451. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41093 by kaiserkriss on May 15, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I'd like to be there when he doesn't "wake up"in the presence of his "lord and savior" and realized he has wasted not only his own like, but contributed to his many followers doing the same..jcw

452. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40024 by kaiserkriss on May 12, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Ouch, that hurt. Our fundies on this program were all about smoke and mirrors and presentation, no substance (sheep dog??)
Do either have anything beyond a grade 3 level education? What schools lets these individuals graduate and into society?

453. Londonistan Calling

Comment #39013 by kaiserkriss on May 9, 2007 at 6:22 pm

The UK is, like many other countries being taken over from the inside in the name of political correctness. If any other long time resident of these countries were to spout the vitriol of that "peace loving" religion against Islam, or any other minority, they would be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and quite rightly so.
So this is Magna Carta justice at its finest?? Give me a break.
Violence of any kind against others cannot be tolerated, and those spouting it off to the younger generation should be deported to their home lands, AFTER serving an extensive jail term. Where is the intestinal fortitude of Judges to do their job they either were elected, or appointed to? jcw

454. Atheist offers to send letters post-Rapture

Comment #38876 by kaiserkriss on May 9, 2007 at 11:25 am

This fellow has the right idea. Make some real cash on the fallacious beliefs of the believers. This is no worse than McDonalds providing junk food to junk food addicts.

Or for that matter the Churches selling their "junk", be it holly water, blessed statues, blessed Korans etc. for profit at bible shops and their like. He has just taken the next step.

Rapture Insurance sounds brilliant. Let the fundies put their money where their belief is.

455. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38866 by kaiserkriss on May 9, 2007 at 11:04 am

Russell: You "crack" me up with your limericks! I always enjoy your thoughtful comments on every subject, but with these limericks you went over the top!! Well Done!

456. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #38019 by kaiserkriss on May 6, 2007 at 5:12 pm

How sick can you get! This is absolute stone age mentality. Carrot and stick, the lively hood of religion...
Anybody with an IQ above that of a 10watt light bulb living in the 21st Century even in the most backward of places should recognize this for what it actually is, namely scare tactics. jcw

457. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37941 by kaiserkriss on May 6, 2007 at 11:06 am

Although I'm a "johnnny come lately" to this debate, I couldn't help myself from adding my 2cents worth..

My view on this subject has been quite well stated by _J_ and Bonzai, as well as many others. What we all seem to agree upon is this kind of crime is horrendous and disgusting, as for the cause there still is wide disagreement, probably due to a lack of understanding of the cultural make up of individuals (tribalism) who commit such atrocities against their fellow humans.

Honour killing is NOT restricted to the Muslim world, need I remind you of the Hatfield's and McCoy's, the various Sicilian mob vendettas, gang land honour killings...you get my point the list is endless. It seems to be more of a cultural trait founded in suspicion of others, much like racism,and often enabled and justified by fundamental religions.

Instead of concentrating on the positive of what we can agree upon with Dave Robertson in his various guises he has had to resort to enable posts, we dwell on the negative, by calling each other names (troll) another typical human first response, something I'm often guilty of myself, and feeling sooo superior.

Both sides of the religion and atheist debate, in a case such as this, should pool their resources to come up with ways to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. Finger pointing is NOT going to solve the problem.

If you don't like Dave's opinion after responding to his provocative views, don't give him an audience by responding again and again. He knows how most people on this forum feel,and it is highly doubtful YOU will change his mind, so don't give him the audience he seems to crave..jcw

458. My response to the GOP evolution question

Comment #37768 by kaiserkriss on May 5, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Great Job Brian, However didn't I read some time in the last year that Judas was actually a "hero", and the whole betrayal thing was just a set up "to help save mankind from himself"?

I especially like the comparison between religion and racketeering. So sadly true. Society has put the shackles onto the old medieval "robber barons", yet still refuses to reign in religious racketeering. jcw

459. Author of the Year Ad

Comment #37491 by kaiserkriss on May 4, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Currently reading 2006 edition with a new introduction of "The Blind Watchmaker". Okay, not Oxford Press but Penguin, nevertheless a great read. Unfortunately, here in Bible belt Cow town (Calgary, Alberta for the uninitiated), the good Prof's works are "challenging" to find in many bookstores.

Already in the first chapter I have found a source to quote when trying to explain to lay people the concept of scale in my work as an Earth Scientist to draw significant conclusions for lack of statistical sampling... "WE are ill equipped to comprehend the very small and the very large; etc. Thanks Professor!

