Comments by D'Arcy

451. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127459 by D'Arcy on February 15, 2008 at 10:08 am

Hang out the Bunting. Really she had nothing to say of any significance. To her there are so many levels of "truth", that simplicity insults her intellect. E.g. stony silence when asked if she believed in the virgin birth.

Richard was right when he said that she was interested in human beings, but that he was interested in the truth. Being an intellectual, Bunting may not agree with everything the Pope says, but by the constraints of her own faith she is bound by papal proclamations. Non believers have no such constraints, we assess the evidence, then decide.

Whilst my avatar is similar to FSM Teapot's (26 above), and I agree with the comments he/she posted, I must point out that I am indeed a different person.

452. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126998 by D'Arcy on February 14, 2008 at 3:52 pm

453. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126869 by D'Arcy on February 14, 2008 at 11:28 am

Any self respecting poltergeist should be ashamed of itself by being chased away by a bit of salt a charlatan and for £60.00!

If I was a poltergeist I would make the exorcist actually work for its money, scaring them more than the usual inhabitants! Objects would be appearing from all parts of the universe and doing all kinds of nasty things. Any exorcist appearing with a crucifix would be treated with special vehemence. Ectoplasmic frenzy would explode in their faces whilst I chuckled loudly.

£60.00 ... huh! Cheapskate ghost!

454. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126755 by D'Arcy on February 14, 2008 at 6:48 am

F words for our friend wooter:

Sir, Madam, you are fractally false!

455. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126547 by D'Arcy on February 13, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Is a half-man/half monkey possible or desirable?

I am not a scientist so I don't know if it's ever possible, but it's certainly not possible given the current state of scientific knowledge (and technology).

"desirable" is an emotive word and so evokes emotive responses. Would our chimera have the top of Marilyn Monroe and the bottom of King Cong? I don't know.

I suggest to krisking that he/she re-reads the Guardian supplement about Darwin and takes on board the fact that even in Darwin's day it was appreciated that long periods of time were needed for the observed changes to have happened.

Bye bye Bible. It ain't necessarily so!

456. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124950 by D'Arcy on February 10, 2008 at 1:20 pm

I'm quite sure that "given enough time", Islam will be tamed by modern capitalism in much the same way that Christianity was. (Christian values: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If your eye offend you pluck it out, same with the arm).

The Saudi state may well be propagating "fundamental" Islam, but it is doing so precisely because it wants to keep itself in power (forever if possible). Religion has long been used as a force for oppression.

In Britain the Labour government has been in favour of "faith" schools not because of the particular flavour of the faith, but because they seemingly provide low cost social control. If people behave themselves because their religion has taught them that way, then it must save the state millions on extra police, courts, prisons etc. to coercively enforce the law.

Rowan Williams has lived up to the name of his position, the Archbishop of Cant.

457. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124927 by D'Arcy on February 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Dodger's profound observation:

Precisely the same comment could be made of the blinkered souls who remain unconditionally welded/wedded to natural selection as an omni-explanatory paradigm.

Michael Behe, yes he of the Dover trial and author of "irreducible complexity", is a professor of biology at Lehigh University. His department has this to say about his views:

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic

I wonder just who is wearing the blinkers?

458. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124494 by D'Arcy on February 9, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Dodger, 83 above, asks if belief in a religion means a lower level of culture. Allow me to reframe the question: If a religion is stating things which are unprovable, highly unlikely and contrary to all observations, are its believers in a disadvantaged position as regards to science?
IMO a resounding YES!

Apart from Darwin and Wallace, there were other discoveries going on in the 19th century being made by Christians, which provided evidence of an Earth that was far older than what the Bible had stated. Some of the Christians were at least honest enough to admit that the external evidence had altered their literal view of the Bible. Modern creationists at least have the evidence available to them, they just choose to ignore or distort it.

459. The Passion of 'Anonymous'

Comment #124396 by D'Arcy on February 9, 2008 at 10:47 am

Thetans were supposedly released into the atmosphere nearly 100 million years ago, when a galactic tyrant named Xenu exiled billions of beings to Earth's volcanoes and had them vaporized by bombs. All of this is according to Scientology's origin myth, which church officials have previously struggled to keep private and now no longer claim to espouse.

