1. 'God as Science Fiction'. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #257072 by sbooder on September 30, 2008 at 2:42 am

I would like to raise once again the point of an atheist community.

I still think anything more than what we have here, and by that I mean a forum to swap non religious thoughts. But to go further and create some sort of atheistic group is madness.

I am not a member of a group full of people who do not support Man United or a member of a group that dose not like coffee.

A lack of a religious belief is not a belief in itself so I feel little relation to other atheist I know because; some like fox hunting and I don't, some vote Conservative and I don't, some are bigoted racist wankers and I am not.

So you would have to have thousands of little splinter atheist groups, all with set criteria of what they must agree with to join.

For instance, my little group were I to have one would be full of Anarchic, wine guzzling, fly fishing, classical guitar playing, sport hating, soap opera loathing, bird watching, non driving cyclists… I could go on.

My point is we commune through something in common not through a lack of something in common.

2. Richard Dawkins on Al Jazeera English

Comment #218207 by sbooder on July 25, 2008 at 4:17 am

Quote "His belief, although apparently initially reasonable, is not so if you consider the accelerating growth of human technology (which is now just passing the knee of the curve). It's possible that within 40 years a technological singularity will occur which will totally eclipse human intelligence. It is an innate nature of evolutionary processes to accelerate as time progresses: firstly, the introduction of DNA; secondly, the human prefrontal lobes; thirdly, the creation of technology, and fourthly the eclipse of human intelligence via GNR (Genetics, Nanotechnology, and Robotics) with an emphasis on robotics.

It is fallacious to assume that technology will continue to evolve in a linear fashion; we are just now reaching the knee of the curve of an exponential phenomena, at which point it will become quite evident to all that technological growth exhibits exponential, and in some cases, double exponential growth.

Natural selection is in the process of being eclipsed by technology and will most likely be entirely irrelevant within the next half a century. When a computer passes the Turing Test - and in all likelihood that will occur by the mid 2020s - Strong AI will inevitably eclipse us.

You might be interested in reading The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil. You should also probably read a short bio of Ray Kurzweil and objectively observe the accuracy of his past predictions. Many people disagree with his future predictions, but quite a few respectable scientists agree with his views as well. I'm sure you'd find it intellectually stimulating, at the very least. :D"


Do you have any films in your DVD collection other than the Matrix trilogy?

3. VOICES OF SCIENCE - Available Now on DVD

Comment #211437 by sbooder on July 16, 2008 at 2:51 am

I am a little worried that all Steven Weinberg's calculations may be wrong. Working on the bases (as he stated in part1) that; the answer to everything is 43, when we know it to be 42. That offset by 1 could spell disaster.

On a more serious note, how enjoyable is this interview, it is no wonder many physicist go bonkers, to a layman like myself trying to keep up with Steven Weinberg explaining everything in simple terms is making my head ache.

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

Comment #208628 by sbooder on July 11, 2008 at 5:16 am

I have only just listen to this radio debate on YouTube, I was doubled up with laughter, it was mainly the disbelief in PZ's voice every time he had to answer something Simmons said.

If I were in PZs place, I would have thought I was on candid camera and being wound up. My favourite bit was when Simmons was trying to be all Scientific about the brain, and when PZ totally mashed him on the subject, Simmons resorted to a piano analogy, like some lost child.

I might just listen to it again so I can have another good laugh.

5. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165675 by sbooder on April 22, 2008 at 3:07 am

To All IDists and Creationists.

First off' we do not believe in Evolution, we use Evolution as the best method of evaluating the progression of the biological world, belief is the acceptance of something that can not be proven.


If IDists were to publish a body of evidence that could be scrutinised and its theories (and I mean theories in the scientific sense, not the, I have a theory that; dogs play chess when we aren't looking, sense) it could be given credence then we would take it seriously. The same applies to ID if you want it taught in the science class of schools.

If you want to teach it in Theology or RI (Religious Instruction) then please fill your boots.

We are not trying to stop you believing in ID, that is your prerogative, but if you want it widely accepted; then it has to transform from ideology to science, and that can only be done with evidence.

And Darwinists no more believe in Eugenics any more than they believe in Creationism.

IDists and Creationists seem to think that scientific knowledge is gained by opening THE BIG BOOK of SCIENCE and learning all science from one text…I think you will find that this sort of thinking is reserved for THE BIBLE or KORAN.

Science is ever changing, because we are forever questioning it. Science of course dose not have all the answers, that's why it is constantly trying to find the answers, and if existing theories are to be proven wrong, we will embrace the new theory with open arms, but it must based on evidence not on supernatural dogma.

