701. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #29186 by scottishgeologist on April 2, 2007 at 2:40 am

Just one small correction needed - in the reviews above, Richard Holloway is described as Primus of the Church of Scotland - he was actually Primus of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Minor niggle I know, but if we value reason, truth and integrity then we are duty bound to be as accurate as possible

Regarding Richard Holloway, he did a very good honest review of "A Devils Chaplain". The URL is:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,6121,894941,00.html


His final words are very refreshing for a churchman:

"This is the best book of sermons I have read for years. So please go on preaching to us, Reverend Dawkins, and don't mind the things they throw at you. After all, prophets always get stoned"

Holloway is of course reviled by the fundies for his liberalism. He wrote the book "Godless Morality"

http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Morality-Keeping-Religion-Ethics/dp/0862419093

The thing about Holloway is that he doesnt go for this absolutist "inerrant bible" BS. He has the guts to stand up and say that there are problems and that a bit of intellectual honesty is needed.

702. Darwin 'was committed to publish'

Comment #28870 by scottishgeologist on March 31, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Although witchcraft killings of people ended some time before, there is an incident which may be of interest:

The Great Auk in St Kilda:

In 1840, what is believed to have been the last Great Auk recorded in the British Isles, was killed by the islanders on Stac an Armin. It is said that they thought it had caused a violent storm, and they suspected it was a witch! The last Great Auks in the world were killed in Iceland in 1844.

(This was lifted off a web page about St Kilda, so I dont know if it is true or not. However I first learned of from a marine biologist who does a lot of research into Hebridean sea life - OK , I know that that is an "appeal to authority", but you get the drift.

If it is true, then it is very sad that a species shoul be be wiped out (in this country at any rate) due to superstitous ignorance.

703. John Paul Sainthood Nun 'Gentle, Simple'

Comment #28509 by scottishgeologist on March 29, 2007 at 1:48 pm

you know, the fundie evangies will dismiss this as a load of "idolatrous, God-dishonouring, satanic, superstitious nonsense" They refer to the Pope as a "man of sin, son of perdition" - they'll quote the Westminster confession, describing him as the Antichrist, they'll back it up with scripture (2 Thessalonians 2: 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.)

And after they've vented this sort of spleen, you'll no doubt get a "catholics all going to hell" just to finish the rant. So there.

This is standard reformed, calvinistic, fundie stuff.

But wait.... they both CANT be right, can they.... at LEAST one of them is wrong. Couldnt be both now could it.... could it....? Surely not....

704. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28452 by scottishgeologist on March 29, 2007 at 8:31 am

Regarding hell and preaching about it, there was some research done a year or so back:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1658115,00.html

I often wonder how many believers actually really believ in hell. If you came across someone being cremated alive in a car accident, you'd be traumatised for weeks afterwards.

Yet, all these believers have friends , relatives, associates who are going to something INFINITELY worse and they never talk about it, mention it or even feel to warn people about it (except the real evangie types with their "turn or burn" message)

And pastors seldome mention it either.

Wht not? Could it be that they dont actually believe in it? In which case, since most of the teaching on hell comes from Jesus himself, does this mean that JC was lying? I which case where else was he lying?

And so on.

Doctrines like hell are a real Achilles heel to the church , and they know it.

705. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #28249 by scottishgeologist on March 28, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I think people are actually waking up to the "elephant in the room" and starting to ask hard questions. People like RD have catalysed this and the theists realise it. Hence the panic.

The elephant in the room of course was mentioned in one of Prof Dawkins most incisive, revealing pieces of prose (Religions Misguided Missiles):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html

In this article, RD cuts through the BS of religion and gives it straight, tells it like it is. No punch pulling or "respect" here.

"I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life"

One of the best articles I have ever read.

706. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28102 by scottishgeologist on March 28, 2007 at 2:13 am

Hey, if you want a laugh, try these sound clips (they are from "Landover Baptist Women spoof web site) and are all about "Cathylicks"

http://www.fes-net.com/_lob/LOL/sounds/cathylicks1.wav

http://www.fes-net.com/_lob/LOL/sounds/gs6cath.wav

707. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28101 by scottishgeologist on March 28, 2007 at 2:06 am

Someone mention Hell in Norway back there a bit - didnt they? Hell has a music festival, which I gather is rather a fine one.

www.hellmusicfestival.no

708. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27907 by scottishgeologist on March 27, 2007 at 7:35 am

severaspeciesof - Love your screen name! Just noticed it. You should have used the whole thing!