I wonder if the billions of beings exiled to Earth's volcanoes, by Xenu could possibly share the same volcano as John Frum? There could be a conflict of deities here.

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=788

460. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124381 by D'Arcy on February 9, 2008 at 9:40 am

jimbob, thanks for your post 61 above. This is exactly how the internet should be used; for the dissemination of information. I've known for a long time that Darwin's Christianity "drifted" away from him. I'm not sure how I knew it, but to have the actual words of Darwin and the source put in front of me certainly speeds up the process of investigation.

I know the whole of Darwin's works can now be read online, but it doesn't half help if you get a pointer. Cheers!

461. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124153 by D'Arcy on February 8, 2008 at 1:51 pm

"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear of a snake." (pp. 77-78).

jimbob, what a great quote! Not only do we have the cultural indoctrination of children into belief, but also the "instinctive fear of the snake". Eve should really have been better primed to resist!

462. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124113 by D'Arcy on February 8, 2008 at 11:49 am

A good article, and I will probably buy tomorrow's (Saturday) Guardian for the freebie. Like Lyell, Hutton and Rev. Buckland in the field of geology, Darwin was a Christian for a significant period of his life. The death of his daughter didn't help reinforce his belief and together with what he and Wallace had discovered (independently), undoubtedly turned him away from his religion. Like Darwin, the early geologists were reluctant to come to conclusions that varied with what was written in the Bible. The empirical observations forced a change of mind upon these people.

IMO Darwin's great discovery was that things have changed, change, and will change in the future, and not in a random manner. "Given enough time" I hope the creationists will come to understand the enormity of Darwin's ideas.

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

Comment #122060 by D'Arcy on February 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm

The so-called "Discovery Institute", for which Dr. Simmons works is but a paid agent for creationism. It has discovered nothing of use to the human race, but merely exists to give credence to ideas like "teach the controversy", "evolution is only a theory", etc. by using its well known "wedge" tactic.

Those fundamental Christian bloodsuckers, having no ideas of their own to put forward, apart from a magical explanation of nature, resort to picking what they see as holes in a very well established scientific theory.

As Meyers said, Simmons did not put forward his own point of view, but instead chose to play to the Christian gallery, and in the process exposed his own ignorance.

Science will sort these bastards out.

464. God the psycho

Comment #121504 by D'Arcy on February 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Good stuff Pat. See you at Milliways, where we will await the great Prophet Zarquon!

465. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #121474 by D'Arcy on February 3, 2008 at 1:12 pm

But how then does the soul inherit original sin?

My advice to Cartomancer, fwiw, is to avoid such theological questions altogether. First let them show us their God, then we can argue about souls. So far the religios have not succeeded in providing evidence of their supreme being, and they probably never will.

466. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120707 by D'Arcy on February 2, 2008 at 11:05 am

You wonder whose human dignity has been shattered by physical and mental bullying carried out by Catholic representatives, including nuns. Let alone the sexual abuse of children.

Also you wonder about those ?40 odd million people in Africa, whose Catholic representatives preach against the use of condoms, and who are now HIV positive. How much dignity does someone dying of AIDs have? The fact that the Pope, who by definition is and has always been celibate, can Pontificate about other people's sexual behaviour would be funny if it weren't so serious.

467. Belief in Belief

Comment #119255 by D'Arcy on January 31, 2008 at 12:33 pm

"Belief in belief" seems to me to be the same thing as "delusion", both self and group type. If you're bankrupt of ideas that explain reality, then resort to the supernatural explanation, (say no more, nudge nudge, wink wink!)

468. The Repeater

Comment #119240 by D'Arcy on January 31, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Come to think of it, since the flood was after creation, how are there any freshwater creatures at all? They'd have all been killed by exposure to salt water, unless Noah had the foresight to build in a lot of little (and separate) aquaria, we gotta keep all those little fishies in their own waters, so they don't get mixed up. Then you have to desalinate all the lakes they are destined to, and walk them all back. Would have been a real bitch of a job, keeping each varaint of stickleback labelled by lake number.

And what about all those snails from Australia? How did they make it to the Ark on time, and how did they get there? Land snails hate salt water.