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

Comment #160702 by sbooder on April 14, 2008 at 9:48 am

Actually here are the lyrics of Reality Asylum

I am no feeble Christ, not me
He hangs in glib delight upon his cross, upon his cross,
Above my body, lowly me
Christ forgive, forgive?
Holy He, He holy, He holy?
Shit He forgives, Forgive? Forgive?
I? I? Me? I? I vomit for you Jesu
Christy Christus
Puke upon your papal throne
Wrapped I am in the muddy cloud
Of hellish genocide
Petulant child
I have suffered for you
Where you have never known me
I too must die
Will you be shadowed in the arrogance of my death?
Your valley truth
What light pass those pious heights?
What passing bells for these in their trucks?
For you lord.
You are the flag-bearer of these nations
One against the other that die in the mud
No piety. No deity
Is that your forgiveness?
Saint. Martyr. Goat. Billy.
Forgive? Shit he forgives
He hangs upon his cross
In self-righteous judgment
Hangs in crucified delight
Nailed to the extend of His vision
His cross. His manhood. His violence. Guilt. Sin.
He would nail my body upon his cross
As if I might have waited for him in the garden
As if I might have perfumed His body
Washed those bloody feet
This woman that he seeks
Suicide visionary. Death reveller. Rake. Rapist.
Gravedigger. Earthmover. Lifefucker. Jesu.
You scooped the pits of Auschwitz
The soil of Treblinka is rich in your guilt
The sorrow of your tradition
Your stupid humility is the crown of thorn we all must wear.
For you. Ha. Master. Master of gore. Enigma. Stigma. Stigmata. Errata. Eraser.
The cross is the mast of our oppression.
You fly there, vain flag.
You carry it, wear it on your back, Lord. Your back.
Enola is your gaiety.
Suffer little children (to come unto me)
Suffer in that horror. Hirohorror. Hirrohiro. Hiroshimmer. Shimmerhiro.
Hiroshima. Hiroshima. Hiroshima. Hiroshima.
The bodies are your delight
The incandescent flame is the spirit of it
They come to you Jesu. To you
The nails are the only trinity
Hold them in your corpsey gracelessness
The image that I have had to suffer
These nails at my temple
The cross is the virgin body of womanhood
That you defile
In your guilt you turn your back
Nailed to that body
Lame-arse Jesus calls me sister
There are no words for my contempt
Every woman is a cross in filthy theology
He turns His back on me in His fear
His vain delight is that pain I bear
Alone He hangs. His choice. His choice
Alone. Alone. His voice. His voice
He shares nothing, this Christ
Sterile. Impotent. Fucklove prophet of death
He's the ultimate pornography
He. He. Hear us Jesus
You sigh alone in your cockfear
You lie alone in your cuntfear.
You cry alone in your womanfear.
You die alone in your manfear.
Alone Jesu, alone
In your cockfear. Cuntfear. Womanfear. Manfear.
Alone in your fear. Alone in your fear. Alone in your fear.
Your fear. Your fear. Your fear. Your fear. Your fear. Your fear. Your fear.
Warfare. Warfare. Warfare. Warfare. Warfare.
Jesus died for his own sins. Not mine.

http://www.verylonglink.com


A light hearted little ditty!

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

Comment #160699 by sbooder on April 14, 2008 at 9:45 am

Ah, that one.

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

Comment #160465 by sbooder on April 14, 2008 at 6:09 am

How does an anarchist band ever agree when to rehearse?

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

Comment #160444 by sbooder on April 14, 2008 at 5:33 am

Thought I had better clarify "crass poster" from my

Comment #160434


CRASS were an anarchist band from the 70s & 80.

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

Comment #160434 by sbooder on April 14, 2008 at 5:10 am

"But now we're all supposed to travel light, be supple, so that we can swap jobs, partners or political allegiances at a moment's notice"

What utter rubbish.

I have never travelled light.

I have the same political beliefs I have had since I was 12 years of age (even at that age I was suspended from school for having a crass poster* above my bed in my school dorm).

I love art (Magritte is THE MAN!), I play classical guitar and I have a beautiful wife which I have no intension of swapping!


Idiot!!


* It was the bloody revolutions single poster if anyone was wondering, that should also tell you how long I have been an atheist, if you know the poster,

11. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #158176 by sbooder on April 10, 2008 at 7:14 am

Over the last two days I have watched the Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby, and listened to The books that inspire me.

How refreshing it is to get to hear RD in a relaxed environment. I always feel frustrated for RD and any other Atheist when they are either being drowned out buy jeers and shouts from an audience, or are being talked over by both interviewer and fellow guests on the same show.

It dose seem pretty clear that most people could live without god if science could give them the answer to the one question that scares them the most WHY? by which I mean why are we here?

This is a question that I doubt very much science will ever answer, mainly because I do not think there is a reason why, just a reason how, that is the most exiting question, HOW?...if only people would ask how instead of why, they may begin to try and find out for themselves how and advance science.

