451. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97175 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Ruht

When hitting a dead end in the theory of evolution

"The central finding is that human evolution is happening very fast -- faster than any of us thought," Harpending said in a telephone interview"

Translated: "Since our 'billions and billions of years' thing is being proven to be impossible, then we have to come up with something else."

very strange, i read 'evolution is happening very fast, faster than any of us thought' now to my mind that says that evolution is happening just simply at a faster rate than scientists at first realised. Ruht, until you can get a grip and actually learn a bit of evolution and learn to 'decipher' difficult news text (you misinterpreted that one) you really shouldnt bother trolling this thread.

It never ceases to amaze me how a creationst will read an evolution artice and then assume somehow it disproves it!!!! I recently was talking to a creationist about selective breeding (i had no idea he was one) and only when he said, 'and selective breeding just goes to show what a load of nonsense darwins theory is' I was like 'what?' i explained that it actually demonstrates it, it demostrates it very well, and i quickly mentioned genetic variation>trait selection>genes passed on>gene frequency change in population = evo. Amazingly he didnt say anything more.

Now you might jump to the 'god' stuff again as its obvious you are intellectually incapable of engaging the evolution topics realistically so the god stuff is relatively easy, no proof either way just lots of assertions. Ruht, im sorry but when you post these things (like the first quote at the top) you are displaying not only a poor understanding of evolution but what appears to be a general lack of logic, i dont want to be rude but the first comment is so indicative of poor understanding that im not sure you will ever be able to understand evolution, maybe you just dont want to understand it, if you dont then you have no (useful) business on these threads because at that point you are a troll.

452. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97059 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 10:54 am

anybody want to join me in deepest peru to convert a few natives to atheism??

453. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96972 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 7:26 am

boycott or not, im happy i didnt actively not see narnia because of its supposed christian symbolism. its something i didnt even think about. The religious mind truly can be poison.

i watched narnia as i enjoy the story anyway and i was interested to see a new adaptation of something ive seen on the (small) screen several times. Im not familiar with the pullman stories so just havent felt the inclination to watch the movie, i'll wait to rent on DVD.

that nasty BD only want to say the boycott worked so hes in the news, so hes right, so hes having an effect, as often with the religious their motivations are as selfish as the genes which they seem to be afraid of.

454. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96966 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 7:18 am

pyota

i'm rather shocked to read all these anti-circumcision posts! weird. i can only suppose its further evidence that atheists are just another herd.

male circumcision is a health operation with about as much 'trauma' as getting a tooth cavity filled. the health benefits are well attested to by the medical community. the fact that jews practice it as a religious ritual has nothing to do with its practice in the secular world.

you talk nonsense, my post circumcision care was a nightmare, it was painful, there was infection, i was in hospital for over a week (im not sure how normal that is). As for being part of another herd, well being opposed to removal of highly sensitive tissue for no good reason be it foreskin or earlobe or tongue or fingertips, or any tissue for that matter is hardly part of being a herd, its the default condition to be intact so to oppose it is hardly showing im in a herd but the reasonable natural default position.

If your culture suggested that you should clip a triangular segment from your lower ear lobe would you accept that? most likely you would.

Your point relating atheism to anticircumcision is absurd, just what the hell has not believing in god got to do with me opposing circumcision, as a teenager i was really unhappy being circumcised, a time when god was something I never thought about, at the end of the day there is no good argument for circumcision and if you suggest that health benefits are one let me suggest you get a testicle removed so you can possibly reduce your chance of testicular cancer by one half.

455. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96964 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 7:02 am

I think a big reason for the continued prevalence of infant circumcision in the US is the natural desire for people to think of themselves as good parents

I can imagine many american dads have their sons circumcised for no better reason that they can be just like dad, you know a ritual like taking him to his first ball game or drinking his first beer.

456. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96958 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 6:52 am

i was circumcised as an 8-9 year old in the UK for tight foreskin, something that apparently can be 'fixed' without circumcision.

I absolutely regret that it happened. The aftercare from the operation was painful and i remember vividy having salt baths and having medical gauzes stuck tight onto my glans, yes it fucking hurt and yes i have scarring on my glans as well as the usual stitch marks which i see as ugly.