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

Excellent bit of Floyd from a seriously good album. Roger Waters of course is atheist:

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

Every one should listen to SSOSFAGTIACAGWAP at least once in their life.

709. Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!

Comment #27879 by scottishgeologist on March 27, 2007 at 5:32 am

That peanut butter one is unreal. "New Life" inside? Hopefully not - New Life is the name of Ted Haggard's church in Colorado Springs. Last thing you want ot find when you open a jar is Pastor Ted leering out at you.

As for the banana, well if that isnt a shameless display of sex with fruit what is? When the guy on the left is showing you how to give a banana a hand -job, the guy on the right is holding his crotch. WTF?

Notice how he wriggles and shifts about when his friend puts the banana in his mouth.... looks all very dodgy to me

710. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27821 by scottishgeologist on March 27, 2007 at 1:13 am

Very good article that. There is definitely a "movement" afoot that is gathering momentum. It's going to be interesting to see how it develops. A point will come (if it hasnt already) where a critical mass will be reached and it will no longer be seen as odd or weird to criticise religion

who knows, it might be "k3wl 4 u 2 b an atheist"

711. Christian Socialists head for more radical Labour territory

Comment #27748 by scottishgeologist on March 26, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Oh yes, just noticed. On that web site there is a "Faces of Jesus " section:

http://www.rejesus.co.uk/community/voting/votes/faces_jesus.html

So theres a few more to choose from.

(Kinda like the Rasta Jesus myself - all he needs is a huge spliff and a decent reggae sound track and hey... the coolest Jesus ever )

712. Christian Socialists head for more radical Labour territory

Comment #27746 by scottishgeologist on March 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm

Actually, Cholmondeley, I prefer this image here:

http://www.rejesus.co.uk/expressions/faces_jesus/facesj_media/b_che.gif

That advertising campaign must have really hacked off the fundies big time...

713. Are You Right Eyed Or Left Eyed?

Comment #27744 by scottishgeologist on March 26, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I am right handed, but left eyed. Two places where this is important:

1) Cameras. Most SLR cameras have the wind on lever on the right, so, for rapid shooting and winding on, it is awkward if you are left eyed. I dont think any camera manufacturer ever made a left eye SLR. With digital, this is less of a problem as there is noi "winding on " per se, but for us Luddite traditionalists....

2) Archery. I used to participate in the noble art of toxophily. Bein right handed, I drew the bow holding it in my left hand, pulling the string with my right. But I looked through the sight with my LEFT eye. Other archers thought this a bit odd. It just meant that the "lining up" was all a bit odd. Never felt disadvantaged however.

And as a complete aside, shoulder fired weapons like RPGs and Stingers (correct me if I am wrong) are designed towards the right hand eye for aiming - does this disadvantage me on the Armageddon battlefield? I feel I should know.....

714. Sex in the 1700s

Comment #27606 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 3:16 pm

How language was used then is quite interesting as well. For instance, heres an interesting little Wikipedia entry:

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

:-)))

715. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27595 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Mr Gollo

Hi - your posting on angels actually reminds me of something - Nowhere in the bible are angels described as having wings. At no point, where angels (Gods messengers) and men interact, are wings ever mentioned. In fact there is a passage in Hebrews "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares"

If angels had wings, then how on earth could they be entertained "unawares" - it would be pretty obvious wouldnt it?

I have often wondered where this "winged" thing came from. And have often wondered if it is as a result of confusion with fairies. After all, what is that thing on top of a Christmas tree? Angel? Fairy? Could be either couldnt it?

Yet the Christian churches continue to peddle this stuff, esp at Christmas time.

There is actually a ludicrous instance some time back of a charismatic church which experienced "angel feathers" falling on them. On top of "miraculous gold teeth" and all the other bizarre behaviour, I suppose this was to be expected.

Actually, it's unfair to have a go at the charismaniacs , they are such an easy target - the uber-deluded. Even mainstream believers find them embarassing....