The other point that I am glad RD dismissed, was the question about the need for a secular church (for want of a better phrase).

I have noticed of late a new tack by people of faith, and that is calling anyone who is an atheist; part of the atheist community (some atheist say this as well), this is I think dangerous.

The strength of being an atheist as I see it is my individuality, I am guessing that my politics vary greatly from others on this forum and from other atheists world wide.

The only thing as atheist that we should show to have in common is our lack of any religious doctrine.

There is a quote that RD uses a lot which is: Trying to organise atheists is like trying to herd cats. In my mind that is a good thing. As soon as you start to group to closely together religious groups will need little encouragement to call atheists part of an atheist cult, then the media will follow and soon it will be in general use.

I know many of you will disagree with me, and that can only be a good thing.

12. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97019 by sbooder on December 11, 2007 at 9:37 am

Why do people Father Jonathan Morris being an example talk about atheism as if it were a belief and that people who do not believe in god are members of some sort of sect.

I have no more in common with atheists than I do with people of religious belief. Socially and politically I am as unlike any atheist I know. So any tyrant or genocide maniac who dose not believe in god you want use as some sort of justification for religious genocide, please remember, they have nothing to do with me what so ever.

13. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83161 by sbooder on October 29, 2007 at 5:43 am

I just like giving up my seat for an old lady on a bus! You can keep you're in depth analysis of the decision... I am still an atheist and proud of it.

14. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75897 by sbooder on October 4, 2007 at 2:10 am

Hi All,
like most of you I agree with Sam Harris about the labelling bit. But I have difficulty with the whole transcendental thing.

The one point that Sam Harris misses out in this argument is that the human brain was not always capable of rational thought and reasoning or even the hope that there is a better or more peaceful state of mind, The human brain evolved like every thing else living, and to think that as it evolved it gained spiritual applications that did not exist before is a little naive.

Cows do not get board in a field because that have no concept of anything better or different, we do, so these little stabs at seeking temporary pleasure are nothing more than occupying a brain that needs stimulation, that fact the things we seek are pleasurable or linked with happiness is nothing more than; we prefer pleasure to pain, and has nothing to do with reaching fulfilment.

There is also a paradox in enlightenment on a transcendental level. People who have professed to finding it always go and tell this fact to loads of other people…Why?

Is it because they want everyone to get to this place? No, because if they got to this place they would have no need for every day interaction and would realise that this interaction would break the spell. No, the reason is that they go back to square one and need to have the same as the rest of us, and tell about their journey to get the buzz of others thinking that they are somehow better or some sort of guru. And it also kills the boredom they have just created by sitting in a cave or under a bloody tree for ten years.

I am afraid that Sam Harris has fallen into the trap of believing that life has some purpose or it is some sort of journey, the end of which has a goal.

15. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69875 by sbooder on September 13, 2007 at 3:43 am

I do not think I have laughed so much at an interview, come 40 odd minutes into the discussion, McGrath is all over the place. One moment God intervenes and then he doesn't because he is not a nanny god, and the funniest thing of all is that McGrath himself just can not see the hypocrisy and contradiction in his argument; which happens to be holeyer than he is.

16. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64816 by sbooder on August 22, 2007 at 1:27 am

When will people understand that Joseph Stalin (who seems to be the one every believer brings up as did Stephen Prothero) did nothing in the name of atheism, he did what he did because he was a twat!

17. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58763 by sbooder on July 26, 2007 at 4:07 am

Well Mr Chris Hedges,
if you really think that Christopher Hitchens, is generalising religion, and lumping you all together, both extremists and moderates, then he is doing no more than any of us atheists...So the message to you is: "if you do not want to be herded with the extremists, then; as the saying goes 'clean up your own house'

18. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58534 by sbooder on July 25, 2007 at 6:18 am

I know that you all could see through the inane questioning by Stephen Sackur during this interview, but watch the interviewed again from the prospective of, lets say an agnostic.

You will find RD wanting at critical points, not that he actually is wanting but, Stephen Sackur is using very well known and very sly journalistic techniques

For a start he has done some research, but this research is more to do with how other people have interviewed RD and he has altered the questions just enough (remember you are viewing as an agnostic) to make RD try and mentally re-evaluate his response, thus putting him at an immediate disadvantage. Once this plan has worked, Stephen Sackur then implements his next technique, interruption...but not just any interruption, but goal post moving.

What is goal post moving, well he firsts asks a question, and about 10 to 15 words into the response the interviewer interrupts and adds an extra element, and in this case Stephen Sackur adds quotations by others. This is very cleaver because it diverts RD to a place where the mind has to alter from the initial argument, which in turn makes the response very inarticulate.

I am sorry to say that RD fell for it. This is something that you will not see CH falling for, because of his journalist passed.

I know many of you may disagree, but it is what happened. RD dose not often lose a round, but I think (outside of the atheist community) he lost this one.

19. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58212 by sbooder on July 24, 2007 at 3:11 am

semantics.

any statement that has opposing views is automatically a question.

20. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58210 by sbooder on July 24, 2007 at 3:03 am

"Homosexuality, though natural, should be banned because it spreads disease so effectively"


That Sir is a loaded question.

If I play devils advocate here for a second.

If anyone takes up an argument, they first have to agree on the question to be argued.

So if I agree to argue the point I would be agreeing to argue the point with the phrase "though natural" which would leave me as the arguer nowhere to go, because soon as I said yes that is correct Homosexuality, though natural, should be banned because it spreads disease so effectively, your reply will be, is not heterosexuality natural and is it not just as effective at spreading disease.

In the real world (and let me state this is in no way my own proclivity) is it true that most of the homophobic arguments are based on its unnaturalness, and therefore are you not immediately loading the question to suit your own ends.

21. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58204 by sbooder on July 24, 2007 at 2:30 am

"37. Comment #58198 by Bonzai on July 24, 2007 at 2:17 am"

Mr Bonzai,
Hear hear!

22. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58193 by sbooder on July 24, 2007 at 1:30 am

steve99
"The problem is that, no matter what the context, this question stands out as one that can pretty easily be answered: to a reasonable degree of certainty - no!"

On what evidence is that statement based?

23. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58192 by sbooder on July 24, 2007 at 1:28 am

This is probably on the place of this discussion to prevail but I will say this and maybe start a new topic on this point alone.

Powell was only correct by default. His Rivers of Blood speech; which is what I think jonecc is referring to, was based on a purely race bases and not religion.

The late 80's and early 90's started to prove Powell wrong, with the growth in the youth ideal of a multi cultured society, where fashion comedy and music were the social desires of the young.

But then in the late 90,s and into the 21st Century; Islamic Jihaad reared its ugly head, this changed the whole social landscape in Britain and has brought about segregation to an extent that has not been seen since the early 1900's when in cities like Liverpool and Newcastle; Protestant and Catholic divides brought about pitch battles on the streets on St Patrick's Day each year by Irish immigrants. This however was harder to recognise before the event because they were of the same race. The problem today is more explosive because Islamic believers be them Jihaad or not are predominantly of Asian extraction, and the sorry fact is; we tent to work on a visual bases and not one based on knowledge or understanding.

24. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58184 by sbooder on July 23, 2007 at 11:54 pm

I think some of you better read the article again because you seem to have missed the point.

The questions at the beginning of the article are not the authors stand point, but devices meant to illustrate the premise of the article.

Take the Homosexual question (which you all seem to have picked on). The author is not saying that homosexuality is caused by disease, but rather if someone comes up with the question is homosexuality caused by disease should it be dismissed just because our knee jerk reaction is governed by a moral sense of outrage at the very question its self, or should we give air and time to address the question, no matter how abhorrent we might think it to be; on the bases that addressing the question may; no matter how ugly it may be, found to be true ( and no I am not saying it is true), but should we ignore questions just because we do not like them?

25. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58008 by sbooder on July 23, 2007 at 1:08 am

I love the way in part three that he uses language to interpret Genesis as he feels he wants it to be... and then says at the end of that bit, "this dose not mean I can make it mean what I want it to mean"...you just did.

26. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57603 by sbooder on July 20, 2007 at 5:52 am

Mr Kleiman,
ignorance of Atomic Theory of Matter can be fixed by learning about Atomic Theory. Ignorance about a God; be it personal, metaphorical, metaphysical or a Darlek, can not be fixed by learning about it, it would still be nonsense.

You would be no closer to making Sherlock Holmes a real person by knowing lots about him, than if you new little about him, he will remain fictional no matter what, and so will God!

Let me explain it in really simple terms: Science – Real. God – Not Real.

27. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57236 by sbooder on July 18, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Masterful!

28. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #56994 by sbooder on July 18, 2007 at 4:40 am

Francis Collins leapt from the Evidence of Science to god in one sentence...that is utter madness!

You can not have a half evidential view and a half belief in faith. This is dangerous as a scientist. If you go down that path, how long before you ignore evidence that does not fit your faith?

Please tell me, at what point you as a scientist, turn your back on evidence. Surly as a Scientist who accepts evidence you should be out there trying to prove the existence of god, if however you were confronted by your own mortality when surrounded by dying patients and you could not deal with it and needed a cense of ever lasting life, then please have the bottle to admit it.

29. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56993 by sbooder on July 18, 2007 at 4:37 am

I agree with the first post by marcdesm, that CH is hard to follow. I found RD's TGD, very easy to read and CH's God is not Great very difficult. I have noticed that CH writes as he speaks which is why it is difficult to follow. But he dose pack a verbal punch, good on you CH.