Congratulations Professor Dawkins, your books have inspired me to come out of my atheist shell and to spread the word of reason to anyone who will listen.

Shaker2007 Dont be so superficial. The photo shows a real man, not a "pretty face".

460. The Damned

Comment #37022 by kaiserkriss on May 3, 2007 at 7:07 am

Re Kaffir... Here I thought this was a personal joke by a black South African poking fun at himself and society by picking an aggressive political incorrect handle,to make a statement much as I and my friends sometimes refer to myself as a "kraut" or The Hun because of my German heritage. Just goes to show how WRONG one can be... jcw

461. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36882 by kaiserkriss on May 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

While I also find kowtowing to oppression in the name of multiculturalism disgusting, degrading, offensive, unjust etc. I wish the author of this piece would have followed up on his "research" in Der Spiegel, by pointing out that the judge in Nishal case was "excused" from the bench.
Further more the case did attract significant political attention in Berlin, and the media. The judge in this case will have to deal with the fallout of her bizarre actions, probably through demotion, or forced retirement or resignation.
This is what happens when sharia law is allowed to superseded an established legal system as is being proposed in the UK.("Now Muslims get their own laws in Britain" thread)
Unfortunately multiculturalism has run amok in Germany through over compensation, probably a result of their less than glorious past record on the subject, and constant reminders by the international press of the past misdeeds. When it comes to any form of racial/ cultural issues, the germans still carry a huge chip on their shoulder.jcw

462. The Damned

Comment #36863 by kaiserkriss on May 2, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Guys, this is getting too funny.. I just fell off my chair laughing at all the wise cracks!!

Went to utube gave it 5 stars, and passed the link on to my son, who I know for sure will pass it on to his buds, and so on, and so on...

Wonder when the first fundie will dump the usual drivel over that great video... jcw

463. The Damned

Comment #36850 by kaiserkriss on May 2, 2007 at 2:01 pm

So are us atheists going to spend 50% of eternity in Xtian hell and 50% in Muslim hell?
Who decides when it is time to change over to the other hell? When is half time to eternity, or is there going to be an on going exchange program between the two hells?

I think this illustrates just how stupid the concept of (heaven) and hell is.. jcw

464. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #36783 by kaiserkriss on May 2, 2007 at 9:51 am

Great Flow chart Brian !!

Re devolved: I think he "might" be Mo from the Simpsons (recent episode intro showing the evolution of Homer). Seriously, it would probably be wiser just to ignore "Mo" and not give him the satisfaction of a receptive audience to spout his drivel.

This delusion stuff reminded me of that classic Southpark episode mocking Scientology..
http://xenutv.com/cruise/sp-closet.htm (requires realplayer)

I can't believe even semi educated people in the 21st Century believe this rubbish... jcw

465. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36170 by kaiserkriss on April 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Sulfolk Blue: Try the Science light approach.. A good book and an easy read is Bill Bryson's "A short history of nearly everything". It is an excellent primer at putting all the different Science disciplines into context with one another
I have suggested it to several friends and associates, who ALL moved on to TGD or similar works. JCW

466. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35704 by kaiserkriss on April 28, 2007 at 12:22 pm

WOW!! Good thing the fast talker in the video didn't hold the banana the other way around. It might not have fit his hand so well and would be pointing the other waywhen he tried to bite into it. He obviously hasn't been exposed to the many different varieties of bananas either..

With morons like this around, is it any surprise that religions flourish? No wonder individuals of questionable scruples go out and start new religions all the time. If people believe this, excuse the language, SHIT in the 21st Century, is it any wonder that in less enlightened times the various prophets had a field day peddling their misinformation so that they could live the good life at the expense of a gullible flock. JCW

467. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33890 by kaiserkriss on April 22, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Brian... Hey I'm doing my best to help, eibbor7 (my son), one of his friends, and myself (jcnnam)are trying to hold the fundies at bay.

What amazes me is how the fundies have totally missed the point of your video, i.e. a response to a vile piece of opportunistic propaganda, and continue to show no respect for the victims of these tradgedies, or their loved ones. How very "Christian" of them

468. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33778 by kaiserkriss on April 21, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Spinoza… Thanks for expressing my thoughts quite eloquently. I feel exactly as you; however I probably would have used fewer four letter words, since the poor deluded halfwit probably could not understand them…

I'm surprised that the idiot is allowed to make such a nuisance of himself, when usually the boys in blue are quick to point out ones mistakes in the Land of the Free by locking you up for 24 hours..

