back?)

Hi Mike,

I have been interested in this thread from beat one.

It moves far too quickly for me, so many posts over night - how do you keep up?

I have been banging on about the evidence call for some time now. You're right, it does tend to to close the debate. But is that the aim? Is the aim to win that particular argument? Or maybe it's way bigger than that. Do you feel that argument is already won?

So many questions, but so few answers...

I'm in the debate to try and learn something first.

I admit in the past I use to throw the argument "Show me the evidence" rather quickly into a debate and it kills open discussion fast - shields up and all that.

So I try and discuss around this point and ask what evidence is valid and what is not. Why God cannot be measured or why his interactions cannot be investigated using the scientific method (but can still be known by the theist?)

The theist clearly accepts evidence (of one form or another) I merely want to understand why one type of evidence and not another... it seems to keep the debate open for a while.

"Do you feel that argument is already won?"

Do you mean the argument in the debate I am in with the theist? Clearly not, or they would not be arguing against me.

If you are asking me personally about the "Big argument" (whatever that is?) I cannot see any valid argument for the theistic God, but I am asking FOR such an argument and would be happy to hear it.

How about you?

If ya do, then i'm afraid i agree with Richard M who put it beautifully a few threads back at 4471

I need to go back and re-read it...

Richard M wrote:

I find that repetitions of "Show us the evidence!" rather tiresome, given that NOBODY is expecting any convincing evidence. Not from DR or from any other theist.
I find that in view of that, constantly demanding evidence seems rather childish and, well, undignified.
EVERYBODY knows that the message is:
"Go on, show us your evidence, if you can, because we all know you haven't got any. But we're going to pretend to expect an answer, in order to make you appear all the more stupid."
Yes, as rationalists, we are open to new data which will modify our point of view.
But asking a dry well to give you water...

I've already touched on this… my battle cry is no more "Show us the evidence!" more "explain the evidence you accept and why you reject the evidence that others accept"

Not as catchy though...

The point for me, is to engage in discussion, so that we might eventually weed out the oppression of religion

Agreed

So that people like David can Believe his story quietly,

How do you point out to "people like David" that they view and hold dear might not be "right" and that others might be more "right"?

whilst knocking loudly on the door, along with atheists, of those that use it as an excuse to mentally and physically abuse and torture their fellow human beings.

Where does "bad brainwashing in religion" stop and "good brainwashing in religion" start?

Is there any such thing as good (or bad) indoctrination in a single religion?

Where do you draw the line?

'Hey guys, there's a merry-go-round over on fleabytes, let's push it faster!!'

WEEEEeeeee around and around we go.

You are right, this thread moves too fast - it is difficult to have a discussion on it.

Lee

43. Fleabytes

Comment #142145 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 4:22 am

Richard Morgan quoted DR(?)

Without absolute proof of something for which you believe there can be no absolute proof, you will not listen to anything that any theist says. All our points are invalid until we prove to you the impossible « the Big one". But what if our proof was a cumulation of the smaller points? Ironically that is how you became an atheist…

I would have to disagree with this on the whole - who asked for absolute proof? Anyone? You boy, at the back… was it you?

I think I understand what is being said here in this quote, but a little filtering has to be done first i.e. remove the straw man argument of absolute proof of course, then remove the personal attack that I am not open to listening, and the false statement that the theist needs to prove the impossible first before the atheist will start to believe.

The last bit however, I could agree with:-

"But what if our proof was a cumulation of the smaller points"

What if indeed… it could be possible that the pieces of the puzzle point to a god… if so, is so wrong to ask to be told about these pointers? To challenge them to see if they "hold water"?

If they are valid, and many small points add up to a larger point, then great - no problem… this could present an argument that God is likely. I could be happy with that if it were true.

For over a year now I've been wandering on blogs and forums like this and asking for these little pieces of the puzzle �quot; it is not my fault is it that they do not add up to anything more than wishful thinking is it?

Mikejswalker wrote:

we have to do a fuck of a lot better than "show us the evidence'. Hold back those rockets, let's talk about it over a beer.

Coming very late to the debate, I have noticed that the "show me the evidence" response it out of season some what.

It is true this normally ends any debate pretty quick since the classic response from the theist is "…but you do not accept our type of evidence". The stalemate is reached.

I am interested then in the agreed best method to move a debate forward? Ignore the lack of evidence and talk logic? Agree to disagree? What?

Why is the demand for evidence before making a conclusion so wrong?

Cheers

Lee

44. Fleabytes

Comment #142136 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 3:51 am

Tyler Durden asked:

I don't have The Blind Watchmaker on me, but Google have returned a partial quote: "What if all of the evidence pointed towards directed panspermia - we found the spacecraft, copies of the human genome..."

Anyone got the full quote from Blind Watchmaker?

Sorry no help, I lost my copy a long time ago, but the quote you gave from the theist site is "pure evil" in the misquoting and lies department (nothing new then?).

Panspermia merely moves the creation of life away from Earth to "somewhere else" â€" it doesn't invalidate evolution in anyway since evolution does not get involved in how life started.

So I've no idea what they are talking about - maybe they just need a little more straw.

Hope you find the quote you are looking for.

Seems you got yourself into an "interesting" debate.

Lee

45. Fleabytes

Comment #142127 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 3:37 am

Billy Sands responded to Muddledthinker:

Tell us again why you thing only god can make the universe. I need a laugh from a poor quality history grad talking about cosmology

Now we are talking... time to learn something. I've come to the right thread then?

Erm... which god though?

Lee

46. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141651 by LeeC on March 11, 2008 at 2:44 am

Good grief, a comment from LeeC. You haven't been on this site in ages!

Hi Quetz,

Well, it has been a while but after my travels on other blogs I thought it would be good to come back to where it all started for me over a year ago.

PJG wrote:

Can someone explain to me what "respect" means when referring to long dead remains?

I meant it in the sense that it would not be disrespectful and start throwing the bones around for the dog to chase in the backyard.

The bones were once a person, they should be shown a little "respect"… maybe this seems odd, but for me it is more to do with remembering the person they once were.

Yes I know the bones are just bones, but we do not need to be like animals around them.

Each to their own… I would still test them, no problem with that.

Lee

47. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141615 by LeeC on March 10, 2008 at 10:07 pm

What's the problem... so long as the body is treated with as much respect as possible during the testing?

48. Fleabytes

Comment #131032 by LeeC on February 21, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Paula Kirby wrote in original post on TDD
"This is a truly despicable book and a criminal waste of paper, ink and time."

Having just read this book - I could not agree more.

Thanks for doing the reviews... a handy place to "cut and paste" from.

Lee

49. Chasers war on everything: Evangelicals

Comment #106483 by LeeC on January 3, 2008 at 3:00 am

Chaser... one of the few funny Oz programs on the TV. (The rest have been axed)

Lee

50. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81705 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 4:04 am

I am an atheist because I have not seen any evidence FOR God – For example, the bible speaks of miracles yet there is NO independent evidence for any of them actually happening (and there should be many if the bible was true).

I can also test my beliefs, and I know what evidence would change my views and beliefs.

Science provides a better solution than any religion or belief in God, and any science theory can be proven false (and they tell you how you can do it as well)

How can I prove God false?

Now can you see the difference between my belief in science and the theist faith in God?

I do not have faith because I can test my theories (one way or another). I will also trust my theories (I believe the aeroplane will not fall out of the sky because of my belief in physics – NOT my faith in physics)

In conclusion?

No evidence for God, and no way of proving God false.
(It is a very good meme indeed.)

Lee