451. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #131191 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 3:38 am

'*Not the rock climbing equipment website mentioned on the post above by AllanW! Sorry Allan'

My bad; a typo in a web address screws everything up :)

Good luck with this and let us know how you get on.

452. Fleabytes

Comment #131099 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:55 am

Bye bye Artful Dodger; you will not be missed. Having chosen self-imposed exile from this site, could you convince Robertson to do the same? For a supposedly banned poster he makes a lot of noise here.

Robertson; the fallacies in your approach and outright lies contained in your last post have been clearly exposed. The role you have chosen as 'martyr on the unbelievers altar' is self-chosen not imposed.

Face reality; post a response either here or linked here (there is no restriction on you doing that) or crawl back under your wee free rock.

453. Fleabytes

Comment #130807 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 10:06 am

Typical of Robertson; his position holds no water. He can already post here, he is not banned. He refuses to post a reply to Paulas commenst until the non-existant ban is lifted. He refuses to post anywhere else.

All in all it seems his reply is like his God; non-existant. He has the ability to reply but has just run away.

454. Fleabytes

Comment #130742 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 8:17 am

So the lies start already; as has been pointed out to you very clearly, you have not been banned. Write what you like on this account and see if it ends up in the alternative comment thread.

Not a good start from you. Trying to play the hurt and injured card and threatening to lie at your public appearances gives a poor impression.

455. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?

Comment #130698 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 7:07 am

Hello criminal, evangelical fundamentalist person :)

Which rock did you climb from under?

456. Fleabytes

Comment #130694 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 7:03 am

Good grief! A post whose tone is reasonable and promises rational argument; it can't possibly be true.

Upon second reading, there are enough indicators here to hazard a guess that Mr Robertson is just looking for a chance to launch his invective again in front of a far larger audience than is available to him now; for that reason alone I would vote no to unbanning him, if given the chance.

457. Fleabytes

Comment #130630 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 3:35 am

Good post Richard.

My reading of that section (and one I personally experienced over the last few years) is the "I didn't believe before but now I can better understand and justify my non-belief."

I think this is what Paula is alluding to here but am willing to be proven wrong :)

458. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #130614 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 2:04 am

TonyA; if this site had the equivalent of the Molly award as pharyngula does, my vote would be for that post. I don't know how long it took you or how you had to twist your mind to produce it but it was great; many thanks :)

459. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #130613 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 1:55 am

This is the message I sent PJG about the flyer for Preston; any comments welcome.

Appended below is the text I used for the flyers intended for Preston. I printed it on A4 sheets, landscape, 2 columns then folded it in half so it appeared as an A5 flyer (with the blank sides outermost) to appear as an order of service :)

I took the view that trying to rebutt the inane arguments these cranks use is too long a process and plays to their obfuscating strengths; rather I wanted to get a message to the congregation who attended. These people will be unscientific in outlook; scientific arguments will confuse rather than win the day. but everyone wants to be part of the majority so the text is meant to isolate the quacks like Ham; deliberately show with cool, calm facts that they are marginal scientists if at all and are peddling gobbledegook not science as assessed by the informed scientific and legal community.

I hope it is of use. Text follows;

Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.

UK Government: GUIDANCE ON THE PLACE OF CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE LESSONS

"Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. "

Council of Europe states must 'firmly oppose' the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline

Parliamentarians from the 47-nation Council of Europe have urged its member governments to "firmly oppose" the teaching of creationism ?quot; which denies the evolution of species through natural selection ?quot; as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution. In a resolution passed by 48 votes to 25 during its plenary session in Strasbourg, PACE declared: "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights."

Swedish Government bans Creationism

The Swedish government is to crack down on the role religion plays in independent faith schools. The new rules will include a ban on biology teachers teaching creationism or 'intelligent design' alongside evolution.
"Pupils must be protected from all forms of fundamentalism," said Education Minister Jan Björklund to Dagens Nyheter.

John E. Jones III, United States District Judge, a Christian, in Kitzmiller v Dover School Board.

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.

However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

To find out more facts please visit;

The British Council for Secular Education
(www.bcseweb.org.uk)

460. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130578 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 12:33 am

Still nothing more than air from the Bish, i see. No surprise here.

As for wooter; still marking as troll. Please do the same; you know it makes sense :)

461. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130420 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Yeh ...

That was the sum total of wisdom in your locker, Bish?

Lame lame lame.

Give it a rest and stop jerking our chains.

Marking as troll from now until he posts something substantive.

462. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130406 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Bot or berk he needs to post something substantive not just quote-mine and inflame. We're still waiting Bish; got anything?

463. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130400 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Sympathies now post something substantive; we're all holding our breath.

464. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130397 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Yeh, yeh Bish; go bash yourself. You might feel better.