Brian, let me repeat what others have said, well done, a well reason and thoughtful response to opportunistic, vindictive invective. I will pass the link on to associates of mine
Didn't know Reihard Mey had fans in the English speaking world. I always thought he was only appreciated by us Krauts.

Cheers, JCW

469. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33741 by kaiserkriss on April 21, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Brian and co.. Well done! I watched both videos, and like you found the first one extremely disturbing and inaccurate, not only in content, but also in Geography.
If you look at their map, they place Taber, Alberta, Canada,the site of a school shooting a few years ago closer to Brandon, Manitoba… At least they got the country correct.

Put into perspective for any bible belt fundies lurking around, it would be similar to placing Dallas, Texas, in Atlanta, Georgia! I suppose they would argue allowing god in schools, would not have allowed them to make such a geographic mistake, since he is all knowing… AARGH what twisted logic these people have.

Love your response and how quickly you put it together.

Who knows, with such a poor sense of direction Phelps and co might not even find their way to Virginia..

470. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #30926 by kaiserkriss on April 10, 2007 at 10:57 am

Poor kid.. Not only does he have a mother who swears like a drunken sailor on shore leave, she also tries to black mail him with presents. Now that is a way ALL children should be raised. NOT!

471. How Many Scientists?

Comment #29082 by kaiserkriss on April 1, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Brian, Glad to see some sense coming through in Sweden with regards to safe nuclear energy. I do remember the hysteria of the eighties and nineties with regards to nuclear energy quite well. It was and still is the "in" thing among many "young uninformed environmentalists" (demonstrators for hire) types to dwell on the negatives of nuclear power, rather than recognize the solutions made to address many of the initial problems.

It seems to be a lingering human characteristic to always dwell on the negative, something I myself have been guilty of, rather than be positive and seek solutions to problems. As a society we tend to regard things as static, ( one of the basic flaws of religion) rather than recognizing that we live in a dynamic and changing world it our privilege to spend a very short time on.

As for your question regarding ethanol, I too must admit a fair amount of ignorance. It seems to be a politically motivated venture to "stimulate agricultural production" in certain areas. I have seen studies that I cannot unfortunately reference, indicating the input energy costs such as fertilizers used in the creation of the ethanol itself, depending on the type of raw material used, etc. are far greater than the ethanol energy produced and sold to market, with in some cases, significantly more pollution ( burning of sugar cane comes to mind).

I'm not sure if this has changed, however on a litre for litre basis, Ethanol has less energy (calories per litre than gasoline), and subsequently fuel consumption in internal combustion engines rises by about 15% vs gasoline. Don't know about Diesels though…

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070331.ETHANOL31/TPStory/?query=ethanol Here is a link to a recent article suggesting switching to ethanol would have a minor effect on the emission of green house gases, however at the expense of rising food prices.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400&feedId=online-news_rss20 "paying the price for deforestation"
http://www.iisd.org/media/2006/oct_25_2006.asp "Biofuels at what cost?"

With every thing in life, there is no such thing as a free ride. To my way of thinking, the "waste-not want-not" adage is a good one to live with. There is always a price to be paid. Are enough of us prepared to pay that price without becoming hypocrites? That is why I personally am a strong proponent of wind and solar power, because the environmental cost of either is relatively small in relationship to all other currently available sources of energy available to us in the near term.JCW

472. How Many Scientists?

Comment #29051 by kaiserkriss on April 1, 2007 at 11:43 am

Brian, From the additional information you provided, namely your access to relatively clean burning dried birch wood, makes your investment al lot more environmentally friendly than at first suggested. My access to dried birch is limited, and expensive. The only cheap wood abundantly available is Pine and Spruce, neither of which can be described as clean burning.

Interesting that you mention Sweden is trying to wean itself of Nuclear power by importing electricity from the "Ost–Block" How is that electricity made? Is this just moving environmental responsibility into some one else's back yard, by not caring about HOW the product is made? I would suspect given Sweden's relatively stable society, having a domestic nuclear industry over which has complete control would make more sense than encouraging a potentially hazardous industry in a politically unstable neighboring country where it has little influence on safety standards and ultimately supply as well.

