701. The Group Delusion

Comment #112403 by AllanW on January 17, 2008 at 3:37 am

Wooter; yet again (sigh).

You have proven time and time again that you have no interest in reading the copious links given to simply explain the phenomena contained in your asinine analogies and questions.

You have proven time and time again that your pre-infantile grasp of scientific basics is driven by your religious convictions rather than an open questing for actual, provable, real information.

You continue time after time to ignore simple questions posed to you on this forum and prefer instead to return here demanding the time and effort of others who have put the time in to do the reading and understand to spoon-feed you out of your deep ignorance.

You are as demanding and as uneducated as one of the six year olds you claim to be teaching. With none, absolutely none of their excuses of infancy to plead for clemency.

You spout inane, vacuous religiosities that daily demonstrate your closed attitude and mind-set while presenting a demeanour of beligerant, pious certitude that is as breathtaking in its scope as in its shallowness.

You are an ignorant troll. You are deeply and offensively closed in manner and mind. You are to be pitied. You are wasting our time and yours. You are incapable of understanding just how sadly we here feel that you are a spectacular waste of genetic material and earth resources. You have wasted your opportunity in this life to demand of yourself something fine and noble and have told us how you pollute those around you with your poison. You are beneath contempt.

702. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112078 by AllanW on January 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

Re; comment #112074

"May I refer you at this point to Zahavi's Handicap principle."

ROFL. I love science jokes; even better when I understand them!

Now Diacanu; choose between sitting in the top of the tree to warn the flock or bringing a nice, juicy worm to Anna. Hang on. I may have got finches and humans confused here ...

703. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112067 by AllanW on January 16, 2008 at 9:14 am

Re: comment #112062 Anabanana

"Yes, back on the "market", so to speak."

Oh dear. I'm sorry to hear that Anna (if you're sorry, that is) but I predict a slew of people joining this thread. And not to contribute to the debate :)

704. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112007 by AllanW on January 16, 2008 at 7:45 am

We all see that it would be a theocracy if this were enacted but is it possible? Let's start to shade-in the probabilities;

1. The country gave the last two terms to a president who was out-spokenly religious and as evolution-denying as Huckabee. It could happen.

2. Twenty years ago all political commentators assumed that the evangelicals were being 'used' by the right wing conservatives to bolster the vote but would never choose the nominee. All nominees on the right are hard-line religious observers this time.

3. Voting participation forty years ago was at least double the rate it has been at the last election. And has been declining steadily from the educated, literate population at a far greater rate than all others due to 'voter apathy'. It's not a great choice but 'the lesser of two evils' still is better than letting the greater of two evils gain power.

4. What if McCain and Huckabee fought on a joint ticket? McCain brings his voters, Huckabee his and they engineer a pact for nomination and Vice between them? Is this scenario incapable of beating the Democrats?

5. What if the Democrats spend the next 3 months kicking the shit out of each other (pointing out the weaknesses and slinging-mud) then, exhausted and lacking funds, they have to fight the joint Republican ticket mentioned above. Still think the Democrats are a shoe-in and that the nightmare scenario cannot be realised?

If you think the prospect of Huckabee in any sort of control over the country is to be avoided and cannot happen then I suggest you rethink; it is to be avoided but it could happen.

All it takes for evil to prosper is for good people to do nothing.

705. The Group Delusion

Comment #111996 by AllanW on January 16, 2008 at 7:05 am

Applause to the Reverend for his use of language; a comprehensive and vitriolic attack, hitting the targets but without gratuitous profanity. Good man! :)

706. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111968 by AllanW on January 16, 2008 at 5:24 am

Re; comment #111965 Azven

"Which standards?" Whichever the reigning politicians decided mate.

"What would be the point?" To engineer legislation and the enforcement of that legislation to amend/modify behaviour.

The thought-processes (such as they exist in this mind-set) do not concern themselves with empathy, compassion, acceptance, toleration, understanding, exploration, compromise or diversity. It is a fundamentalist attitude; I KNOW the right and only acceptable way to live your life. And now I have the power to enforce your acceptance of it at pain of your death.

Please do not post that this is a little extreme as an extrapolation of the fundamentalist mind-set; just look at all examples in actuality that bear it out.

707. The Group Delusion

Comment #111559 by AllanW on January 15, 2008 at 2:30 am

Re; comment #111544 wooter
"I am holding my reason in my hand only."

