1. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180909 by latsot on May 16, 2008 at 4:29 am

Quetz, why do you even bother with this tool? He's a troll, and not even a particularly bright one.

Target practice.

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

Comment #179690 by latsot on May 13, 2008 at 2:03 pm

(Quibble - You said the Englsh use irony a lot.
You meant to say sarcasm,no?
Situations are ironic.)

Irony is a dramatic device based on some kind of conflict between what someone says and what they mean.

'Irony' was the correct word to use. Sarcasm is a form of irony and the post was also sarcastic, so everyone's a winner in this case.

3. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178243 by latsot on May 11, 2008 at 2:09 am

I suggest some of you bother to RTFA.

4. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177571 by latsot on May 9, 2008 at 10:14 am

And why, while he was about it, did Richard not seek to condemn beyond any measure of doubt this failed stand-up's hateful, twisted and abhorrent notions of - let's see - original sin? Of - er - the unpalatable notion of vicarious redemption by human sacifice? Or - and this was nudging towards my main point - at the very least his odious suggestion that Richard is an anti-semite?

Why on Earth *should* he? You seem to think he *owes* you something. Let him fight his battles how he wishes.

5. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162090 by latsot on April 16, 2008 at 6:36 am

> I know it's not easy but you are part of the
> problem.
>
> I would (and have done so) politely refuse to
> attend the communion ceremony, but show up at the
> party afterwards.

I'm not sure we should be so judgmental about this kind of thing. It's up to individuals to take a stand wherever they see fit.

It would be equally reasonable to criticise you for going to the celebration of the sorry event. Not going to the church simply because it's a church and yet contributing to the celebration of that event doesn't seem particularly logical.

Personally, I'd avoid both, but my relationship with my family is terrible anyway, so I have nothing to lose. Others place different emphasis on family relationships and I find it difficult to judge them harshly for that.

6. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162081 by latsot on April 16, 2008 at 6:19 am

When I was a kid, our local vicar suddenly....disappeared...under an obvious cloud. It was several months before he was replaced, so it was presumably unexpected. I have no idea what the issue was and in no way wish to suggest any wrongdoing on his part, but I found the community's reaction extremely uncomfortable.

Nobody spoke about it, although there were plenty of veiled references to something that seemed shameful in some way. Direct questions were met with different answers depending on who I asked and more often than not I was told to stop asking questions. There was a definite air of suppressed information and all the adults I knew in the village (all Christian) seemed to collaborate in this. They all seemed to know what had happened and were determined that nobody else should find out.

I was only about 8 and this was quite some time ago, but this is how I remember it and damn sinister it seemed too.

7. Special Guest: Richard Dawkins

Comment #142940 by latsot on March 13, 2008 at 8:36 am

That song is just *delightful*. Very clever and very easy on the ear. I wash I could have written it.

8. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132762 by latsot on February 25, 2008 at 7:31 am

This 'intepretations of evidence' business is a rather pathetic sleight of hand intended to make it seem as though non-scientific ideas have similar value to scientific ones. You can 'interperet evidence' by making stuff up that seems to fit it (having carefully selected which 'evidence' you want to 'explain') or you can use the scientific method.

A lot of people don't understand the difference, so it can be a persuasive argument.

9. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132528 by latsot on February 24, 2008 at 11:30 pm

As so often, the religious believe that the end justifies the means. In the society I'm used to, this is most apparent in the religious lying about evidence for things like evolution (there are no transitional forms etc.) or indoctrinating their children with their own beliefs.

This story shows just how far it can go. They have to be thinking something like "if we let people learn how things could be different, the whole precarious edifice could come crashing down....we need to make an example of some random person by murdering them."

I'm convinced that this kind of conclusion can only be achieved by people who know - at some level - that what they are doing is deeply wrong. What makes them do it anyway is religion, which allows them to justify it.

10. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128862 by latsot on February 18, 2008 at 5:45 am

WHERE'S MY JETPACK?

11. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #121333 by latsot on February 3, 2008 at 8:52 am

Simon Le Bon?

Simon Le fucking Bon?

At least we can all agree that Lilly Allen is indeed one of the finest social commentat.... nah, sorry, I can't even *type* that with a straight face.

12. Jay Spears: Smak Dem Christians Down

Comment #115592 by latsot on January 24, 2008 at 11:26 am

Well I just watched it again and it was still hilarious. Keep up the good work, Jay.

13. Jay Spears: Smak Dem Christians Down

Comment #114920 by latsot on January 23, 2008 at 7:28 am

I love how much fun they are having with it. The correct response to those who want to institutionalise their fantasies is to laugh in their faces.