A few years ago I looked into setting up a wind farm here in Alberta from a strictly business venture point of view. Despite the "Not in my back yard" syndrome, various transmission line monopolies, land use regulations, the variability and selling of the final product to existing distributors, most of which could have been overcome, the bottom line was, and still is the rate of return on investment was extremely poor, so much so that by the time one reached PAY OUT of the project in a best case scenario, the wind turbines would need replacement. In other words you never made any money for your investors. The alternative of finding altruistic investors for such projects, unless one happens to know philanthropists such as Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, is next to impossible. Even pension funds of left wing Unions wouldn't touch such a project with a 3m (10ft) pole! They ALL want their guaranteed rate of return a standard utility gives them, just like the ex next president Al Gore, "do as I say, not as I do".

"We must factor into the cost the damage that a given energy source does, at the moment this is simply ignored."

Agreed, but that cost should be passed on to the final consumer, not the manufacturer of the power in question. The manufacturer is only reacting to, and satisfying a demand. This is something current consumers also conveniently ignore when jumping on the "bash big business" bandwagon. The consumer wants it all for free or cheaply, and is not prepared to pay the actual price of a commodity when factoring in environmental costs, as well as "NIMBY". Admittedly these costs are in many cases hard to quantify, and as a society we could continue expending huge amounts of resources arguing the costs while the infrastructures we depend on deteriorate to the point of no return.

473. How Many Scientists?

Comment #29017 by kaiserkriss on April 1, 2007 at 7:49 am

Brian, I hope you do not really feel insulted or dishonored. That was not my intention. Hope we don't have to go through the"pistols at dawn" routine. I was quite aware of the products (Contura) you linked me to, having almost made the same choice you did 2 years ago during renovations. The point I was trying to make, was that despite the technical advances of modern wood burning stoves, they still leave a fair amount of smog in the atmosphere because the amount of cleaning required of the effluent at the residential scale is economically unfeasible. Also, since I live in an urban area, my supply of wood is rather limited, unlike yours.

In British Columbia, Canada the next province over from where I live, the amount of additional smog and smell hanging over the valleys in winter especially, is disgusting, compared with valleys with no pulp and paper mills, so much so that wood burning fireplaces (usually decorative only and very inefficient as a heat source) have been banned from being installed into new residences. "Smog? Nah ... Smug, and with good reason:-)" Great comment HAHA!

I think if all your neighbors did the same conversion you did that the level of smog in your neck of the woods would probably be significantly greater, compared to the current situation, where the electricity you are saving is probably provided by relatively clean burning Natural gas with additional scrubbers in the stacks or Hydro-electric power. (I'm assuming your home heating requirements are provided through electricity since your mentioned Kw/h)

I do agree with you, wind power especially for domestic electricity consumption in an urban area, is expensive and not very efficient. On an acreage however, with a little sacrifice and the willingness to spend a few extra, Kroners, $$ or Euros, a wind turbine, combined with heat pumps simple solar panels to preheat water can go a long way to leave a relatively small environmental foot print on the planet. There are many relatively simple and cheap systems many semi skilled individuals (not me) can bang together to preheat water for domestic consumption, even for an urban environment.

Once again I agree with you re research, more publicity for renewable resources, but not with tax subsidies. Each technology must be able to compete on its own merits with existing technologies; the playing field should be level for all users. Unlike climbing Mount Probable, we need quantum changes in technology to move us forward and solve the problems we face. We don't have an energy problem; we have an energy STORAGE problem.

The solar printing idea sounds quite intriguing. This would be one of the quantum leaps with regards to solar power that should sell itself, if it works as advertised. Once again, I did not mean to insult you. JCW

474. How Many Scientists?

Comment #28913 by kaiserkriss on March 31, 2007 at 3:03 pm

I have been following this thread and couldn't help but notice the similarity to one going on in the RichardDawkins.net forum, General Science Discussion, Channel 4 Documentary tonight on global warming, where many of the pro and con GW arguments have been made and referenced.

The last two or three pages of this discussion with the contributions from MeinGeist, MacDoc and especially stevedenton's last posting make for very interesting reading. It covers off some of the issues left unanswered in this thread of the consequences to our society and civilization of "plunging", or buying into the potential fallacy of MAN CAUSED global warming without careful thought.

While my own views lean towards scooternyc views, I do understand some of the concerns of the "other side". With more thought, despite my earlier rants, because of this thread, I no longer share the view that the GW debate can be compared to the religious debate, which is quite straight forward – you either believe in a "flying teapot and saucer" or you don't. PERIOD. RW has made that point quite clear to us.