I don't know what you normally name it but I think that 'reason' is a little strange, mate.

708. The Group Delusion

Comment #111550 by AllanW on January 15, 2008 at 1:57 am

Troll, troll, troll, troll.

709. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #111549 by AllanW on January 15, 2008 at 1:55 am

troll, troll.

710. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111350 by AllanW on January 14, 2008 at 12:15 pm

My respects to you George for all your lifes' achievements. Here's hoping you have many more years to add to them. Best wishes for the op. and thanks for your support of the RDFRS.

711. The Group Delusion

Comment #111216 by AllanW on January 14, 2008 at 3:52 am

Hi again wooter. Best of luck with waiting to get your answers from RD. You're not holding your breath are you?

712. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111209 by AllanW on January 14, 2008 at 3:37 am

Just a quick comment on the thread topic.

It's interesting that many posters have not come across these problems or case-studies of decision-making and economic behaviour. I guess my training in economics and business is more unusual than I thought.

None of the examples Shermer mentions are new or difficult to explain and understand. As a previous poster mentioned the normal way of discussing these decisions is in terms of utility; a personal model for assigning values to economic risks and rewards. And because humans are social animals the major references for esteem/status rewards are inevitably comparative not normative.

It also brings in a little of the old motivation theory (Maslow's hierarchy anyone?) as a poster earlier mentioned. Above basic economic needs to support life (food, water, shelter etc) any other rewards or income are assessed in an ascending hierarchy of wishes that peaks at 'self-fulfilment/actualisation'. Just as an example this could be argued to be what Gates is doing at the moment with his charitable foundation donations (just to tie this thread to the points in another). It's far more valuable to him ATM to spend his money and acquire satisfaction for his altruistic goals than to spend time adding to his fortune is one interpretation.

713. The Group Delusion

Comment #110697 by AllanW on January 12, 2008 at 2:09 am

Guys, really good thread here with some fascinating contributions from new posters. Just a quick point about wooter though.

He has been posting on various threads on this forum for awhile. His approach is to meekly ask for explanations because 'he is having a little problem understanding the evolution' or the 'appeal from innocence' gambit. I think anyone who reads his cut-and-paste jobs from the AnswersinGenesis site on the 'Can there be a Darwinian account of human creativity?' thread will candidly judge that he is an ignorant Creationist troll. So please bear that in mind when deciding whether or not to reply.

As for his request for Dawkins to in effect continue his education, well, LOL.

One last point; I paste below one of the typical points he makes (in his own inimitable style) from the previous thread to illustrate the truly saddening result of his ignorance; one that depresses the hell out of a number of us who have tried patiently to answer his questions until it became obvious that he wasn't listening; he tells us he is the teacher in a school of 6 to 11 year olds. I defy you to read his deluded rantings and demonstrations of wilful ignorance and not feel deep sadness for the poor kids in his care.

wooter;

"They really love it. I said, of course, the earth is being spun by God and the same way, the earth is being rotated by God as well. I brought out a SPINNING TOP and I asked one of the students to spin it. And he did. Later I asked them how long did we have to wait for the spinning top to spin by itself without anybody's involvement? They told me "forever."

This is the main problem here; evolution is incompatible with SCIENCE, REASON, MATH, TIME AND PLACE."

714. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110694 by AllanW on January 12, 2008 at 1:57 am

Re wooters reappearance in the Group Delusion thread.

Yes, it's interesting isn't it? As you say, the standard of the writing has improved; the grammar is a lot closer to acceptable; the content and approach is the same old 'appeal from injured innocence' for explanations.

I can only suggest that wooter has found someone or some resource to cut and paste from that reads a little better or he is getting personal help from someone who can write in English.

Again as you say, the content is the same old Creationist deliberate, obstinate, blind ignorance. I may post on that thread to let people know what he is about.

715. Changing my Mind

Comment #110385 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 4:59 am

A few questions about your proposal.

Is there a strong correlation between the sub-set of the population who volunteer for medical trials and the sub-set susceptible to placebo effects? If not then you are offering hope where none exists to people who will not even benefit (however unmeaningfully) from alternative therapies.