Post something substantive.

465. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130393 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Guys, indulge yourselves if you want but this jerk is just pulling your wires. So far he has dropped a couple of verbal bombs, side-shifted the topic when pressed, refused to answer any direct question put to him, only contributed one-line ripostes and then eggs you on with specious, bullshit inanities (You are committed to not believing in God, so you do not see.).

Face it, he's a wind-up merchant, or troll in the common vernacular.

466. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130236 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 7:30 am

Ah! 'Peacemakers. I thought he said cheesemakers. Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

'Well obviously he's using a metaphor; it plainly refers to all workers of dairy products ..' etc

467. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130107 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 5:18 am

'Snowflakes speak for themselves.'

hahahahahahahahaha

468. Fleabytes

Comment #130069 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 2:57 am

Very well done, Paula. A great resource to use alongside the flea books to provide perspective. I echo all the congratulations here as well as being dumbfounded that you put yourself through the pain of reading that pile of excrement and then having the willpower to rip it apart; a genuine service to us all. Thanks.

469. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129465 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 7:04 am

Call me a cynic if you like but the funding source is significant here. The Templeton Foundation? Don't look for any results that categorically state a belief in God (which one? How many?) is not useful in some way.

Bah.

470. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129396 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 3:58 am

Ah! Thanks for the link; I always thought he was a nice, intelligent man as well as a terrific athlete. I'm glad he's repented of the dark side.

471. Atheists An Increasingly Outspoken Minority

Comment #129386 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 3:39 am

Erm Damian; Jonathan Edwards was the world TRIPLE-JUMP champion and world record holder. And I thought he was quite a devout Christian?

472. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #129359 by AllanW on February 19, 2008 at 2:40 am

'You guys are always so keen to prove what you can do physically'

As all the stuff we do metaphysically is not as impressive; see, metaphysically I just created a new universe out of bogies, you just can't see it.

You believe me don't you?

473. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128988 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm

WB Dr Benway :)

474. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128910 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 9:32 am

I feel old and grey :)

Shortcake or chocolate digestive?

475. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128906 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 9:21 am

Aw minhuna; don't feel bad.

Enlighten us with your dazzling insights and we'll try to lay off the verbal violence for awhile.

{puts feet up, brings cup of tea and packet of biscuits over to computer then stares at the screen ....}

476. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128845 by AllanW on February 18, 2008 at 4:49 am

I only come on these threads now to read and mark Wooter posts as troll afterwards.

477. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128125 by AllanW on February 16, 2008 at 9:06 am

Sent this to all 9 of my regional MEP's;

I would like to draw your attention to the following link concerning Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2269,Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-asks-for-protection,BBC

I am most concerned that she has to live in constant danger of losing her life and therefore urge the European Union to agree some form of protection to provide the kind of 24-hour security that she deserves.

It would also send out a very strong message to all religions that the European community finds the behaviour of her would-be assassins totally unacceptable and contrary to basic human rights.

If you have not already read her book 'Infidel', I would urge you to get a copy immediately. It gives a personal account of growing up as a Muslim woman and the events and experiences that made her decide to turn away from Islam.

We are all spending billions on security against terrorism; I'm sure some funding could be found to protect her.

Yours sincerely

Allan Wort

478. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127274 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 5:57 am

AllanW remonstrates with Quetz asserting that the cup of tea was intended for him!

479. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127256 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 5:29 am

AllanW also disputes the call of the play; I left in a minute and a huff :0

But agree with PhilG; all just PoMo guff.

480. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127239 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 4:52 am

Semantics and sophistry; no substance. Add this to shifting stance, moving goal-posts and you end up with a whirl or words that signify nothing.

481. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127219 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 4:07 am

Re; comment #127214

1. Good; so you accept the argument. Let's move on.
2. No; there is a difference between your ideas and you; read more carefully. I have analysed my thoughts; we're analysing yours, remember?
3. As posted, you shifted the goal-posts; use the examples in these posts and prove that the falsity (opposite) of the examples has value. Can't? I didn't think so.
4. 'is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of religion to keep society in order?' QED

Accepted; I will not call you mate again. However, who's descending to ad homs now? Won't your God chastise you for being a naughty boy?

482. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127208 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 3:38 am

No, Henri Bergson, you have not won or even retained your points so return to your original post is false.

1. Truth having a value. Read what I wrote as well as the other posters.

2. Ad homs; no contradiction from me, I'm afraid. I called your ideas post-modernist bullshit not you. You I called a fascist.

3. Falsity having a survival value; not accepted. The woefully weak examples you conjure for your argument are insipid. They do not demonstrate falsity just current religious memes. Address the examples I and other posters have raised and demonstrate the opposite is true. Typical attempt to shift here.

4. 'I never implied that order in society is a value.' Yes you did.