As for the GW debate, despite the "consensus" of so many "experts" there is still significant room for error. Despite peer review, there is still too much back scratching going on in the scientific community for my liking, because of common agendas- funding being a common one.

An example that comes to mind is the "Warm fusion debate" that took some time to be debunked, but was initially believed by many great Scientists. The Spinach consensus- since the thirties it had been widely accepted that spinach had large amounts of Fe (iron) in it, when in actual fact an initial lab error misplaced a decimal spot. Turns out spinach has only a tenth the amount of Fe, consensus had agreed upon for decades. Hmmm. Makes one think. I'm quite sure there are hundreds of additional examples that could be uncovered in a short period of time.

Just because there is consensus does not make it fact. I'm quite sure there is consensus for lemmings to run over the edge of the cliff as well, as there is consensus in a mob to lynch someone. 90% certainty 19 times out of 20 still leaves a considerable room for error to try and change things we might not have any control over whatsoever. Computer models are only that, a MODEL, garbage in, garbage out, no matter how sophisticated the algorithms are or how powerful the hardware. PLEASE don't misunderstand my position. I am by no means suggesting we give up on science and research in GW, which should be ongoing regardless of who is right or wrong, but we shouldn't be led astray by what is in my mind statistically insignificant data given the complexity of the problem and the age of the planet. The time period over which we have reliable spatial data is extremely short.

Working as an Earth Scientist at the practical level on a day to day basis has taught me to be skeptical of everything, especially the vagaries of Mother Nature.

Call me a fence sitter on this issue, I think the human animal is most likely contributing to GW, to what extent remains to be determined, but that should not preclude us from using natural resources of ANY kind more wisely. I also find it presumptuous for the human animal, despite its numbers, think it can out fox Mother Nature in the long run and interfere (successfully?)with natural cycles that have been going on for millennia before we even got here and have yet to understand.

One comment for brian-world-citizen : Instead of spending your money on a polluting wood burning stove, adding smog to an already smoggy atmosphere, it might have been wiser from an energy conscious and environmental perspective to have invested in that ultimate renewable resource, namely some form of Solar Panels, either to generate electricity directly, or heat water or your home. That would indeed be a good deed. JCW

475. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?

Comment #27774 by kaiserkriss on March 26, 2007 at 4:20 pm

WEIRD, Using MARTINSGILL's test I seem to be left eye dominant, but right handed, yet when I aim a rife or something, I automatically close my left eye to aim, not being able to close my right eye at all to aim with my left eye. Hmm… I also consider myself an average reader in terms of speed.
Looks like this needs a a lot more research…JCW

476. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #27755 by kaiserkriss on March 26, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Richard, (Please excuse the informality..) On the occasion of your Birthday, may I wish you what I wish all my friends, HEALTH, HAPPINESS and WEALTH.
May all your hopes and wishes, which I suspect most others on this board share, and you work very hard for, come true.

You have been a true inspiration to "come out of the closet" and allowed us to express our beliefs with clarity, logic and without fear of being ridiculed. In this increasingly radical theist world, you have shown courage to lead the way. Please continue to do so. The world would be a much better place if there were more people as open and honest as yourself… JCW, Calgary, Alberta

477. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25264 by kaiserkriss on March 11, 2007 at 12:38 pm

J.J.Ramsey

Agreed, everything taken out of context can potentially be libelous. Languages are dynamic and terms that were acceptable in the past, are no longer acceptable, and so I suspect the term faithhead will be replaced with something more appropriate and less potentially offensive. Any ideas without resorting to $5.00 words? I believe in the "keep it simple" principal.

After reading Gerard in the Guardian article linked by Lional A (Comment 25246), it surprises me how this light weight journalist can get away with such paternalist drivel ("Dicky",atheist fundamentalist). Is Gerard a refugee from the Sun? My esteem for Professor Dawkins has once more been raised. He is the true "Gentleman" in every sense of the word!

478. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25250 by kaiserkriss on March 11, 2007 at 9:49 am

J.J. Ramsey
While I do see your point with regards to the term "faithheads", and I think I understand the point you are making, I would suggest you are looking at the issue from a strictly "Anglo-Saxon " point of view, which is fair enough since the language of communication on this web site is English. Remember, there seem to be quite a few individuals on this web site whose native language is not English, and we should thus try and use words easily understood by the majority, if we truly wish to be inclusive, rather than exclusive. To that extent the term faithhead is easily understood and descriptive.