Whilst the details of evolution continue to be debated in the scientific community, we of the onlookers can be reasonably happy to dismiss creationist nonsense like Noah's flood, without further analysis.

469. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #118172 by D'Arcy on January 30, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Many Christians and Muslims are going to squirm uncomfortably

What a nice thought. These would-be thought control police would love to have blind obedience, literally people on their knees. The trouble, from their viewpoint, is that new knowledge keeps undermining their position.

470. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #118149 by D'Arcy on January 30, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Hmmm? John Cleese only at 37? I shall have to report this back to the Ministry of Silly Walks. The Spanish Inquisition may have interefered with this poll.

471. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117723 by D'Arcy on January 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm

atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own.

Ignoramuses of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains. You have a world to gain!
Apologies to Marx and Engels. Change "ignoramuses" to "workers" and you have the last words of the Communist Manifesto. Pissquick Christians like Day, really have nothing to teach me about the universe. Whilst Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto advocated the abolition of buying and selling, this charlatan is only interested in the selling.

472. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117655 by D'Arcy on January 29, 2008 at 10:09 am

I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.

Whilst the supposed almighty can no doubt look after Himself, what about His creation? If He's there, (which He ain't), humanity could do with some help. Fat chance! Useless bastard of a deity!

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp

Click on link to Causes of Poverty

473. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #117292 by D'Arcy on January 28, 2008 at 2:18 pm

I, for one, would be very interested to know what, if anything, the religious luminaries of this world, like the pope, have to say about such experiments. Hopefully they will keep their mouths shut.

Most likely (the wise ones) will make remarks about science shining light on God's creation. The not so wise ones will make remarks about godless and arrogant scientists trying to claim divine powers for themselves.

I will of course be watching the science far more closely than the pronouncements of those with knowledge "transcending" mere science, it's just when these theological "experts" interefere with the real observation of the universe, they make me angry. Religios have nothing to contribute except ignorance.

474. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116826 by D'Arcy on January 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Like many, I'm not up to the mathematics when it comes to string theory, inflation or just plain relativity. However, unlike the religious, we of the scientific congregation have every avenue to question and doubt the "truths" offered us by science.

Personally, I'm not very happy with "multiverses", more than 3D + time, or the fact that an electron goes through two slits instead of one. Feynman said something like "nobody understands quantum physics".

As long as modern science is rigorously peer reviewed and subjected to experimental tests, then we must regard it as the best available explanation.

We can be sure that there will be no shortage of words emanating from the various theological experts around the world, if the LHC drives yet another nail into the coffin of the divine explanation of the universe.

475. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116460 by D'Arcy on January 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Great stuff! I'm always in favour of increasing humanity's knowledge. SteveZ says this may not give us the TOE (Theory of Everything) and he's probably right. But as sure as shit stinks (can't get more scientific than that), this LHC will come out with some scientific advances that hadn't been thought of. Higgs may be who they are looking for, but it could be D'Souza who turns up!

The whole subject reminds me of a cheesy joke for which I apologise in advance to our north American friends in particular, and to all others.

What do you call a female who likes to party and is in the crew of a nuclear submarine?

A subatomic party girl!

Higgs could have been the boson, but Heisenberg, the first mate was uncertain about it.

476. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116114 by D'Arcy on January 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm

This video reminded me that just a few days ago, I went to see Spamalot. Now I know what I will do on my deathbed. I will make sure that when I "go" , I will have a good supply of Holy Hand Grenades with me. Should rip a few wings of those angels!

477. Banned From Church

Comment #115595 by D'Arcy on January 24, 2008 at 11:33 am

This Pastor Jason Burrick has obviously been born into the wrong century. He would have made an admirable Inquisitor for the Catholics. This guy may have increased the congregation from 12 to 70, but even so the money from the collection would seem to be small fry. Still the fact he is resisting any enquiry into church funds, suggests to me that there may be something to hide. Either that or the sense of power has interfered with his judgment as a human being.

As for Mrs. Caskey, well what else comes to mind but silly old bat.

None of the above comments relates to any persons alive. It is "just a story", right?

478. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114632 by D'Arcy on January 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm

How about one of God designing some lethal bacterium, with Behe, Ham et al looking on adoringly.

479. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #113106 by D'Arcy on January 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Well this rodent may not have been the designer of the Ferrari, but did it have to do battle with Argentinasaurus, bigger than T. Rex by far? Probably not, because of a time span of some 55 million years. Never mind, more gaps in the fossil record for Creationosaurus to fall into.

480. The Mind of the Market

Comment #113083 by D'Arcy on January 18, 2008 at 2:25 pm

We came close to removing polio from the world. Religion has blocked that.

Steve is dead right on this. Religious bigotry of the worst kind, ( in this case muslim based), fucked up the WHO's programme of innoculation with their witch doctory. No doubt they intend to fight polio with condoms or spears.

481. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #113065 by D'Arcy on January 18, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Well, as I am clearly partially to blame, I feel I should apologise.

Steve, please don't feel obliged to apologise for the Bishop of Carlisle and his absurd ideas.

As for all this freakin rain, Yeah, it's all your fault Steve. How do you mangage it? There's a fortune to be made in places like Australia and California! Have a word with Arnie and see if you can't get paid for it.

482. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #113049 by D'Arcy on January 18, 2008 at 1:57 pm

VivaCriticalThinking poses the question:

This is why I believe we should shift our focus from one of certainty against the existence of a creator (i.e. atheism), to certainy that all earth religions have no link to a supernatural creator, even if one exists (areligionism?).

My own point of view is that taken by the French mathematician and scientist Laplace, on being asked by Napoleon where God appeared in his cosmology, responded: "God? I have no need of this hypothesis".

We don't have to disprove God, it's an idea whose usefulness is finished. We don't have to take "God" into account.

483. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #113043 by D'Arcy on January 18, 2008 at 1:47 pm

It looks like parts of England are in for heavy flooding again. Can I make an early re-nomination of the Bishop Of Carlisle for the 2008 Bad Faith award, assuming he hasn't changed his mind in the last 12 months.

All that sin and all that water, well, have we learnt nothing since Noah's time?

484. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #113028 by D'Arcy on January 18, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Genesis started on 22 February 4022 BC not the totally wrong date 4004 BC. This shows that Texas desperately needs a Genesis Creationist school to avoid this misunderstandings.

Surely Roland_F is not arguing against the date set by the great Bishop Ussher of Armagh? 9 am 3rd October 4004 bc (adjusted by the great Sir James Lightfoot)? Some heretics have suggested 23rd October, and Roland_F places himself out of eccesiatical court altogether with his suggested 22nd February 4022 bc.

Yes perhaps Roland has a point. In the spirit of scientific discovery, all these dates should be assumed to be wrong until there is evidence to the contrary. "Evidence" presented by cosmologists, biologists, geologists, physicists, astronomers, chemists and any other ...ists will of course be discounted because of the inherent bias these people have in proving the word of the Lord to be false.

485. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112581 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 1:45 pm

For further info about the relative abundance of elements in the Earth's crust and life see

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/tables/elabund.html

486. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112569 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 1:33 pm

You know, he's got a point. Believing that God took a handful of dust and breathed life into it is WAY more reasonable than just saying "We don't know yet"

Unfortunately, from the biblical point of view, the elements in the human body are somewhat different from those found in the Earth's crust.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

487. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112564 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Does Stein think that he has expelled Darwin from science? Whilst modern economists have ideas that equate with those of the theologians, full of mysticism, lacking accurate predictions, and of little use to humanity, they serve the purpose of not letting the dog see the rabbit.

Keep people's mind confused, and they will put up with all kinds of poison, especially if they think the real show is in the next life.

488. Questions Delay Creationist Master's Degrees

Comment #112552 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Oh dear! Is Texas really going to teach that the Earth was created in October 4004 bc. Not only that, but it will also be "scientific", as approved by the relevent authorities.

Surely there must enough guns in Texas to shoot this one down?

489. Canadian fossil makes waves in Huckabee's presidential run

Comment #112531 by D'Arcy on January 17, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I think OrbitalMike has it exactly right:

"We are all star stuff."

Our sun is an "ordinary" yellow star, and during its active period of about 10 billion years, it will burn up its own nuclear fuel and in the process create other elements up to those as heavy as iron.