We can address any other points as you win the ones you started with, mate.

483. Why Darwin matters

Comment #127194 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 3:08 am

Man oh man; this guy has a serious God complex.

'Wooter, number one enemy,', 'He is extremely dangerous. You cannot handle with him alone.'

484. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127191 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 3:03 am

Re; comment #127179

Typical. A series of obfuscations and a call for downright tyranny.

I'll leave the more philosophically minded to take you seriously on the 'Can you prove that truth has a value?' question. I'm more mundane; it plainly has survival value to learn about germ theory and vaccination rather than 'it's the midichlorians' or 'spirits' that need exorcism.

'So does this theist-atheist battle simply come down to suppression of those that think differently?'. Not in my opinion; suppression has only ever been in one direction, my god-bothering friend, and reason has not been doing it. However your thought is based on more waffly, post-modern bullshit that all opinions are equally valid; they are not and can be demonstrated as such. In addition, the scientific approach is far more verifiable and concrete so preferable as a guide to living life in a real world.

'is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of religion to keep society in order? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of morality for the same purpose? Is it not preferable to uphold the falsity of equality? Of 'human rights' (they have no inherent truth)?

I had no idea you were such a fascist. To 'keep the order in society' has soooooo many false premises contained within it (there is no order, whatever order has been seen has never been universally applied, within any society that exhibits order there are margins at either extreme that disavow that order, the order that must be kept is the one I subscribe to as it's the best and I know more than you do about what's best for you etc etc).

As for the falsity of morality, falsity of equality and human rights; define your terms and demonstrate your views before attempting to bash anyone over the head with your rightfulness and truth.

485. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127108 by AllanW on February 15, 2008 at 12:35 am

Re; comment #127078 Teratornis

I like these comments. They're not without fault but I think they're valuable; they helped me bring into focus an aspect of religious mind-sets that was not clear.

'People only interpret ridicule as ridicule when it reminds them of things they see as flaws in themselves or others. We can ridicule religious people because they agree to feel ridiculed. They agree to feel ridiculed because they all understand on some level that it is ridiculous to believe in their fantastically detailed religious doctrines, while simultaneously disbelieving all the other equally fantastic doctrines of other religions, without one single shred of conclusive evidence to settle the issue.' I would add another factor to this; they feel equally exposed as they also accept many, many aspects of the real, observable, verifiable world as explained by science so this jump or leap to a faith-based idea of truth stands out in marked contrast.

I think these two factors explain a helluva lot of the anger we see generated by rational critics of religious beliefs. The key is that, apart from the extremely ignorant or stupid who can't, most believers can at some level understand the two flaws or pitfalls of their belief highlighted here. When they are brought explicitly to the surface we get the reactions we get.

486. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126954 by AllanW on February 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Interesting conversation.

The obvious flaws in Buntings performance were her tendency to butt in, her inability to listen to thoughts as a whole but just hear odd phrases, her lack of considered response (just an intuitive rather than judged comeback) and her breathy, excited delivery; staccato words tumbling over each other (which betrays a mind running straight through the tongue rather than the frontal cortex).

All of that is aside from her ill-considered position, of course. It was obvious that RD moved her position by argument from a combative adversary to a less confident, more agreeable and essentially docile end-point. She is by no means stupid (she has obviously read something at some time) but I think demonstrates a severe lack of critical thinking; she exhibits the typical non-scientists positivist approach ('oooh! That sound good, I'll believe that is a fact until someone presents something more sexy.') rather than thorough or deeply questioning.

RD was impressive again. Part of that is his willingness to depart from the deferential, academic etiquette of hearing the other person until they have finished on the occasions when he is interrupted; bravo. It's not bad manners to point out when the other person is exhibiting bad manners (to paraphrase :)).

And it was plain which of the contestants had spent far more time thinking and preparing their position for the debate and its implications.

Is this part of a series of debates on different topics or just a one-off; anybody know?

487. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125820 by AllanW on February 12, 2008 at 5:44 am

Happy Darwin Day everyone.

Love the cards, well done all.

488. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125390 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 9:59 am

Re; comment #125386 HughCaldwell

I'm close to calling this guy a troll. He has been prominent on this thread yet contributed nothing but air. Is he just stirring the pot, fence-sitting, stoking the fire or a genuine air-head?

He drops little bomb-messages every now and then but shifts his position at each new wind. He refuses to answer any of the challenges or questions posed him.

As I say, close to trolling for me but I'll hold on awhile.

489. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125346 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 9:05 am

'I'm having trouble figuring out what we mean by 'laws'.'

Lame, post-modernistic arse gravy; post your views.

490. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125342 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 9:01 am

Re; comment #125332 HughCalgwell
'This is a two-way process. The 'law of the land" is ever-changing.'