If I read your last comment right then you're almost suggesting that conventional medicine should find a way to trap the gullible in their system and only feed the alternative practitioners with non-gullible people to demonstrably reduce their good-news p.r. potential. I may be wrong (and I positively warm to lurker and subterfuge plans in business as they can be very effective) but this would IMO only work slowly and sporadically if at all. Don't underestimate the power of the human mind to convince itself of things that lack evidence :)

The problem from the conventional side (returning to my previous comment) is that it's bloody difficult to get someone to pay for a session with a scientist wherein they will be taught about the scientific method and medicine in general whereas it's quite easy to get someone to pay £50 to lie on a comfy bed for thirty minutes while someone lights candles and waves their hands around while mumbling New Age bollocks about energy vibrations and channels. The first session would probably do them more long-term good but the second just feels nice doesn't it?

Again I suspect that this is another insoluble situation where human tendencies to grab easy, intuitive solutions are preferable to ones which involve hard work, understanding and messy, complex explanations. :((

716. Changing my Mind

Comment #110367 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 4:01 am

PJG; you've captured the quandary exactly to my mind.

Until someone chips in here with a considered and convincing argument let's continue to develop the problem. BTW you're position is exactly the same as mine in a debate on the Guardian comment forums a few months back when I posed the question from the p.o.v. that the alternative healing industry plainly supplies some kind of need in the population (as evidenced by the turnover stats!) so why doesn't the conventional medical 'sharp-end' do what the alternative practitioners do and get some goodwill back after the battering they have taken of late.

But if I take the conventional stance I'd have to rely on the scientific view that there is no real effect to these treatments and rather than taking valuable time and effort from a strained public healthcare delivery system to pay for or prescribe these treatments just because they make people feel better I'd rather spend that time and money to educate the patients in the scientific method so that the placebo effect removed itself for the right reasons with the benefit that you get a more roundly educated population at the end of it that might not feel better but know more accurately why they do not and that the alternatives are merely illusory.

Does that approach feel better than one which offers the alternative methods on the NHS but not freely rather as a chargeable service?

717. Changing my Mind

Comment #110352 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 3:05 am

PJG; hey! You'll get no words of wisdom from me :)

But my view is that you might substitute the phrase 'a faulty perception of cause and effect' for 'placebo. When you think about it this way you see how it is patronising because it just reveals that the individual being affected is just experiencing and believing something that is not real.

This is the whole basis that has been explained to me for why the medical profession feels it would be against their ethics to actually prescribe alternative treatments. You would be knowingly fooling or perpetuating the muddled belief in a patient.

718. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110346 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 2:44 am

719. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110344 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 2:42 am

Couldn't agree more Peacebeuponme.

And ADH about masturbation. Your post about 'habit' just reminds me of the famous Winston Churchill discussion with a lady at dinner; 'Would you have sex with a man for a million pounds?' 'Yes.' 'Would you for a pound?' 'No; do you think I'm a prostitute?' 'We've already established that my dear, we're just haggling over the price.'

If you think masturbation is a morally bad thing how can you discriminate between degrees (a habit)? If you think it's sinful just say so; I'd have more sympathy for such a clear position although I'd still disagree :)

720. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110328 by AllanW on January 11, 2008 at 1:59 am

epeeist; "To paraphrase Marianne Moore - A theory "which explains everything explains nothing, and we are still in doubt."

Every time you tag another bit of ad hoc flummery on to what you are putting forward your ideas become less plausible."

This is exactly the place i hoped to get to before ADH left and I had to get to bed.

This idea that Christianity knows the ideal state for human beings to be in and it is equally applicable to all people seems implausible to me.

There is just too much variation/complexity in behaviours and minds to be coped with. Expanding complexity as we grow and develop as a species that an iron-age myth structure cannot hope to explain and control.

My conclusion is the quote you made; the theory they advance is useless as a guide to behaviour and meaningless except as an intellectual exercise.

721. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110172 by AllanW on January 10, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Goldy the two quotes you picked out are the best example I've seen for awhile of the cognitive dissonance that must exist in every thinking theists mind.

722. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110164 by AllanW on January 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm

'Healing' implies moving from some sub-optimal state towards or to reach another (presumably optimal) state. 'Saving' is a more pejorative, baggage-laden moral tag for the same idea.

My view on the human condition (for we're not discussing individual cases here but rather human beings in general) is that we are one species of animal living in a universe that exhibits no scrap of evidence for the existence of a higher purpose. I am forced to conclude that we make our own targets and purposes.