However these terms are only words, and the old adage, 'sticks and stones etc. etc.' comes to mind. Having been on the receiving end of many ethnic motivated slurs in my childhood in the English speaking world, because of my German ancestry, and with time having been able to distance myself from the stereotypical slanders, it occurred to me that these slurs seem to be more profound in the English language than in other languages such as German for example. Is this part of the English psyche to have to "put down" others who are different, because of historical insularity, that manifests itself in the language, or is it a function of the limitation of a language to not be able to express a certain idea succinctly??

The worst the Krauts or Huns came up with strict reference to the English was the term "Tommy" referring to the Tompson sub-machine gun. As for that other popular term, so often heard or read in English comic books, or war time movies, "Schweinehund", literally a pig-dog, is still used to this day in two contrasting meanings depending on the context of the conversation. It can mean extreme luck, or on the other hand, a person lacking morality. (German tends to be idiomatic).

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to put the English language or the English down with my comments, these are just thoughts that came to mind as I was reading through the posts.

479. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24270 by kaiserkriss on March 5, 2007 at 3:55 pm

The Wea (Scottish) Flea says:
"Are you saying that only the material exists? Are you saying that love and spirituality are just chemical reactions?"

The emotion of love is nothing but a chemical reaction that can be proven in the lab which a quick "google" will confirm in spades, as well as a response to social needs. These could be between offspring and parent, animal and human, or animal and animal. An expert in the subject could show this "love" to actually be a chemical response to a perceived or even unperceived need, much as the need to belong is often fulfilled by religion or cults. We are after all a social animal and will seek satisfaction for our needs one way or another.

As for spirituality, once again like faith something one cannot measure. In its narrowest sense, -to do with the spirit. The only spirit I can relate to are " a wee dram" or gumption, moxie as in. " That wild mustang has spirit". As for matters of the Christian "Sole", and spirit, I can truly say I don't have one except at the bottom of my feet. This is not meant to come across as a North American "smart ass", it just means that spirituality, to me means nothing but immeasurable "mumbo jumbo". JCW

480. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24209 by kaiserkriss on March 5, 2007 at 9:28 am

The Wee Flea aka David wrote:
But you see that is the trouble. You ask for empirical scientific absolute proof of a material God - and use that to discount the possibility of a non material God. Your presuppostitions will not allow any evidence that has not already been pre-determined by you.
Other than your God, can you show evidence for other non material things similar to your God that we can relate to, KNOW about, and agree to exist? Something that is defined as non material seems to only exist in ones imagination and cannot be rationally examined.

Should I find an audience that actually believes my irrational claim to be the next prophet, does NOT necessary make it so, even though it does in my own mind and that of my followers. I would suspect most of your fellow believers, regardless of your brand of religion would rightly call me a nutter, and suggest I was treated for a mental disorder and locked up, or at the very least ask me to show you proof of some kind, rather than solely relying on my word and some ancient texts I " interpret" as confirming my claim. ( I already have a hard time understanding Chaucer, which was only written about 40 generations ago).One of my responses to your disbelief, would be to have faith in my claims. Is that too much to ask? I suspect it probably would be too much to ask of you...

You are asking of atheists for the very same thing!!! We ask you to show us the material evidence for a "non material" entity, which I suppose is complicated in the MATERIAL world we live in…That is the Crux of the problem Mr. Robertson.

481. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #24057 by kaiserkriss on March 4, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Comment#24044 by A, Post 33 "he is a fucking idiot".
I would respectfully disagree with you, Priests in the Catholic Church are supposed to be celibate, that is probably more likely his problem, he never got any, and his feeble mind is warped because of it… (lol)

482. Falwell says Christians shouldn't focus on global warming

Comment #23886 by kaiserkriss on March 3, 2007 at 11:16 am

Attempt Nr.2

Ladies and Gentlemen, PUHLEESE recognize the global warming debate for what it really is- a job creating medium for good and bad scientists on both sides of the debate fed by an easily swayed undereducated public and politicians looking for the next "issue" to make themselves look, and feel good about themselves. That is not to say we should be wasting resources on an ad hoc basis, however, IF it turns out mankind are wasting effort on something we cannot control such as various natural cycles, it may be better to focus our efforts on things we can control, such as the spread of disease, population control and quality of life.