Of course; and your point is?

Or is this meant to suggest that you disagree with the good posts above defining and discussing multiculturalism?

Do you accept Quetz's point above?

491. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125262 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 6:36 am

As much as I'd love PZ to get some deserved recognition I'd have to back Krauss in that list. I don't know as much as I obviously should about Tyson but he seems to have some fans here.

492. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125256 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 6:31 am

Re; comment #125234

'In Western countries they are not going to be 'hunted down and killed' for doing this; or if they are their murders should be treated as such and their killers prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.'

yeh, Ian; that sounds great from societies point of view but not so good from the individual concerneds.

493. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125171 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 3:26 am

Excellent stuff; thanks.

This really should carry much more weight because it speaks from experience; it's what I have said many times, the oppressed minorities are the people to look towards for a judgement on Islam. It's too easy for white, male commentators to (quite wrongly in most instances) be branded as right-wing, post-colonial thugs so that the message gets diluted or lost. Ayaan Hirsi Ali et al who have experienced what Islam leads to are the ones to carry this debate.

More power to you Ms Alibhai-Brown.

494. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125160 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 3:17 am

I like this article; clear, factual, well-argued and points in the right direction.

Whether Williams stays or goes is a toss-up; he has 'pissed on his chips' as we say oop north and will never again be treated with any respect by much of the population.

Two things;

I hope this emboldens the second and third generation Muslim population to take control of their communities: the absence of integrated, westernized Muslims in positions of influence should finally have made them realise that they must clean the stables or be faced with more regrettable and unjust victimization by racists in this country.

And secondly I hope that the main secular lobbies really co-ordinate and press for change on the back of this. Blasphemy laws repealed, Hate laws immasculated, faith schools and academies opened to all or forcibly changed. I think disestablishment is maybe too far away but you never know.

495. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125151 by AllanW on February 11, 2008 at 3:02 am

I'd like to echo the praise for your work so far and express my delight that this retirement from your post will leave you freer to accomplish many more years of progress in the foundations you have established.

For me, the suggestions of Adam Hart-Davis and Bill Bryson fall within one section of the perceptive article we are posting about; they are popularizers not world-renowned experts. No criticism attaches to that only that it's clear they are not the sort of people Simonyi intended for the role.

I also agree that the excellent Steve Jones would not be too long in the role before facing a similar deadline. I was impressed by Dr Hugh Montgomery's presentation of the Christmas lectures this last year so maybe he is heading down this particular path.

I'm sure the committee have a number of excellent candidates in mind and will choose well.

496. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124980 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Ok we'll play it your way then.

Only idiots with prejudices demonise populations from limited data. Do you think you're going to stop that? Fuck me, are there some particularly stupid posters in here tonight, or what?

I understood your point; I just don't agree with it. You plainly think I'm dense because of that; more fool you.

497. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124974 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Re; comment #124961 Goldy

Good grief, Goldy!
'they are not really representative of the general Muslim population.'
'Have you not thought that this honour killing has been going on for years'

Man oh man, are you really saying that it's a non-issue because not all muslims are killing and that it's been going on for a long time anyway?

I'm sure you aren't but your point seems to be that it is demonising muslims; no, only in the same way that publishing burglary crime statistics demonises the whole population as in not at all; just the criminals.

498. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124931 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Come clean and say it plainly, D'Arcy, or not at all. What's your point?

499. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124926 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Re; comment #124902 scooternyc

Ok, thanks again. I think I get the personal responsibility angle here. To summarize; a person has to take responsibility for all of the consequences of their chosen actions.

And I'm getting the choices idea too; part of assessing which choices to make in life would be based upon the gradually increasing feedback from the rest of society that informs you about the consequences of whatever action you may be contemplating. Right?

So far we've only really pecked at the surface of the three areas we discussed awhile ago and I'm keen to see how it all fits together.

Onto the education ideas; I guess you envisage that formal education would incorporate these ideas but that these pragmatic guidelines would also be enshrined in the rules of society as well? To further clarify them, reinforce them and make them applicable universally? So what areas of law, institutions, etc would need to be adapted or changed wholesale to achieve this?

I hope we're getting closer to being able to understand the final area as well; how this would tie together and produce a better world. Any thoughts you want to share about that yet?

I'm enjoying this :)

500. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124898 by AllanW on February 10, 2008 at 11:59 am

I don't know anywhere near enough to answer in detail BaronOchs but some benefits are claimable as an individual and some as a member of a marriage or family.

Tax allowances, for example, may be claimed for being married. Family allowance has recently been changed but is still claimed, I think, by the wife on behalf of children. Sickness and invalidity benefits are normally claimed by the claimant but may be assessed in conjunction with other benefits that are mutual or tied to marital status.