716. God and His Gays

Comment #27566 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 10:07 am

Wee Flea - just a few brief points:

1) Science is a self refining process - there are many things which would have been considered "scientific" (and after all the word just refers to knowledge) at one time which have been superceded or indeed dumped in light of new research. Indeed it HAS to be like this. Douglas Adams put it beautifully:

"Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes" Exactly.

2) Now compare this with religion esp the Abrahamic religions whose ideas are rooted in bronze age texts and are utterly unquestionable. Adams had something to say about that as well:

"Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. "

3) Much of slavery was justified by the so called "Curse of Cannan" and other passages in the Bible. There is no shortage of quotes from famous people who believed this at the time, eg:

"Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America

4)Yes, all human beings are created equally. Just a pity about women isnt it?

"1 Timothy 2:11-15: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. for Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (NIV)

717. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27525 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 7:09 am

I know I'll be accused about going off topic, but this is such a funny one. Check out this link for some fundie pants-hatred:

http://www.dividedbytruth.org/women_pants.htm

You couldnt make this up...

718. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27518 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 6:15 am

Speaking of underpants, in the UK (and maybe elsewhere?) they are usually referred to as pants (also used as an expletive)OF course UK /USA usage of the word is totally different

I remember reading somewhere about a fundie church which "didnt allow the women to wear pants" Must admit I found that highly amusing. Of course they were referring to what we Brits would call trousers.

Ahh, the joys eh? Two countries separated by a common language!

Incidentally, there is a fundie church in Scotland (and I think a couple of congregations in England) called the Free Presbyterians who subscribe to that particular viewpoint - no trousers for women, strict sabbatarianism, and definitely no female pastors.

The most famous FP in recent years was Lord Mackay, the Lord Chancellor under Margaret Thatcher. You can read about him here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mackay,_Baron_Mackay_of_Clashfern

719. Mormons miffed over coffee-swilling angel image

Comment #27496 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 3:10 am

Right, lets see, the angel is called "Moroni"

Does this mean that the followers are Moronic?

Sorry, OK, mea culpa, its a cheap one, its an easy one, but hey, someone was bound to point it out sooner or later...

720. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27493 by scottishgeologist on March 25, 2007 at 3:01 am

stevencarrwork

The "official" explanation for removal of the FC Message Board is this:

"Increasingly, the message board was reflecting attitudes and discussions that the Committee feels are unrepresentative of the church, unhelpful, and distracting. This in no way refers to the thread on David Robertson's interaction with Richard Dawkins' atheism (as has been suggested by some), which was one of the better discussions."

A couple of points:-

1) This removal of the message board just happened to coincide with all the Dawkins debate that was taking place. Having gone from the usual dull, dry, academic debates about evolution, women wearing hats, homosexuality and whether musical instruments should be used, the forum turned into a "cyber World War III" between atheists and apologists. And then it closed down. Cynical? Nah....

2) The "attitudes and discussions" that were distracting were actually coming from other Christians, many of whom were quite conservative theologically, as the various threads revealed. If the FC cannot put up with debate among people of a suposedly similar theological mindset, then I would say "censorship"

3) Why not just remove the "distracting" threads and keep the valuable ones, after all, if the Dawkins debates were the valuable ones, then why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

4) In the explanation above, we read: "that will reflect the interest of the church better, appeal more to our own constituency, and be more useful to the cause of Christ." This sort of "pull up the drwabridge" approach doesnt exactly sound like a place where cutting edge "atheism vs religion" debate will take place, despite the statement that the Dawkins debate was "one of the better discussions"

By pulling its message board at this point, the FC has shot itself in the foot.

Never mind, I suppose that they are getting more than their Warholian 15 minutes....

Anyway, Give David Robertson some credit - at least he IS fighting his corner. How many other churches are represented on this forum? As far as I can see, none.

721. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27432 by scottishgeologist on March 24, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Just noticed on the eden.co.uk another book by DR about R M McCheyne. I was struck by this comment:

http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/awakening__the_life_of_robert_murray_mccheyne____93436.html

Written by the present minister at St Peter's, Dundee, Awakening is a stirring account of what God did through McCheyne and what God can do today, if only we let him.

"If only we let him" So we control what God can or cant do? We "let" him? So much for omnipotence...

722. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27431 by scottishgeologist on March 24, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I like the new cover to David's book "The Dawkins Letters"

http://www.eden.co.uk/shop/cover-images/dawkins-letter-the-1001601.html

Note the pink unicorn... But hey! Where is the FSM?

723. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27429 by scottishgeologist on March 24, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Wee Flea said: Is that really the best you can do?

There is actually a lot more I could bring up but lets stick with this one. You said: "The Bible never says that intercessory prayer is always answered the way the person who makes the prayer wants"

Which begs several questions:

1) Is God interventionist? Does he change his mind based on the number of people praying?
2) What is the point of prayer at all (apart from the obvious point, that it makes those doing the praying feel better about themselves)
3)So IP is not always answered the way that we might want... OK, so back to the statistical studies that have been done, and published in journals such as the American Heart Journal, NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. Maybe you are right, it doesnt get answered the way we want. Because there is no deity to answer it.

724. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27239 by scottishgeologist on March 23, 2007 at 3:57 pm

"I cannot think of any where where the Bible has been proven wrong."

Reputable, proper studies done into the efect of intercessory prayer show that it has no effect over an above what you would expect statistically.

So the "ask and it shall be given" stuff in the Bible is wrong. And these studies prove it.

Of course, the believers have a get out clause "God should not be put to the test" As reported by the Bishop of Durham on the bbc page at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3193902.stm

To give the full quote: "Many theologians say that, even if you believe in the power of intercessory prayer, such a trial is doomed to failure because it "puts God to the test" - and there are clear instructions in the Bible not to do this."

Which suggests that the idea of "proving" anything in the Bible is a complete waste of time. And anyway, once you "prove " it, it is no longer a matter of faith, but empiricism.

725. Chimpanzees 'hunt using spears'

Comment #27125 by scottishgeologist on March 23, 2007 at 8:22 am

TIKI AL

You thinking about this?

www.bushorchimp.com

:-)))

726. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #27080 by scottishgeologist on March 23, 2007 at 5:27 am

It strikes me that a lot of this sort of debate is actually futile for a fundamental reason - that of frame of reference

Atheists refuse to accept the idea of a supernatural world. ONly if something can be empirically measured and evaluated, ie that there is physical evidence for it, can it be considered valid. Therefore, the idea of the "supernatual" is beyond the bounds of physics and can't be proven. Once you start "proving" stuff, it drops from the "supernatural" to the "natural" and therefore in a different frame of reference.

Believers on the other hand DO accept the idea of a supernatural, which cannot be proven by empirical evidence.

The 2 positions are essentially mutually exclusive.

727. Religion

Comment #27074 by scottishgeologist on March 23, 2007 at 5:11 am

I find Carlin so funny, it actually starts to hurt. Man's a genius

And in amazing aside, he also did the voice for the American version of "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends"

Now that's versatility!

728. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26779 by scottishgeologist on March 21, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Speaking of the Sabbath and all that, it used to be the case, that in the town of Stornoway (capital of Lewis, the "last bastion of the Gospel in the UK") that the childrens swings were chained up on a Saturday night, to avoid any "worldly" temptation to play on them on the Sunday.

Dont know if this is still the case, but Sabbatarianism runs deep in parts of the Western Isles.

Of course one wit pointed out that it wasnt to stop the kids playing on a Sunday morning , so much as to stop the drunks from playing on them on a Saturday night.....

729. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26652 by scottishgeologist on March 21, 2007 at 1:38 am

justme, I take the point about the non standardised spelling.

But I think that regarding versions, there are as many fundies using the KJV as well as the NIV. The NIV is certainly popular among the more "moderate" evangies.

I remember hearing the Rev Ian Paisley saying that the NIV was a "tainted version" and that the KJV was the only true Bible.

These people get quite worked up about this sort of thing...

730. The Fourth Flea!

Comment #26581 by scottishgeologist on March 20, 2007 at 3:27 pm

I love this bit from the scan:

"Cast in the classical form of a sequence of letters"

Not only are they riding on RD's coat-tails, but wait for it, they are plagiarising each other's ideas - in this case David Robertsons "Dawkins Letters"


BTW, check out seraph on wikipedia:

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

Ther is another fascinating little fact about this word. The plural is "seraphim". Except in the King James Bible , the fundies' favourite, where it is spelled SERAPHIMS.