Being circumcised means that a good sized portion of skin has been removed, remember the foreskin has 2 sides. a circumcised penis is compromised in many ways, the skin on the shaft cannot come far back as it should when the prepuce is retracted, most guys have no idea that the prepuce skin ends up all the way down the bottom of the shaft, so basically we miss out on a lot of sensations and apparently (i can see there being truth in this) the fact that there is litle skin movement over the erect circumcised penis means that during intercourse the inside of the vagina can become easily chaffed as the skin is constantly moving over her inside, in an 'as intended' penis the shaft moves a lot but this is not followed by the loose skin over the penis, chafing is minimised. I read somewhere (im not sure if its true) that an circumcised infant does have neural growth into other tissues in the area but as an older child/adult its already set so the loss of sensation (from the missing several inches square of tissue) is permanent.

I was the only non muslim kid who i knew who was circumcised, thats great fun when you are at school.

The circumcision mentality is so normalised in the US that my wife wonders why i make a fuss about it, she thinks im crazy for even questioning it, i dont take the conversation any further, can you believe that! now if that isnt proof that this thing can piss you off nothing will.

As the saying wisely goes 'better to have and not want than to want and not have'

irrespective of why i had mine done im totally aginst circumcision unless of course there is a valid medical reason, i cannot understand why men (of all creatures) would submit their sons to have part of their penis actually removed, I can almost understand (if you see my point) why a patriarchal society would allow women to have their clitoris's hacked out but to do it to ones self (as such) is crazy. i suspect that most religiously circumcised men havent given the notion any thought, rather like many other topics.

In a nutshell i honestly feel that my sexual pleasure is reduced by circumcision and that fucks me off as we only live once.

Yes, it is an abuse of the childs rights, let the man decide if he wants his prepuce removed.

457. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96181 by phasmagigas on December 10, 2007 at 5:59 am

Here's an encouraging fact. As the producer was showing me out after the show, he told me that the great majority of callers were on my side. The BBC filterers deliberately choose those who disagree with the guest, for the obvious reason that it makes for more interesting television/radio. So, the English woman from France was actually in the substantial majority of those who phoned in.

Interesting. understandably its more useful to have disagreers on the calls but i wonder if the 'filterers' knew the actual question to be posed before putting them through, my point being, i wonder if the filterers thought that any of these people were asking good questions.

Its funnny how the junkyarders always seem to think they have a good point when its obvious they have totally misunderstood what they have read or believed some misunderstanding that they have been told.

458. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96003 by phasmagigas on December 9, 2007 at 5:02 pm

RD answered well, concisely and to the point.

I'm not sure how representative the callers were but its quite obvious that some of theists werent really understanding some basic points.

I found the american cleric difficult to listen to (ad hominem), sounded way to confident atacking straw men.

The lady from turkey seemed to be of the school 'freedom of speech, just watch what you say' im not sure she realised she was contradicting herself though.

459. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95994 by phasmagigas on December 9, 2007 at 4:27 pm

that father marks bloke sounds like the son of dinesh d souza and ted haggard attacking straw men in a frenzy (re stalin etc........)

RD gives a concise answer, he (caller) then says people wont believe you and you are commenting outside your subject.


classic.

460. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95552 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Thanks for the recipe....I've had tofu till I'm sick of it!! My wife thinks it's great!

cheers

krisking, you could stir fry wood chips in that mix and it would be nice!

461. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95550 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm

The most that can be said is that we are wired for empathy with our kin, relatives, tribe etc. The tribe on the other side of the valley, was just as 'alien' to our ancestors - and a possible threat to their survival as any other wild animal.

just think how many cattle rustlers have been shot dead in their tracks only to have the owners get back their dear cattle?? remeber, outside of kin (and i dont know HOW far outside of kin) another human becomes a competitor (and indeed even your own child is a competitor at some level) as they want the exact same resources as do you. A group of hunter gatherers might welcome an influx of game on thsir land but not a new tribe despite being more related to the tribe than the game.

462. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95545 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 3:05 pm

mdowe

Let me think about this for a second. If I said I prefer to live in a world where I could savour an occasional Granny stew from a humanely and locally reared Granny that was killed ... you get my point. Clearly the culinary-choice aspects of 'kind of world I would like to live in' doesn't influence the moral question, and even humane and painless killing doesn't get me completely off the hook from a moral perspective. If it is ok to kill the cow, why isn't it ok bump-off Granny? I guess I'm personally just skirting the issue by just leaving the cow (and Grannies) alone .. call it intellectual

acthually instead of beef in my post please insert any given animal flesh, grannies included, theres no reason to suppose that grannies once dead couldnt be ingested, in some cultures im sure they are/were. Its interesting but i wonder just how much more revolting would the average person find eating human flesh be to eating that of any animal they are not used to, fancy a rat, a cat, a fox, a monkey, a chimp?? as we know chimps are widely eaten and we are but 5 million years apart.

463. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95542 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 2:56 pm

I tend to agree with you....but I live in a mostly vegetarian household...with a nearly vegan wife.....and I just wish the food were more palatable and that we could get our daughters to eat more variety.....

salt and pepper tofu:

deep fry 1 inch or so cubes tofu until brown.
then stir fry the cubes quickly in the following:good splash sesame oil, crushed garlic (lots), fresh ground black pepper (lots), salt (quite a lot), red chilli flakes and finally throw in some fine chop spring/green onion, the whole dish is quite dry (ie no sauce as such) but incredible to eat with some nice steamed rice, its does make your kitchen a no go area, like a hell of sorts. Its a fantastic dish though, very addictive.

464. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95495 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

i suppose for now any position is better than that of some theists i have known (have being the operative word) and that is that animals are here for mans use, they dont feel anything anyway so they can be treated any way atall, suffering is unknown to them.

that is a friendship breaker if there ever was one.

465. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95492 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 12:45 pm

one wonders about the whole issue. would i prefer to live in a world where i could savor an occasional beef stew from a humanely locally reared animal, so killed as to be rendered oblivious in a careful instant or one in which i had to eat some biotechnology byproduct fungi/bacterial composite of high biological value protein instead??

466. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95478 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 12:24 pm

the dissonance of knowing cruelty and eating meat is not equivalent to that of the general theist ignoring evidence. One can realise some degree of suffering occured to provide you with meat morsel x but the difference is our bodies have evolved to find meat morsel x ecstatic, kind of a mouth and mind orgasm, its real to the eater and proportional to degree of hunger the individual feels.

Its a tricky one but there is a difference between factory faming some poor pig to feed an already obese person at low cost and having a family share a scrawny chicken over a week thats been happily converting seeds and beetles into flesh on their tiny smallholding in a developing country.

at the end of the day we have choices (ignoring the whole free will thing which i know nothing about), a person can be a vegan and eat only organically and locally or a person can keep kitterns locked in tiny cages in their basement and put pins in their feet each night and eat only factory farmed animals.

Im finding more and more ways to cook tofu im happy to say!!

467. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94633 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:41 am

when you consider the expense of decorating a home with lights, giant inflatable snowmen (and in the US its funny how these are seen from the sub tropics to the near arctic), plastic trees, fat man in red costume, ginger braed house, real trees, plywood prop sleighs that grandad made in the 60's, angels, fairies, stars, candy canes, cribs, babies with halos, baubels, candles, oh and then another round of some poor bred for size last remaining dinosaur (even though the thaksgiving one still being eaten by the dog) one would think that more people might stand back and ask 'just why do i do this?

brits do at least have it right. We have traditional 'christmas crackers'. The emergent (post cracking of the cracker) black poirot like moustache and paper hat which invariably ends up on some uncles head is good enough reason for christmas as it gives us all a chance to act silly.

468. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94627 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:26 am

So, to put a star on top of a pine tree or to arrange various farm animals around a crib is to be as accurate and inventive as that Japanese department store that, as urban legend has it, did its best to emulate the Christmas spirit by displaying a red-and-white bearded Santa snugly nailed to a crucifix.

hilarious, actually in japan the cities are highly decorated with christmas decorations.

469. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94625 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:13 am

the bishop of carlisles vulgar comments. I'd have been more persuaded by his argument had the UK seen a severe drought (it rains most days in the uk anyway so a bit more is hardly remarkable). Water, even a flood is preferable to drought, i think i should rather drown than die of thirst.

westboro baptists do a good job of showing americans what religion can do to minds but unfortunately it doesnt make them question their own faith views, instead they say 'we just dont like those crazies'.

dinesh, well atheists are not to be found after school massacres because they tend not to poke their nose into others business and dont like to condescend people with false hopes and thoughts.

470. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94624 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:03 am

the whole christmas thing is so confusing.

Here in america people shout 'happy holidays', in the UK people say 'merry christmas', when i see my family and friends this year I will say merry christmas despite i nor they being practicing christians or even non practicing, in fact they probably dont think about it atall, its simply become a way to get through the miserable winter with an excuse for some lights and drink. the brits take a far more relaxed view to the whole thing. Despite that you still get religious leaders on tv saying 'people forget what the real meaning of christmas is' and i wonder just what that is????

For the average secular brit (and perhaps for more americans than we realise) christmas is little more than nostalgia for childhood dressed up in a rather thin religious veneer.

UK schools tend to have christmas trees up and i suppose symbols of all the major faith festivals (fairs, fair)but its seen as a bit of fun and nobody really (i hope) gives a damn, and this is in schools that still have moring prayer, and nobody still gives a damn. America seems to strangely politicise everything or at the very least seem to force prescription onto things (ignoring the church/state separation for now). An example was over halloween I saw articles in local news papers that showed the schools recommendations for appropriate conduct/costumes/activities for kids in schools, eg one suggested that costumes shouldnt have a horrific theme. I got the feeling that its an attempt to pardown a festival that has somewhat religious/supernatural elements even if it means little more than eating sugar all day and holllowing out a pumpkin.

mere musings anyway...

471. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94072 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:32 pm

walk. I conciously rejected every notion of supernatural about 10 years ago, its a great way to clear fluff from the head (well by that I mean its useful in that when you hear a bump in the attic you know its NOT a ghost but maybe something much more dangerous like a rabid racoon). Some might say thats dogmatic and closed minded, well not so, im quite happy to see the proof for mind reading, mediums, ghosts etc but it is simply that thre is not ONE case, not ONE case worldwide that can be shown to be reasonably verified. Its depressing that fraudsters like sylvia browne can earn a substantial living by conning people who believe in pure nonsense.

I keep my supernatural appreciation in film and books.

472. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94063 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:02 pm

At least if us atheists are wrong, we'll find out. Unfortunately, if the believers are wrong, they'll never know! (Damn!)

walk, i think this is an important point, perhaps more important than anybody might realise.

My worldview can be falsified anytime, anywhere but as far as im concerned it has yet to be so, the theist worldview cannot. The theist can imagaine any scenario they choose be it fossils planted by god to test faith or heavenly gluten placed in each and every tube of penne, they cannot be disproven. I walk happily ready to be shown i am wrong.

remember the debate how dinesh facetiously suggested that the afterlife might be proved by visits from the dead, what a bloody comedian, hes the one who accepts ressurection.

473. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94057 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 4:45 pm

another 'newbie' troll from under the bridge but thats fine as long as the said troll engages in some decent debate/conversation from this point on.

Proof of god. Well as i mentioned on some thread ages ago on circumcision, i am circumcised, i wish i wasnt and if i pray tonight to have my prepuce returned to me (so i can enjoy sensations that have been denied me) and tomorrow morning it is there I will declare a miracle (and im not sure anybody in recorded history has had a prepuce grow back over night if atall so im not sure it could be explained in any other way) and I could well accept the existence of god.

474. Highway to hysteria

Comment #93969 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 2:01 pm

And I personally guarantee they'll throw the old Hitler,Stalin,Mao combo to show how crazy all we atheists are.

of course id be ready for a bit of fallacy bashing.

475. Highway to hysteria

Comment #93946 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 1:34 pm

ive yet to watch the video but it got me thinking.