To create the heavier elements such as uranium, we need bigger and shorter lifespan stars, which live stellar life in the fast lane, and due to their own mass and therefore instability, burn up their fuel quicker and explode as supa novas, thereby seeding the heavier elements into the surrounding universe. It is thought that our sun is at least a 2nd if not 3rd generation star. This all needs a lot of time. We can be sure that our sun by itself has no chance of producing the heavier elements found on Earth, and some of which are found in our bodies. So yes we are all made of star dust, including Mr. Huckabee.

For the moment ignore evolution, any person who is not aware of the evidence for a very old universe and slightly younger Earth, is in desperate need of enlightenment.

490. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112209 by D'Arcy on January 16, 2008 at 3:09 pm

The frontrunner in any bad faith competition must surely be the pope. Protests by academics , students and others have made the pope call off his visit to La Sapienza University to speak, (due Thurs 17 Jan 08). The pope is quoted as saying:

"At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason
than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just".
~ Joseph Ratzinger.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/15/2139155.htm?section=world

491. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112197 by D'Arcy on January 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Remember, "Followers are always crazier than the leaders".

A king would not be a king unless his loyal subjects accepted him as such. As to who is the president of Kenya, I wouldn't dare to say.

Those who want leaders can and do have them. I would prefer a world without leaders, especially ones with deadly weaponry and ideas based on ignorance.

492. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112171 by D'Arcy on January 16, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Dawkins has his "fleas" and the rest of have the self confessed mosquito D'Souza, (see debate with Hitchens). This particular bloodsucker will probably glory in being given this award, but then what else is a religious propagandist to do?

Religion being based on ignorance of the real world, and bugger-all evidence, has to resort to the "spiritual", "transcendent", "mystical"....(insert your own words), and eventually "divine" explanation of nature.

In this real world, like everyone else, D'Souza has had to make a living, and for him the choice has been to make money out of religion as one of its "celebrity" spokespersons.

A man who claims that science is based on faith has no respect from me.

493. The Mind of the Market

Comment #111421 by D'Arcy on January 14, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Sorry my link above didn't work. I must learn how to do links properly.

The article is there on the Health care in the United Staes page.

494. The Mind of the Market

Comment #111417 by D'Arcy on January 14, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Al rwandi and D'Arcy: "Poor" people in the USA are living in relative opulence compared to "poor" people in other parts of the world.

Yes I know, in fact I said so myself.

Also, please remember Hillary Clinton is running for US President and is married to, and part of, an Olympic Class propaganda operation called Clinton, Inc.. Taking anything this woman says at face value is setting yourself up for a large toll bridge purchase in San Francisco.

When I said that Clinton had claimed there were something 47 million Americans too poor to afford health insurance, I also said there are other sources for this statistic. You could have a look at the wikipedia article which gives the same figure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Are you saying the figure is false?

And this notion of yours regarding the select "few" owning all the jobs and means of production is bovine exhaust!

The point I was making was that the ownership of the means of life are very much concentrated into the hands of small minority of the population. Now JDAM may think that's bullshit, but it is a fact. Most people spend their working lives employed by someone else. In other words thay are dependent upon someone else's ownership of something (eg. company, corporation etc.), for them to be able to earn a living.

It's all very well arguing that the poor can bootstrap themselves out of poverty, but if they cannot be employed profitably, then they won't be employed at all. Again to look at the USA, although it's true everywhere else, the 7.7 million unemployed don't get access to the labour market. And you mustn't question the mighty Market forces, must you?

495. The Mind of the Market

Comment #110765 by D'Arcy on January 12, 2008 at 10:43 am

Let me try to make my position clear. My original post equated the view of modern economists to that of the Christians, by their unquestioning acceptance of capitalism as the final and best result of human society.

What is capitalism? IMO it is a system where a privileleged minority of the population own and control the means of life, e.g. factories, offices, land, mines, transport etc.etc. The majority of people have to work for these owners for a wage or salary precisely because they do not own the said factories, etc. In Europe at least capitalism developed within the then existing feudal system.

Before things can be exchanged in a market, they must first be produced by human labour plus materials. However within capitalism, the driving motive of production is the realisation of profit, not the satisfaction of human needs.