As a species we exhibit remarkably diverse attributes and wild extremes of behaviour and action. I find it risible and simplistic to presume to 'know' what state of being we should aim for. And even more laughable that it should apply to every example of human being on the planet.

I view those who insist that I accept their view of what this state should be as aggressive tyrannical monsters. Being but an animal (with an animals' instincts and behaviour) I react quickly to preserve my sense of self against anyone who attempts to impose theirs upon me whether they couch it in terms of 'saving' or 'healing'.

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

Comment #110133 by AllanW on January 10, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Re; comment #110126

I think you have hit upon something there. D'Arcy. I want a bumper-sticker/badge/button/t-shirt with the slogan;

"He ain't there; it's up to us."

Pithy, sacrilegious, inclusive; I like it.

724. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110117 by AllanW on January 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm

ADH; most of us like your posts here. We may not agree with them and might frequently rip the crap out of them but we do appreciate your reasonable tone and manner.

But if you mention that people need to be saved or healed one more time I for one will react very badly. It's insulting, patronising and deliberately inflammatory. You may not have meant it that way and be unconscious of it's effects. If so then consider this a consciousness-raising post, please.

725. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #110026 by AllanW on January 10, 2008 at 10:25 am

ROFLMAO Wooterbaiting.

I think the word of the day just got trumped.

Visions of Robert Robinson dancing in front of my eyes;

"So, it's a medieval precurser to hare-coursing, the action employed by itinerant dustmen in Victorian times to dislodge soot from their pockets or the Indonesian practice of making a sacrificial chicken ready for slaughter. Nigel?"

726. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109864 by AllanW on January 10, 2008 at 1:03 am

ADH; when we see prominent atheists building university/diploma mills, fleecing people of billions of dollars/pounds and getting national leaders elected or not then and only then will you have the smallest scrap of justification for sneering. Until then I respectfully suggest you get a little perspective and ask a medical expert to have a look at that twitch you're developing in the knee region.

727. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109692 by AllanW on January 9, 2008 at 1:54 pm

I just e.mailed my MP asking her to support the proposed amendment. The National Secular Society has a piece on it today (after an article earlier in the week) and suggest you contact your MP.

However she is a NuLab drone so may not :(( although it looks like it might be a free vote.

728. Changing my Mind

Comment #109477 by AllanW on January 9, 2008 at 5:43 am

Re; comment #109313 Roland_F
"Now the problem which I have : how on earth can I as an interested person know who is right, who is pushing an agenda, which business interest is funding this research – to trust the published results ????"

As Steve says above but I always remember where I read the reference or idea I'm using or relying on and over time reject some sources and embrace others as having proven their credentials for objectivity. Use a number of sources for this reason.

The other point to make about the description of the process of scientific knowledge/concensus is that it is a process over time not at a point in time. By that I mean that the small process you described above is an integral part of it and at any one time there may be competing or conflicting ideas being described and broadcast and it is only after a period of time that the evidential concensus emerges. And then of course moves on :)

729. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109382 by AllanW on January 9, 2008 at 12:28 am

Like epeeist the work filters disallow the atheismsucks site under a racism flag so I'll have to wait until i'm at home to contribute.

730. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108974 by AllanW on January 8, 2008 at 4:07 am

Re; wooter
"They really love it. I said, of course, the earth is being spun by God and the same way, the earth is being rotated by God as well. I brought out a SPINNING TOP and I asked one of the students to spin it. And he did. Later I asked them how long did we have to wait for the spinning top to spin by itself without anybody's involvement? They told me "forever."

This is the main problem here; evolution is incompatible with SCIENCE, REASON, MATH, TIME AND PLACE."

You have no scientific education. You refuse to answer simple questions. You continually refuse to look at the simplest explanations and then copy and paste huge tracts of creationist nonsense. I have reluctantly joined in marking your posts as troll.

I honestly despair for your young charges if they are exposed to your ignorance as evidenced in the quote above.

If you let slip where you work and teach it would give me great pleasure to devote some time and energy to getting you exposed as the cretin you so obviously are and save you from damaging kids further.

731. Changing my Mind

Comment #108811 by AllanW on January 7, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Re; comment #108799 walk
"So what you're saying is that it's not demeaning to "fool" your patients into thinking you're giving them real medicine, when in fact, you're charging them good money to sell them a fraudulent product? "

Don't put words into my mouth. I did not say that. Read more carefully. Even the quote you pulled is clear that there is no effect other than placebo.