The next time you have a religious moderate beating you up because you are an atheist or accept evolution you can offer them a challenge.

Take them to the computer and ask them to locate some pro atheist material that would actually make you (the atheist) say 'oh jees, they are just so crazy, thats appauling thats not me, thats a very scary atheist and we are not all like that' then do the equivalent for them with some theistically driven madness, you know maybe jesus camp, this video (i guess), that crazy woman on wife swap, or even some actual decapitation footage if you want to get the message across more forcefully

I guarantee you will be showing them a lot more links than they will be showing you. This is a take on the hitchen challenge but its one that could be quite fun after a few drinks (i personally would not bring up any actual murders but could at least threaten to show them, they are there to be seen after all).

476. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93757 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 6:17 am

hitch did well on that interview, im glad he used every second to get his points across. the interviewer let the comments stand and he didnt end with something like 'dont worry folks, god does exist' as the screen cut (im not sure who said that in a recent interview with dawkins? on fox?). Its intervention from the interviewer that can influence an usophisticated viewer and its all to common on US TV.

477. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93752 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:49 am

seems strange to me that its atheists who arent 'supposed' to be rude and intolerant, I always thought thats what we/they were supposed to be!!

478. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93746 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:29 am

I read some stupid comments in other blogs about this article saying things like our predecessors had a better memory, but chimps aren't our predecessors, we have common predecessors with them. I also don't agree that chimps can help us necessarily to understand our predecessors because how can we know if our common predecessors were more like chimps or more like men?

true, the statements work on the assumption that chimps abilities are closer to the ancestral state and of course it could be that WE are closer to the ancestral state. As our mind has evolved dramatically in many areas we assume it has in all areas, thats is not necessarily true and our bias.

479. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93520 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:52 am

Well, let's be honest - Dan pulled a "Dinesh" and didn't fully address the topic of the debate. He kind of beat around the edges and then it's off to a new topic.

I expected a bit more of dan myself. Ignoring the relative merits of the debaters the problem with the god issue (ignoring religion itself) is that in having debates about unknowable, all powerful, unfalsifiable supernatural entities it is always going to be a little bit difficult for those in opposition.

480. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93517 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:34 am

Dinesh's voice was bordering on hysterical in his tone, compared to, say, his debate with Shermer. Maybe that's because Dennet's arguments are so much more complete and "sensible" sounding...!

dinesh reminded me very much of a salesman who is afraid of not getting a sale, this is a personal attack and it has nothing to do with his stance, now i understand how one could get desperate for a sale and you will behave accordingly (when you are relying on the sale for your income), and weve all seen salesmen who have almost become pleading, the difference is that dinesh isnt selling anything that anyone needs.

481. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93512 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:16 am

gmork.

its interesting that when one reads the transcribed section one immediately sees the zero relation to the question. it has some meaning within its own somewhat bizarre context but it still sounds like something sylvia browne would make up, but thats it. the closest he gets to the topic is something like 'god is outside of the universe and he created it' which doesnt even take us BACK to the initial question!!

well, thats how it reads to me.

so in a nutshell hes basically bullshitted his way after the question and many may wonder if he made a valid point or not before we get to the next question......

so he avoided that question and the one about evidence for god in part 14. i think this debate seriously needs dissecting for future reference.

if dinesh was more honest and said something like 'i dont know the origin of god if there is one' i'd be more willing to listen to him again but his deliberate? obfuscation makes me distrust him.

482. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93505 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:00 am

excommunicate.

in my example the creationist doesnt know what evo so I agree theres no debate to be had but what i consider to be dineshist (dishonest) is the fact that i then say that his position is wrong (actually i would have to modify the creationist question to 'there is no proof for evolution') because of that, his position could actually be right (by chance).

i agree that its important to be the teacher at that point and of course in practice if i was thrown that question i would actually present some examples.

483. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93500 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 9:42 am

with the point about scandinavian secularism and advantages compared to the USA, dennet speaks first, then dinesh totally ignores the point and talks about neitzsche suggesting that a society cannot cut its roots (christianity) without killing the branches, he says this despite the obvious examples of the nordic countries seemingly contradicting this. its almost like hes saying neitzsche is an atheist, he believes this so it must be true from your point of view yes???? next question........

484. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93495 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 9:28 am

i just may try and watch the debate again and see if i can tease out fallacies (including any that dennet may include).

I'm sure somebody out there will have already catalogued every falsehood just for the hell of it.

Im interested in that tactic that dinesh uses when instaed of answering the question he throws questions back at the students, i cant remember the details but what he seemd to do was change the premise and get them to agree with that with a 'yes' upon which he had 'won' his position. I also need to see that bit about parsimony, the student asked about proof for god, dinesh asked for proof of parsimony??? (i was distracted here and didnt get back to it) as such, and as the student couldnt find a proof then dinesh sat down, without answering the question, can anybody verify what that was about?? (its in part 14), am i seriously missing his point or was that the most unscrupulous part of the whole debate.

a dinesh tactic seems to be something like this:


A creations says to me 'there is no proof for evolution is there?'

I answer with 'so just what is evolution according to scientists?'

creationst 'er, it says we changed from monkeys and the eye just cant form like that'

me 'ah, see you dont even know what it is so how can you possibly understand the proofs, see how creationists are wrong'

i win and walk away........

is that an example of dineshing maybe??

485. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93438 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:43 am

i feel a dinesh /harris debate could work well, i think harris would be very careful to show any shortcomings in dinesh's arguments before making any actual rebuttal. the debate format has to severly change though, it needs to be a discussion. the dan/din (din!) debate had dan fail (if i remember correctly) to point out that regimes didnt murder because they were atheist, thats an important point and as its one of the main falsehoods presented it should always be dealt with.

486. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93432 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:33 am

It would be wonderful if he could be converted.

even though he wasnt absolutely clear on this (and he didnt answer dans question) but at least hes not a creationist, well not in the traditional sense. I think dinesh could spend some time with christians explaining (loudly)to them that they dont have to actually have to be fundamentalist biblical literalists to believe in god. Belief in an unknowable deity is one thing (and many people say they believe but dont really give it much tought) but an active rejection of evolution is very different.

487. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93425 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:23 am

as a kid in the UK we had (comparative) religious education lessons a few times a week, as far as i know its still law there to teach RE in schools. i always found it a highly lackluste affair but for sure I agree with its inclusion in the school system, im not sure what it includs today but id like to see a great swathe of belief systems introduced, including some now extinct and rare indigineous examples to ensure that the 3-4 big ones dont completely dominate the proceedings.

488. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93424 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 6:16 am

i wonder which of these two would dinesh prefer to be dropped into (via the magical hand of god perhaps).

1)a 'fundamentalist' atheist gathering at a rural building in spain or

2) a 'fundamentalist' islamic gathering in a rural building in pakistan.

id be interested to know his answer and why.

i know that spain/pakistan are not equivalent but i felt that its more likely that in pakistan fundamentalists were less likely to be constrained than in spain, sure the atheist meeting could be in pakistan too to be even.

489. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93070 by phasmagigas on December 2, 2007 at 5:54 am

I think you meant to say something else, and I think you may be right... What you seem to have meant is that the majority of people on earth are too stupid to think for themselves, or do the intellectual leg-work to come to the realizations that intellectual atheists have come to...

i learned something by listening to dinesh. His delivery style (irrespective of what he says) is akin to a preacher (as many have said) and in his talking to a church congregation for eg he would have an audience sat looking and shouting words of agreement and the occasional halleluja, most if not all in agreement although one could bet a lot of them wouldnt actually be listening properly, just agreeing.

Its easy to throw this same accusation at an atheist crowd when listening to a popular speaker but im not sure that they are equivalent.

I noticed that dinesh on a few instances got a slight rise, a laugh from the audience and at this he would say 'alright' and enjoy the fact that his point had caused a reaction, as a preacher he would be saying 'alright' a lot more, im saying this as i felt that he was more concerned with making himself feel good than actually throwing honest ideas across.