While I have no doubt man kind contributes to current global warming through his activities by just living and nor even engaging in any economic activity, I am equally sure it is rather presumptuous of human kind to assume it can change natural cycles that have been going on for literally billions of years. It is only in the last 25 years that we have had the technology even to measure global temperature somewhat accurately with the use of satellites to the tenth of a degree Centigrade necessary to make any kind of useful day to day weather predictions, let along project future trends.

Regardless, when making any kind of prediction for and against global warming, neither side has- to my knowledge set a BASE LINE from which to make their claims. What is normal temperature for planet earth?? I do know that where I live, in Western Canada, that 10000 years ago it would have been impossible since there was at least 500m of ice sitting over the site of my house. Was that normal? Or was normal the high temperatures of the Jurassic, when we as a species could not have existed because of a lack of oxygen that the plant life at the time produced to give us an atmosphere mammals can actually breath?

My point being we live on a dynamic planet that has constantly changed and evolved and will continue to do so despite out best efforts to influence it. I would even go so far as to suggest that in 1 million years, evidence of Homo sapiens existence on this planet will be hard to find.
There is nothing wrong is seeking more information about the mechanics and systems of our spec in the universe, but to dramatize events over which we have so little control, when there are more pressing issues that we can control is hypocritical, foolish and a waste of finite RESOURES.

We have that huge ball in the sky referred to as the sun, around which our planet rotates. Surely it would be reasonable to assume the unpredictable nuclear furnace it is, would have significantly more influence on our atmosphere and temperature fluctuations, as does every "burp" (volcanic outburst or other releasing of gases / material into the atmosphere) of planet Earth, than mankind?

As for the poor people of islands of the Pacific, or other low lying areas that settled too close to the water, it is unfortunately time to move on to higher ground just as the inhabitants of Northern Europe did when the land bridge between, what is now France and England became no longer fit for human occupation. Sounds cruel, but this is quite Darwinian in nature, survival of the fittest in action, adapt or die. We can control the breaking down of the cultural and political barriers hindering the movement of populations a lot easier than controlling the weather, and the sooner we as a population do it the better.

483. Presentation on Atheism

Comment #22741 by kaiserkriss on February 21, 2007 at 3:51 pm

Well Done! Keep up the good work in your "neck" of the woods. Very clear and concise arguments.
As others, I would wish to hear the audience's response and reception to this address.
From some of the truly unchristian stances taken by fundamental Christians on other parts of this site (the good, the bad and the ugly for example) I hope for the sake of your well being, your audiences follow at least some of their own rules and don't threaten you with physical violence, something that the term "hill-Billy" always seems to be associated with.

484. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #22315 by kaiserkriss on February 14, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Had the pleasure of reading this fact strewn little gem over the weekend. WOW!! Together with TGD it should be (almost) mandatory reading for every person. The reason for "almost" in brackets is simple- one should not force people to read anything, just makes them more obstinate.

Here in Canada the book has been available for some time, it even has a reference to TGD as suggested reading material, though difficult to find in bookstores.

Dr D(awkins), Mr. Harris : PLEASE keep up the good work. With more eloquent people like you around, civilization just might have a chance to get out of the mental Bronze age. JCW

485. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22037 by kaiserkriss on February 12, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Working in the Canadian oil patch(!!??) I'm faced with this dilemma on a daily basis, communicating with highly educated Engineers and Earth Scientists, who for 6 days of the week believe and talk evolution, yet on the Seventh day fall back into the creationist trap. When confronted with the "discrepency" of their beliefs and actions, more often than not, it turns out to be a matter of maintaining familial harmony.
While at first glance this seems to be a poor excuse, it is probably not too far from the truth, where the spouse in a die hard Xtian.
As for Dr Ross and his fellow travellers,one could think of them as Trojan horses.The real proof of their professional integrety would be how and what they teach in their Christian Colleges to their students. I suspect graduates in the Earth Sciences from these Schools would however have a difficult task of finding suitable employment in their disciplines of choise.
Another thought- the human animal is great at compartmentalizing tasks or thought for that matter, so I suspect people like Dr Ross have no difficulty whatso ever in rationalizing their Christian beliefs with their Scientific beliefs. That they are basically lying to themselves has never crossed their mind... It is so easy for Catholics to run off to confession,seek redemption and continue on their merry "blasphemous" ways.

486. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #22031 by kaiserkriss on February 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm

stpetes
Before you get your self all excited and huffy, it would have behooved you to read McGrath's rather low brow and fluffy comments reposted on this site from other sources. Having read those comments by McGrath, you might reconsider your position to some of the comments you have made above.
It is unfortunate that such a "qualified" individual had to resort to demonizing Dr. Dawkins with vitriol, rather than good arguments. JCW

487. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21902 by kaiserkriss on February 11, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Here is the link to Richard's response to McGrath published in the Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/debate/letters/article1368831.ece

488. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21731 by kaiserkriss on February 10, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Stewart... You are absolutely correct. My mistake, I missed that "l". Must have been a freudian slip on my part. JCW

489. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21693 by kaiserkriss on February 10, 2007 at 4:15 pm

While it seems Dr Hunter has partially recognized her folly, in her correspondence with CDG and others by making light of the situation and blaming the format of the" Now" show, together with the producers and other factors, it would still behoove her to come out with an outright apology for her poor showing false accusations and bigotry. That unfortunately will probably not occur, since most people especially "god fearing" ideologists of any kind, find it hard to accept that they make mistakes and just might be wrong.Still we can hope she will be more careful with expressing her views in future.

As for Debbie Schussel, what can I say, she not only has NOT recognized her belligerent short comings (see her blog), but continues to live up to her unfortunate last name (surname for you Brits). Schussel in German means scatterbrain, clot, or klutz. A Scatterbrained bigot probably describing her best. She is a lost cause. JCW

490. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21644 by kaiserkriss on February 10, 2007 at 9:54 am

Why is this "wannabe" intellectual given so much press??
His arguments are lame, same-old, same-old, with nothing new to contribute except vitriol. McGrath is obviously jealous of RD' s clear thinking and success and is trying to make up for it with bluster.
He creates a mental image of an overweight 19th Century Dickens character get redder and redder with each pounding of the ham fist on the table (each new essay), ready to explode and keel over from a heart attack. While one would not wish such on any reasonable person, I wish McGrath would tone down for the sake of his own mental and physical health, and as I wrote previously, take an example from the civil and polite discussion currently going on between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan. JCW

491. Ancient boy's skeleton sparks evolution debate

Comment #21114 by kaiserkriss on February 7, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Bishop Boniface proves that like at the local cesspool, sh*t does rise to the top.
It is a crime against humanity that narrow minded people command so much respect to the extent that he and his ilk have a following of 10 million people.
By asking for a boycott of the exhihition he is denying people the opportunity to see the evidence to make up their own minds. Typical middle ages theist reaction: "Keep the masses dumb and uneducated, we know what's best for them". This is so selfish and arrogant and sickening!!!

492. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21031 by kaiserkriss on February 7, 2007 at 10:58 am

Thanks to mosey (21015 above) You gave me the idea of marking McGrath's essay on a scale of 1-10. At best I can give it a 2,- 2.5. Poor arguments, no supporting evidence.
At least someone like Andrew Sullivan in his current debate with Sam Harris puts forward arguments,even though they are on the wrong track, and remains above all, civil in tone and choise of language.

493. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21008 by kaiserkriss on February 7, 2007 at 9:13 am

EAch and every one of "Professor" McGrath's spiteful and personal, totally unprofessional critisisims can be turned around and used against him. How can this person look in the mirror every morning and still profess to be a true Christian with such venemous attacks?
Seems to be a typical case of paternalistic "do as I say and not do as I do" of the worst kind.
If anything it is RD's quiet,logical, unflappable style that carries the argument on presentation alone,rather than the bombastic,flustered and unsubstantiated attacks by McGrath.
For his unprofessional conduct towards a fellow Professor alone he should loose his credentials at Oxford. Are there no professional standards of decorum at Oxford, or are they just not enforced?
This so called respected Professor of theology should be brought up on defamation charges, but that would probably just give him a further audience to spread his venom.
However I must give RD credit(above comment) for taking the high road by turning the other cheek. Once again this goes to show morality has nothing to do with religion but everything with personal character!!

494. Interview with Alister McGrath, author of 'The Dawkins Delusion?'

Comment #20847 by kaiserkriss on February 6, 2007 at 7:05 pm

Can't help myself from laughing out loud and rolling on the floor over this "Scholar". How such a pompous ass can maintain credentials at Oxford escapes reason and good judgement.
He sounds like an escapee from a Southern Bibel College.
The " very naughty" comment and the whole tone of the interview is so Juvenile and condesending, and not a worthy discussion of TGD.
It seems to be a characteristic of the Brits to take this tack when confronted with irrefutable facts, which is a real pity.