As hideous, insidious and enraging as this issue is, videos like this remind us that if we all refuse to take it seriously, it can't hurt us. Like a playground bully, strip these people of their credibility and they have no power over us.

It's great work. A bit tortured in places, but rhyming 'agenda' with 'pudenda' and 'maybe ya' with 'Saudi Arabia' are acts of genius. And it reminds us that it's OK to take the piss.

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

Comment #111631 by latsot on January 15, 2008 at 8:02 am

Nothing we could possibly do could compare to the permian extinction. We simply don't have the technology or energy to flood vast areas of continents with molten lava, for example.

Now that is just lack of imagination and ambition.

Ecosystems probably have some properties in common with some other complex networks such as the web and the internet. Even enormous amounts of widespread random damage might have little effect, but relatively small amounts of targeted damage - and it is not difficult to determine likely targets - might have hugely disproportionate results.

Providing you don't expect it to be instantaneous, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we could beat the Permian record with the technology we have today.

Not that I'm suggesting it should be a challenge or anything...

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

Comment #111629 by latsot on January 15, 2008 at 7:49 am

There is little controversy in respectable circles that the dinosaurs were done for largely by the Chicxulub bolide impact (and, Roger Stanyard, if it wasn't caused by a meteor, what do you suggest?). It certainly didn't happen instantaneously and neither should we expect it to. Diversity may well have been in decline before the impact, but this is not certain and it is certainly not certain that if it's true, it is in any way linked with the eventual mass extinction.

Damage can be buffered in complex networks like ecosystems for a number of reasons. In addition, there are always environmental pressures of various kinds going on. Ecosystems can be 'weakened' (although I hate that term) by perturbations of various kinds. Further damage can then have an unexpectedly large effect.

The KT extinction was probably due to a combination of things, with the Chicxulub impact being the most significant. But of course we don't have all that much direct evidence. We know more about it than about any of the other mass extinctions, but we still don't know all that much.

We really don't know very much about mass extinctions. We can look for correlations between things like marine regression/transgression, global warming, volcanic activity etc. but when you write down the results, they aren't very revealing. We also have to cope with and correct for skews in the fossil record, which are partly - as various people here have said - to do with its paucity.

Mass extinctions are surprisingly unselective in terms of what things do and don't die. I suspect that the way ecosystems tend to structure themselves might explain this to some extent and also the distribution of differently-sized extinction events. My evidence is mostly based on modeling and simulations though. It could quite easily be bollocks.

Mass extinction is a fascinating topic, all the more so because evidence is tantalizing but sparse. In general, I would advocate caution about claims that a mass extinction was caused by X. We can be reasonably sure that bolide impact was at the least a significant factor in the KT event, but I wouldn't be surprised if an equally compelling theory came along one day.

16. Atheists only promote divisiveness, as any other separatist movement.

Comment #98392 by latsot on December 13, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Is there something wrong with being divisive?

17. How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #98373 by latsot on December 13, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Why on Earth would anyone need to explain it? Doesn't that just pander to the erroneous idea that lack of fossils somehow constitutes evidence that evolution is false? The question seems at best a distraction and at worst a spurious validation of tired creationist arguments.

18. Ayaan Hirsi Ali at AAI 07

Comment #87109 by latsot on November 11, 2007 at 8:14 am

> Bravery? courage?

She gave up her friends, family and security to stand up for what she believed. She risked much, including her personal safety and suffered a great deal, including isolation.

> enlightened

What she believed was that people shouldn't be rendered powerless by tradition.

Yep, I think I'm going to go right ahead and call her brave, courageous and enlightened.

r

19. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #39567 by latsot on May 11, 2007 at 6:37 am

> I can almost hear them say - "Atheists think God
> is like a spaghetti monster, Ha-Ha-Ha."

Wasn't that the entire point?

20. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #39554 by latsot on May 11, 2007 at 5:57 am

"I think Ellen Johnson could have been more prepared. She should have shredded the Christian guy when he asked, "where do you get your morals from?", but she let it fizzle and then time was up."

I think this is unfair. The interview was ending in a few seconds and it seemed to me as though she didn't want to be sidetracked by this inane question. She recognised it for the trap it was and would no doubt have provided a devastating answer had there been time.

The answer she tried to give (so rudely interrupted) was quite correct. It is not a question of where we get our morals from. It is a pity she wasn't allowed to finish.

The child abuse comment was silly though. I imagine she regrets that. I've said stupid things like that when I've been under pressure as well.