Now this is all somewhat ad hominem but i think theres an important distinction between speakers who genuinely want to confront issues and thosewho are up there to make themselves feel good and wrile up and audience, listening to dinesh was more like listening to ted haggard (ignoring the content of their messages) enjoyng whooping up an audience.

Does whooping an audience make their message wrong? of course not but I reckon theres a difference between the honesty and motives of whoop speakers and non whoop speakers.

maybe we could get dinesh to whoop talk evolution in the bible belt, before you know it they would all be believing in evolution too!!

490. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92948 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 7:59 pm

"What if you're wrong?"

Our duty is to be honest. If we're honest but we're wrong, would anyone here condemn us?

if there is an afterlife (i suppose that tallies with god somewhat) I will at least know ive been wrong, if there isnt then believers will never know they are wrong. Im quite happy knowing that i can at least be shown to be wrong.

491. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92886 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Ok that was just really painful (Literally for D'Souza, stop yelling!).
I don't think either of them did particularly well or really even tried to stick to the topic.

i didnt feels dans rebuttals were particularly effective and dineshes ended up being rants about atheist regimes at almost every opportunity.

can a debate about an unknowable, invisible supernatural entity ever be any good? im not sure it ever can anymore than a debate about those equally unknowable subgods like cthulhu to warm us up for the main one.

what was that business on parsimony? did dinesh really do what i though he did? was he not supposed to get shouted off stage for that or something??

492. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92859 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 3:47 pm

part 12 7mins 30. dinesh shouts it would be ignorant to say something is 'just there', should this not apply to his god to.

aside from what he says i find dinesh very difficult to tolerate with his incessent shouting and pointing.

493. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92855 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

part 11. dinesh is asked about pascals wager and the issue of multiple belief systems. dineshes answer is that he should study the belief systems and figure out which one is carrying the truth. Now thats a bit tricky for the average person as there are practical considerations like flights to obscure tribes to ensure youve covered all bases.

Dinesh sneakily introduces scientific ideas into the pot (to equivocate science and religion)saying that just because some dont accept say darwin that you go out looking for the truth, the difference here though is that accepting scientific propositon xyz or not doesnt apparently land you in a pit of fire.

494. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92806 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:55 pm

dinesh parades the false notion that pol pot etc killed because they were atheists, this is ridiculous, is there any evidence anywhere that anybody has ever killed another because they were atheist? There is however lots of examples counted daily where one person will kill another primarily based on their acceptence of a god and what they believe its requirement of them is.

the fact that he then suggests that atheists should share the responsibility of 'atheist' dictatorships is preposterous.

495. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92797 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I wanted to mention that I was at the debate and thought the Dennett did not prove his point.

I felt that to, im not sure that is actually important, when challenging the notion of an all powerful supernatural deity it is impossible to show it is in actual fact a human construct (in the same way that cthulhu may or not be), dennet knows this and i think the point he makes by displaying the various religions is to introduce the notion that how people interpret god (irrspective of its existence) is instrumental to how they act and if there are various ways of behaving how god wants then maybe this will lead ultimately to questioning the validity of one and alls religion and ultimately god/s it/themselves.

496. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92789 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm

ignoring the content of the debate for now dinesh sounds just like a preacher, in front of an unsophisticated audience he would have hands waving and cheers of agreement. Does dinesh always shout at his deliveries? when he starts equating faith in god with faith in knowing how a relationship will progress (so you have to make a rational decision to take the leap)he sounds like hes actually begging for people to agree with him. This led to pascals wager at which point you see how unsophisticated an audience he must usually get, im trembling in my boots as i write, where the wager is brought up the bottom of the blackmail barrel is being struck, a perfect antidote for naughty children.

497. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92734 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 10:57 am

Fair comments steve.

public forums are a fantastic exercise in free speech and banning is a last resort, id like to think that reasoned exchanges might help someone see their misunderstandings. Remember, ruht initially came here questioning evolution which is fine (for what it was worth i did give at least one fairly lengthy post on his evo comments) but now its fragmented into the equivalent of a sandwich board preacher sermon.