I am well aware that people are better off in the advanced countries than in say the African countries, and that generally people don't starve in the USA, Europe and other more advanced places. However well paid the workers in these countries, it does not alter their relationship to the means of living which continue to be owned by a privileged class and used for the making of profit.

Where does capitalism exist? IMO in all countries of the world, including the so-called communist or socialist ones. All governments, including the US one, have varying degrees of ownership in the national economy. In Britain, when the coal mines and railways were nationalised in the late 1940s, the Labour Party supporters used to claim that they "now belong to us". The reality was of course that the workers in these industries still had to work for wages and struggle for better conditions as they had had to before, and the industries were still required to run at a profit.

The fact that a government takes over a particular industry does not mean that it is no longer privately owned. Nationalisation is no more socialism than than chalk is cheese. The workers in Russia who worked for wages under the tsars, still worked for wages under the USSR, and continue to do so under Putin. China, with its Communist Party dictatorship is perhaps the most blatant example of rampant capitalism at the moment.

The point of socialism is that the means of life should be owned by all humanity and used for the satisfaction of human needs. I know this a far cry from the current situation, but as I said in my original post, things do change especially if people want them to and know what they are doing.

496. The Mind of the Market

Comment #110599 by D'Arcy on January 11, 2008 at 3:10 pm

D'arcy, if you despise capitalism so much and you think it truly is as dogmatic as religion than why do all countries who adopt it flourish while those who do not are left behind? I have never heard of a single economy that was not capitalist or mixed that succeeded.

Moderate Libertarian may think that 25,000 people a day dying of poverty related causes is the normal state of affairs. I disagree with that view. Hilary Clinton, and there are other sources, has been quoted as saying that something like 47 million Americans are too poor to afford health insurance (USA population about 300 million). Hardly a symptom of the flourishing wealth of capitalism.

The fact is that capitalism ensures inequality in whatever country it exists (all of them), whether it be Bangladesh, Russia, Cuba, UK, or the USA.

My point is that the market system of capitalism has outlived its usefulness. It is now positively harmful to the majority of humanity.

497. The Group Delusion

Comment #110589 by D'Arcy on January 11, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Perhaps a flea title book might be:

DAWKINSTEIN, CREATOR OF THE ALTRUISTIC PREDATOR!

(Mary Shelley would have me in chains, wishful thinking).

498. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110576 by D'Arcy on January 11, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Sean Carroll takes rather too many words to say what Laplace, the French scientist, said, when asked by Napolean where God fitted into his cosmology. Laplace's response was along the lines of: "God? I have no need of this hypothesis".

Exactly right! It's an idea that is uncalled for.

We non believers really don't have to chase all the will o' the wisps thrown up by the believers in their theological smokescreen. It's up to them to provide evidence for their beliefs.

499. The Group Delusion

Comment #110150 by D'Arcy on January 10, 2008 at 2:46 pm

The Daily Telegragh's editor may well think that "Evolutionists at war over altruism's origins", makes for good copy. The so-called "evolutionists" are in fact something like 95% of the scientific community.

There are endless rows among "evolutionists" about who or what and when came out of Africa some ?3 million years ago and gave rise to Homo Sapiens, and all admit that not enough hard information is yet available. However, as far as I'm aware, the consensus of science at the moment, is that human beings' ancestors did come out of Africa round about that time.

As long as The Daily Telegrapgh is not implying that the the theory of evolution is in any way under serious threat of being undermined, then let the scientific discussions continue as to the details of altruism.

Without knowing the specifics of Dawkins' dispute about altruism with the Wilsons, the nature of human beings necessitates that they live in societies and not as hermits in caves.

500. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110126 by D'Arcy on January 10, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Personally, I have much fun with any JW unfortunate enough to knock on my door. "Who was Cain's wife?" and "Will the lion's digestive system have evolved in heaven so that it can lie down with the lamb?" are among some of the thoughts I put to the faithful. Whilst empathising with those ex Christians (JWs) who have posted above, as a fellow human being, I can't help get angry about the social control used by such organisations. If their God is so all powerful as is claimed, why do they not rely on His actions to sort things out?

D'Arcy's short answer is that He ain't there and He can't sort anything out. It's all up to us humans.