I think that the vast majority of 'alternative' practices and practitioners are not only useless but fraudulent. Anyone who sells their time or products claiming any sort of benefit above placebo is lying unless they have passed proper clinical trials. The others who believe there is any basis to their practice and products other than conventionally understood medicine as it is now is deluded.

If you read further down in that post you'll see I point out the scientific evidence for placebo effect at best. That's my understanding.

I did make the point that conventional medicine should consider offering openly the benefits that the alternative practices industry offer which is individual attention.

732. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108783 by AllanW on January 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Oh dear Anna; you are about to witness a re-run of the War of the Roses five hundred and fifty years after the original :)

733. Blind Faiths

Comment #108765 by AllanW on January 7, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Other factors? My opinion?

Ok. I do not doubt that the difficulties in obtaining evidence in some of these events or even the lower willingness due to intimidation to press charges make prosecution more hazardous. However they are no more difficult than many other crimes (gang-related shootings, crimes of passion, gangland/mafia type events) so that excuse will not wash.

I suspect but cannot prove that a part of the distinct unwillingness to prosecute these crimes with sufficient vigour is a viewpoint characterised by 'multiculturalism' (see my brief summation or definition in a post above). Particularly prevalent in the university-educated, fast-track candidates in the Police force, legal circles (Crown Prosecution Service) and local authorities who are all closely involved.

The particular effect this has is to reinforce in some of these public servants the strand of 'don't make waves that might fuck up my career' in some people that undoubtedly exists. And vocal, undiscriminating local community leaders have shown they are quick to make loud noises that are silenced by dropping investigations or pursuing them with less than required vigour.

On both sides therefore there is a Pavlovian 'learned response' to these issues. I admit; not comprehensively scientific merely anecdotal but corroborated by friends in all three branches I mentioned above.

I fully accept any charges you may make of not being expert here but I don't think you need to be to observe societal activity over the last twenty years.

I will not however accept any charge you may make that my opinions are racially motivated (see earlier).

734. Blind Faiths

Comment #108749 by AllanW on January 7, 2008 at 2:13 pm

weavehole "I've never heard of anyone judge in any way but negatively; 'honour' killings, for example.
"

And yet the statistics in just the UK (let alone the rest of Europe) for honour killings, childhood genital mutilation, forced marriages, kidnapping, shaman/witchdoctor murders etc have climbed in the last twenty years unchecked. The last time I looked all of these crimes were specifically prohibited in our country and yet they continue to be unpoliced; why would you think that is?

735. Changing my Mind

Comment #108745 by AllanW on January 7, 2008 at 1:57 pm

qster. I don't think you and Steve are at odds here. It's a point I've picked up in the CiF section of the Guardian a few times.

The most useful sort of naturopath offers exactly the treatments you mention; water-based, non-aggressive, non-invasive and wholly without effect other than as a placebo. That is not demeaning the treatments. It's a fact. Many clinical studies have shown that they have an effect however in all cases it is merely measured as a placebo effect. Read Ben Goldacre's excellent articles on these studies and this area in the Guardian.

The reason people spend their hard-earned money on them is that they offer something that the conventional medical industry in this country does not offer; namely individual attention. Conventional practitioners deride the alternative therapy industry for some good and some short-sighted reasons.

Good in that in scientific terms they resent the fact that naturopaths cannot accept that in double-blind trials the only effects are placebo. Short-sighted in my view in that they disregard the positive, possibly preventative effects that individual care and attention bring.

I've been told that doctors do not offer courses of treatment that would be considered 'alternative' because of their strict code of ethics against prescribing treatments that they know to have no beneficial effects above placebo levels. Whilst that may be true I have still had no reasonable response to the suggestion that they should do this openly and 'win-back' some of the obvious goodwill that is being purchased outside conventional surgeries at the moment.

736. Blind Faiths

Comment #108732 by AllanW on January 7, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Re; comment #108723 weavehole

"isn't multiculturalism just a corollary of Reason/Science"

i fear it has developed into something far different. In practical terms (as professed and disseminated at the moment) it equates to or is another facet of that great shibboleth 'post-modernism'.