To my mind its comments like this that are not really helpful

There is nothing more sobering and final than to experience God in the supernatural. All who do so are never the same ever again, and they have this 'edge' over all who foolishly claim he doesn't exist.

its the kind of thing a heroin user might say in relation to a non user who thinks they 'know a good time without drugs'

and then this

Dawkins, unfortunately for him and those who follow him, is a fool, and I don't say this rudely (intentionally rudely) or to provoke anything, but simply as a matter of fact statement. He's just another in a long list of fools since the beginning of creation who have filled their time and ego with silly, vain things while living in rebellion against the Creator. Soon all of his books and efforts will be nothing but dust; eternity takes it all away and it is forgotten by truth and those living in truth.

well what can i say to that? naive, deluded, mentally ill, a troll or teenage angst? i dont know.

498. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92716 by phasmagigas on December 1, 2007 at 9:58 am

i can deal with individuals like revcort who is a sincere enough guy, when he started posting scripture (for eg) he quickly realised that it is a childish, pointless and plain ridiculous tactic for any reasonable adult to do, revcort at least realised there was a lot he didnt know and that he needed time to read up on evolution etc.

This site is for reasoned discussion, the troll we have here isnt providing that, i have flagged the posts already i suggest others do so, i would like to see this troll banned, anybody feel im being unreasonable?

499. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92568 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 7:26 pm

its 12.05 past midnight here in manchester uk.
just waiting for my lovely wife to come home from her works do, as we say in the north.
just having my last freezing cold guiness, then wait for her smile. look forward to saturday night food and wine with good friends and fun.
we free thinker`s have the best of time`s. hope you agree, and take care and good luck to dennet. ollie

right now im in the rather cold midwest of the USA but i'll be back 'up north' for a few pints of warm beer over the festive season!!

500. Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

Comment #92470 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

annabanana

Also, Phasmagigas, I think you're being very harsh with the stereotype you're creating in your hypothetical dialogue. I can think of two people right off the top of my head who are creationists, but pretty intelligent (other than the creationist part, of course). One is a veterinarian and the other one of the brightest electrical engineers I've ever met. Both of them are armed with the argument that radiometric dating can't be counted on, etc. These arguments hold slightly more water than those like "the Bible says so". If everyone that were a creationist were simply undereducated, our problem would be far simpler, but unfortunately there are a good many of that percentage that are actually educated. How do we change their minds?

im not sure im being harsh, the majority of creationist ive met have a very poor understanding of evolution, to the point where they have no idea what it is. Sure there are intelligent creationists out there but as for any of their intelligent arguments, well, they can all be refuted. Now if they know something that most working scientist dont know about radiometric dating then they should doing research and showing how the radiometric dating is wrong (and i bet if it wasnt for the contention of evo there would be no single person questioning the valididty of radiometric dating in as far as its other uses go). education is key but that isnt enough, all kids learn some evolution in school, this debate is going to go on for centuries but luckily as the evidence and exploratory techniques increase the gaps in knowledge will decrease and only the most ignorant sufferers of congnitive dissonance will be left shouting goddidit. (I hope in the future there will be a book akin to the ancestors tale but that will be a more technical version, almost like a massive database showing a massive selection of species and how their genomes are related and giving very specific examples and evidence of divergence.)

otherwise intelligent scientists who deny evolution in favour of special creation (somewhat different than the more reasonable position of theistic evolutionists)are suffering congnitive dissonance, the science framework that they use everyday is rejected because of a few words in genesis, that is something i genuinely cannot understand. A veterinarian who sees the similarity between man, cat and dog but who rejects common descent is not doing it on the basis of evidence but adherence to scripture.

its important to note that creationists irrespective of inteligence have a vested interest in WANTING creation to be true, if its true they feel it means they also will go to heaven if they are good. I as an accepter of evolution dont WANT it to be true, in fact id be happy if there was a creator who would give me an afterlife, it just so happens that the evidence points to it being a very likely account of the development life on the planet (heck, and i dont need to tell you that) and as it stands is way more intellectually engaging than any notion of creation.

creationists need to realise that darwin didnt set out to disprove creation or seek another explanation anymore than somebody who goes out grocery shopping and finds a really great deal on a TV set in the said shop that cannot be ignored.