1. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #114844 by gibodean on January 23, 2008 at 3:11 am

For Londoners, "Skeptics in the pub" next month is having a Creationist speaker, Paul Taylor from "Answers in Genesis".

For those who haven't heard of "Skeptics in the pub", it's held once a month, and the format is a speaker talking on matters of interest to skeptics. Sometimes we have skeptics speaking, sometimes (like this time) we have the opposite..

Always followed by question time.

It's informal, and a good night. With beer. For more info see here:
http://www.skeptic.org.uk/pub/

2. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94204 by gibodean on December 5, 2007 at 2:49 am

Kakashi_monkey said "Christians and Muslims abuse others and conquer thier neighbors in the name of their god, but not Jews (that I know of)"

Umm, Mr Monkey, have you not read the old testament ? Not only do the jews frequently conquer their neighbours by foul means, they kill all the men, rape all the virgins...

Sure, that's not recent, but it's still held up as a "good thing".

3. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79940 by gibodean on October 19, 2007 at 7:14 am

There's a bible question down the bottom of the page . It was :

When certain ungodly men of Gibeah demanded that the hospitable old man let them get at his guest, the Levite, he:
1. tried to buy them off with his virgin daughter and the Levite concubine
2. sent to all the people of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, for aid.
3. gave in to their command

I selected "1", and got:

Your answer: tried to buy them off with his virgin daughter and the Levite concubine
Your answer is correct.

I thought it was a joke. Not because it's wrong. The answer is clearly correct (according to the bible). But the way they phrase it, and they're willing to have it on their front page is very surprising. They're not ashamed of having such filth in their bible. I think that says a lot about them....

4. Researchers devise way to calculate rates of evolution

Comment #75988 by gibodean on October 4, 2007 at 8:26 am

scooternyc, I think a 30 second explanation would help with people who aren't knowledgeable, but willing to learn. I don't think it would work with creationists.

Because they have a 3 second response.
"Nuh. Magic man done it."

5. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67645 by gibodean on September 4, 2007 at 5:28 am

Conmen are least likely to give money to someone based on trust.
Magicians are least likely to be scammed by slight of hand.
Mentalists are least likely to be scammed by "psychics" doing cold reading.
Psychiatrists are least likely to fall for the mind games of religion.
This isn't really news.

6. Enemies of Reason

Comment #65194 by gibodean on August 23, 2007 at 5:56 am

Yes, when that woman was talking about DNA and how it was different lengths, I had to pause the TV to say "Oh my God".

Richard, when you filmed that, did she have any idea of who you were, or what your day job is ?
How could you stop from laughing ?

7. In Google Earth, a Service for Scanning the Heavens

Comment #64884 by gibodean on August 22, 2007 at 7:35 am

Celestia allows you to view the universe from any point within it, zooming around the heavens, looking at computer-regenerated models of planets/stars etc. (There are textures that you can add though, some of which are based on real pictures).

Google sky sounds like you're stuck looking from earth's POV, but they're all real pictures.

8. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62535 by gibodean on August 10, 2007 at 3:59 am

It is exactly the sort of programme which Dawkins should be presenting, not least because, as he points out, Britons are spending ever-increasing amounts of money on such "therapeutic stabs in the dark".

So, he thinks that attacking woo is fine, because people are wasting money on it, but thinks it's a waste of time attacking religion. Has this bloke never heard of tithing ? A large number of people give 10% of their earnings to the church, which is a hell of a lot more than the average person spend son alternative therapies.

As a source of ethics, religion is bloody expensive (and, in many cases not particularly ethical). The faithful should get their money back.

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

Comment #61808 by gibodean on August 7, 2007 at 1:38 am

So much crap in this article, but I'm going to pick my favourite:

These findings have given rise to a school of scientists promoting the theory of Intelligent Design, which suggests that some force embodying purpose and foresight lay behind the origin of the universe.