I was born in Birmingham in 1960. Half of my friends and schoolmates were either West Indian or Asian. Apart from childish squabbles (which had nothing to do with race but rather that Amjad nicked my compass or ruler) we didn't even think about colour, creed or cultural background. I'm quite proud of that.

I see many examples now of what 'multiculturalism' is. Essentially that anything someone does or professes from a non-white background (normally an ex-colony hence some of the guilt I suspect) should be respected and above all not judged or challenged as it is their 'culture'. I cannot think of an idea more opposed to reason or science.

737. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108540 by AllanW on January 7, 2008 at 6:54 am

"Too damn cold on that side of the pond."

No; not damn cold enough for a consistent period to kill off most of the germs :)

738. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108127 by AllanW on January 6, 2008 at 4:41 am

re; comment #108097 wooter
"WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU AFTER YOU DIE.FINISHED.? (AN OPEN QUESTION)"

My review of the evidence leads me to conclude that the body (including the 'mind') dies and degenerates into its components. Nothing remains, returns, reincarnates etc. Nothing. No evidence for it whatsoever. This view is massively supported by evidence over thousands of years with not one falsifying dot to the contrary.

Any 'belief' you have that is NOT based on similar stacks of evidence is therefore a personal faith-based belief and while significant for you is utterly inconsequential for the rest of the world.

If you base ANY of your arguments on your faith-based position at all you automatically lose the argument until you base it on a view at least as evidenced and compelling as mine obviously is.

Once you accept this view of 'no afterlife' this present, evidential, real life becomes so much more valuable. And the relationships with the real world so much more important. It normally leads an individual to strive even harder to make the world a better place now (not as a mortgage on an afterlife) and to realise and appreciate the beauty, majesty and compelling vitality of the universe we are experiencing. It leads, in short, to a richer experience and normally a more fulfilled life without the fear that most religious people seem to carry around with them.

Wooter, until you can punch holes in this view you remain in my view a hopelessly deluded individual who, unfortunately, seems to have a position of responsibility for the education of young minds that I find disgusting and abhorrent.

739. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107897 by AllanW on January 5, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Very droll Radesq but be careful or we'll bring up how you spell potato ...

740. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107746 by AllanW on January 5, 2008 at 6:01 am

Re; comment #107745
"Bullshite squared, pureed and poured back into the bull for another go-round."

Isn't this what homeopaths do? THEY claim it makes the medicine far more powerful :)

741. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107740 by AllanW on January 5, 2008 at 5:34 am

Re; comment #107723 wooter
"It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists' interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
Evolution is a deduction from this assumption"

wooter; I'm afraid I cannot get past this from your first post above. If you can freely post this as your considered opinion then you reveal (as we have said here many times before) that you do not understand the first thing about science, the scientific method or evolution in particular. I'm sorry to say that.

The above passage is just plain wrong; there is no framework or assumption about divine intervention. I say again for emphasis; there is no assumption at all about divine intervention. The rest of your spiel (as others have mentioned, is just a copy-and-paste job from creationist websites) is redundant if you have this first, basic view. You are obviously prejudiced (forming a view or accepting assumptions) before coming on this forum and as such deserve no special privileges in terms of participating in a rational, non--prejudiced discourse. We are not being nasty or refusing to believe what you say or prejudiced ourselves. The vast majority have done precisely what I suggest here which is read widely with an open mind (no prejudice).

Answer a few, a very few of the many questions you have been asked (refer to epeeists post above) and we may begin to doubt the evidence of your earlier posts that you are indeed a prejudiced creationist (see how the process works?).

742. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105611 by AllanW on January 1, 2008 at 8:17 am

Happy New Year to all.

Nice essay to ease us into 2008. Reminds me that the anecdote in TGD about the Professor who shook the hand of the visiting lecturer, thanked him for changing his mind and the audience applauded wildly is such a vividly written piece that it brings a lump to my throat just remembering it.

I echo the praise by Richard Morgan but include eppeist and Roger Stanyard. And wish Richard Morgan the best of the year and hope he continues to rub against the grain; we all need that quality from time to time. I know I appreciate someone who does it.

743. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #105600 by AllanW on January 1, 2008 at 7:33 am

Ah FXR but then how do you get people to believe in the useful ideas with no evidence? I have some sympathy with the notion that what motivates some people in some circumstances is indeed the ideals of truth, justice, mercy, compassion etc for none of which you will find a molecule in the universe; they are human thought-constructs (like religion).

744. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #105568 by AllanW on January 1, 2008 at 4:11 am

Reply to epeeist; It's the time of year for lists isn't it? :)

My book purchases this Christmas have involved a bit of catching up I suppose;

Stephen Fry; 'The Hippopotamus' and 'Moab is my washpot'

Pratchett; of course.

Private Eye annual (as well as renewing my subscription).

Dick Taverne; 'The march of unreason'. Picked up the reference after finally getting around to reading 'Tricks of the Mind' halfway through the year (last years present :)). I thoroughly recommend the Derren Brown book for all sorts of reasons, not least his clear explanations and surprisingly passionate defense of reason and atheism.

As for atheist literature; that's so last year isn't it? lol but I am looking forward to Hitchens.

Totally failed to buy 'The Golden Compass' because I read somewhere on this site a very good critique that called it a pile of compost :)))))

745. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105562 by AllanW on January 1, 2008 at 2:26 am

Happy New Year to all.

Wooter; Roger and epeeist keep making the same simple points to you and you do not have a response in simple terms. Copying and pasting huge chunks of text into a post is only making your point harder to find and accept. It also reinforces our opinion that you don't actually have a clue what it is you are talking about. Synthesise your understanding of your obviously vast reading and tell us in your own, simple, elegant words what you think.

Reply to epeeist in the simple way he replied to you and tell him the basis of Creationist science.

Reply to Roger in a simple way and describe the scientific basis of creationism showing how its conclusions can predict the real world and how it can be tested.

Unless you can do these two things you will not only have made no progress with us here but you will in fact have gone down in our estimation and confirm yourself as a Creationist troll to be pitied and ignored (I don't think many people here can get enough energy to be angry at people like that any more).

746. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #105443 by AllanW on December 31, 2007 at 3:23 pm

FXR; this is exactly the explicit point that Pratchett makes in Hogfather. That the stories about the Tooth Fairy and the Hogfather prepare children to believe in the bigger things that don't exist. However in Discworld Pratchett goes on to say that these things are ideals like Truth, Justice, Mercy etc not religion alone. He may have a point that interlocks with Dawkins' here about the mis-firing meme; we want people to have the former ideals but religion is a mis-firing of this tendency.

747. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105441 by AllanW on December 31, 2007 at 3:19 pm

urin4it; you demonstrate all the characteristics of the typical religiot and d'souza worshipper. I'm sure you're happy thinking you and d'zouzaphile won. If we ignore the evidence and say you in fact did will you promise to bugger orf like a nice fellah? Please? You're getting to be very boring now.

748. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105288 by AllanW on December 31, 2007 at 5:03 am

Re; comment #98

From what I've read Brian, you don't need any help mate :)

749. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105284 by AllanW on December 31, 2007 at 4:41 am

Please people, do not feed the trolls :)

I made the mistake on another thread and you see the results posted here. My apologies.

750. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105005 by AllanW on December 30, 2007 at 10:19 am

Norman; that link you gave was probably the most frightening thing I've read in my life. The comments (very many of them) are almost a definition of delusional.

e.g. If God were to tell me to kill in such a way, there would be a reason for it. It would not be just for an act of faith. He doesn't understand this. There is a reason for all that God asks us, commands us to do. Atheists always apply the standards of mortal men to God's way of thinking.

e.g. Jefferson repeatedly demonstrates an ignorance of the Creator God based simply on his own hubris.

I note that he repeatedly postulates inane questions, that boil down to:

If God did something that was obviously completely and directly contradictory to His own nature, what would you think?

(I'd think the questioner doesn't have a clue.)

He does not understand the difference between the capricious, arbitrary nature of the false pagan gods, and the real One.

e.g. In Genesis 6, the world was full of violence.

God's soloution.....Kill most of them.

Nothing stops people from violence like killing all of them.

e.g. This is just another version of the Euthyphro's Dilemma.

See here for a Christian response to it.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?pa...Article& id=5236

The short of the long of it is that God would never command an evil act since it isn't in His character.

Thanks for the link, Norman. If anyone is ever unsure that we should, as a group, not be attacking the moderate, normal religious believer then bookmark and re-read these comments. They refer to a dilemma posed; If your god revealed to you in a set of flawless communications you could not dispute that you should kill every child you see under the age of 2, would you?

The answer in every case by the posters is 'yes'.
That's what's scary.