No, emphatically not. What has given rise to that "school of scientists" is that some fundies have gone and got science degrees (somehow) and deliberately chosen to not let any of the information received actually sink in to their brains. They then go and release books and articles that deliberately misrepresent the science to the layman who hasn't got the knowledge to realise.

10. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #59631 by gibodean on July 30, 2007 at 2:32 am

I've been reading this website for ages, but really just the front page, and these articles. I never knew there was a whole other forum. Perhaps Mr Toweling didn't either.

I'm going to waste so much time now, reading it ! Curses to you for showing it to me Professor. How am I ever going to get any work done ?

11. For Muslim Extremists, Religion Matters

Comment #54288 by gibodean on July 6, 2007 at 9:23 am

Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for re-interpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over. Re-interpreting doesn't mean re-writing. It means re-thinking words and practices that already exist--removing them from a seventh-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a twenty first-century pluralistic context.

There are some things that can't be "reinterpreted" no matter how hard you try. The best that can be done is to ignore them, decide they're part of the "satanic verses", or that they are metaphorical in some bizzare way and not actually instructions to kill people.
The Christians manage to do all of these with their book, and a large part of that is that there's actually 2 books.. Christians can point to the new testament, and ignore the old (when they feel like it). (Of course they also ignore things in the new testament too).

What's needed in the Muslim world is a new testament. I suggest "The God Delusion". Which muslim cleric should I talk to about my idea?

12. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54084 by gibodean on July 5, 2007 at 9:01 am

johncrosby, haven't you heard ? Chuck Norris humour is old hat.
It's all about John Smeaton now.

13. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51253 by gibodean on June 22, 2007 at 4:51 am

For example, does not Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith) display disturbing signs of the inquisitorial temperament that would deny freedom of conscience and expression to those whose positions cannot be scientifically tested and validated?

Not likely, pal. Unless the person you're talking about's "expression" is to fly planes into buildings, stone apostates, mutilate the genitals of children.
In that case, yes, I'm sure Sam Harris wants to deny that freedom of expression.
But so suggest that he's for denying "freedom of conscience and expression" to people who hold non-scientific beliefs, but aren't harming others, well I'd like to see some evidence for that.

I think it's quite telling that you, as a religious person, appear to not be able to see the difference between the two types of "expression".

14. Bush Vetoes Measure on Stem Cell Research

Comment #51050 by gibodean on June 21, 2007 at 9:37 am

Another example of compartmentalisation.

He believes these two things at the same time :
1. all human life is sacred and hence we shouldn't use the 100 cell embryos for research that will likely save lives.
2. Troops should be sent to Iraq, necessarily involving loss of life on both sides.

What an idiot.

I suppose believing the bible at all involves compartmentalisation anyway, so it's not too surprising he's adept at it.

15. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50665 by gibodean on June 19, 2007 at 10:21 am

This study that says "circumcision reduces your chances of HIV infection through unprotected heterosexual sex by 60%"..

Assuming it's true for the moment, what do the numbers mean ? Is it per sexual encounter, or is over a lifetime, is it per 50 encounters, what ?

Just doing some back of the envelope calculations with some assumptions, assuming 50 copulations per year with your HIV infected wife, and a 60% difference each time you have sex, the chances of having HIV is about 99.0% versus 99.995% for circumcised vs uncircumcised. That's about the same chance of getting it (although from another angle, it's a factor of 200 for not getting it).

Or, if the 60% is for a year of copulations (assume 50 again), working backwards, I get that each time you have sex there's less than a 1% difference in the probability of getting HIV when comparing circumcised to uncircumcised...

And what are the real numbers ? Is there a 1.7% chance of getting HIV if you're uncircumcised, and 1.0% if you're circumcised ? Or is it 17%/10% ?

And, how about the chances of _giving_ someone else HIV if you've got it ? I've always assumed it's easier to transmit from penis->vagina than it is to transmit from vagina->penis.....

16. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50637 by gibodean on June 19, 2007 at 7:13 am

Is it true that women are less happy giving oral sex to an uncircumcised man, preferring circumcised ones ?
If so, that's nearly enough reason for me to circumcise my son. Wouldn't want him getting less than his fair share...

17. God is not responsible for war and suffering

Comment #48201 by gibodean on June 7, 2007 at 3:08 am

Similarly, various atheists' positions as academics would be inconceivable if the Christian monastic tradition hadn't preserved ancient knowledge during the Dark Ages, then shared it again in newly created universities from the Middle Ages onwards.

I can't believe he dares to use this as an example of the goodness of religion!

The dark ages were dark exactly because of the dominance of religion ! The guy's a moron.

18. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44506 by gibodean on May 25, 2007 at 2:54 am

Duff said:

This theologian lost me when he claimed abrahamic religions freed mankind and allowed them to be individuals. In which one of the mulitiple universes did that happen?

I think he's confusing the bible with Monty Python's "Life of Brian", where Brian says "you're all individuals, you can all work it out for yourselves". I understand the confusion.

19. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29465 by gibodean on April 3, 2007 at 2:18 am

She says:

And he's got a real bee in his bonnet about religion, which he considers a useless concept that serves no evolutionary purpose in humans and is in fact one of the scourges of mankind.

Does Dawkins in fact say that religion serves no evolutionary purpose ? I've read the book and don't remember that. In fact I've heard that it may have served an evolutionary purpose, but I'm not sure if that was from Dawkins... Someone refresh my memory please..

20. Episcopal Church Rejects Demand for a 2nd Leadership

Comment #26908 by gibodean on March 22, 2007 at 8:43 am

You're kidding. There's a group associated with the Episcopal church called the "primates" ??

So closely associated they could perhaps be said to be related ?

I can only assume this church isn't full of creationists....

21. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26406 by gibodean on March 19, 2007 at 6:37 am

I'll respond to one part of this article. Under "My Agno-Theistic Daughter and How She Got That Way",
Mr Novak says that atheism is "in other words, at bottom, everything is irrational, chancy, without purpose or ultimate intelligibility... professors pretending that everything is ultimately absurd, while in more proximate matters putting all their trust in science, rationality, and mathematical calculation. She decided that atheists could not accept the implications of their own metaphysical commitments. While denying the principle of rationality 'all the way down', they wished to cling to all the rationalities on the surface of things. My daughter found this unconvincing. She decided that atheism cannot be true, because it is self-contradictory".

So, it seems that at uni she found some professors that were claiming things were fundamentally absurd, and denied rationality on some levels. It doesn't say what she was studying at uni, but it sounds to me like it was some sort of philosophy, arty stuff. I'm an engineer, and so if there really are professors claiming that sort of mumbo jumbo at uni, I've never met them, but I'm sure they hang out with all the other hippies.

If I was subjected to that sort of view from my professors, while also being subjected to professors putting all their trust in science and rationality, I would have found it contradictory too.

Her problem is to believe that the mumbo jumbo and rationality she heard are both part of atheism, that therefore atheism is "self contradictory", and to therefore throw away atheism, including the rationality. No, just throw away the mumbo jumbo. Keep the rationality, and don't believe in God. That's Atheism.

A science teacher at my school taught me that electricity flows at an instantaneous speed. I later heard that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. They're both science, they're self-contradictory! Quick, I'll throw away science!! No, I'll do more research, work out that my science teacher is wrong, and keep science.

He goes on to say "What surprised her in her professors was the self-contradiction at the root of their lives." So she thinks it's therefore OK to believe that everything the professors think is wrong ! If I'd thought that about my science teacher, because he got one thing wrong, I'd be in a very different job right now.......

22. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23231 by gibodean on February 27, 2007 at 3:17 am

What results did the radioactive dating give about the age of the tomb? What about the other evidence ? Is it 2000 years old, or 1000, or 3000?

I googled and found one article that claimed it was 2000 years old, but didn't give any information on how this was determined.

I would have thought that info important enough to mention..