And this is the version of the bible that is supposed to be "inerrant" "infallible" and "inspired" ?

homeskooled and intellijuntly desined, obviously....


Where does this madness end?

731. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #26575 by scottishgeologist on March 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Ben

The link to the nuggetnews article is interesting, but not half as funny as the comment at the end - it's so badly written, that one poster on talk.origins describes it:

"...the only comment is a semi-literate rant from one Christopher Manigan, a self-described "US Marine", who manages to invoke 9/11, the Iraq war, abortion and the drug problem all in defense of the fired teacher. The man could be a speech writer for Bush."

Homeskooled and intellijuntly desined, obviously...

732. 'They Tried To Teach My Baby Science'

Comment #26554 by scottishgeologist on March 20, 2007 at 10:57 am

Of course, the classic spoof site is Landover Baptist:

www.landoverbaptist.org

The work of Chris Harper who is staggeringly funny IMO. I love that site - never, ever fails to make me laugh.

Chris Harper gave a speech which is simply the dogs bollocks - no other description for it:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/GMOW.html

This speech is something else.

The thing about Landover is that some folk think it is REAL and not just a spoof. That in itself is scary...

733. Christian soldier takes up arms as hustings near

Comment #26550 by scottishgeologist on March 20, 2007 at 9:22 am

The Scottish elections are going to be quite interesting.

Labour are already running scared of the SNP, seriously so, the SNP have never really "cracked" the Labour vote in the past so it'll be interesting to watch this one. Labour in London will be paying VERY close attention. If they lose swathes of traditional support in Scotland, then they will almost certainly suffer from the same effect in England and Wales at the next general election. Anti-Blair, anti-Iraq war sentiments. Plus a resurgent English nationalism which Cameron will respond to.

As far as the Brian Souter thing goes however, after the viciousness of the Clause 28 business, Souter will be seen as a poisoned chalice by many. A lot of SNP supporters will be dismayed.

But the one thing about the religion /politics thing in Scotland is its really hard to say how it will all turn out. Catholics have traditionally voted Labour. Tories hae all sorts, as do the SNP. The most secular are probably ther Greens, then the Lib Dems.

A lot of the religion is just "nominalism" anyway - the kinds that "go to church" but that is about as far as it goes. They'd say they were "Christian" if asked, but never open a bible from one day to the next.

As for these "Christian " parties, they hope to get some success because of the proportional representation system used for Holyrood. Most Scots dont even know they exist.

Keep an eye on the results of this election - it is a major test for Labour. And it could have major constitutional consequences. Irony is, it was Labour who set up the Scottish Parliament!

734. Chimpanzees 'hunt using spears'

Comment #26248 by scottishgeologist on March 18, 2007 at 2:19 am

Quote from the article:

After the chimp removed the tool, it would frequently smell or lick it.


Want a laugh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwFQEEeCzw

735. Chimpanzees 'hunt using spears'

Comment #26246 by scottishgeologist on March 18, 2007 at 2:16 am

USA_Limey

There is a thing called the Great Ape Project - I think that addresses the question you raise

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

also www.greatapeproject.org

736. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26189 by scottishgeologist on March 17, 2007 at 2:50 pm

There is of course another way of looking at this. "Does God answer prayer?" Answer is "Yes" (Or maybe that should be YEsssss!!!! PTL! Hallelujia, we just want to raise your holy Name!!!!"

Lets take an example:

"theres a drought , lets pray for rain" Much "fervent" prayer then follows. Several scenarios follow that:

1) It pisses down. Bucket loads. God has answered "Yes!" Continue in the delusion, feel smug and continue to hate gays, feminists, atheists etc. Your God has moved "mightily"

2) The drought continues. Fields are parched, crops die, water rationed. Riots. Killings, anarchy. God is obviously "judging" and has given an emphatic "NO" Therefore there is a clear need for MORE prayer and "getting back to him" instead of being backslidden - those damned atheists, feminists and homos have brought this judgment - lets kill a few...

3) The drought goes on for a few weeks then a bit of rain. Ahah! God is saying "wait" "My timeline, not yours!" Isnt God so awesome that he puts his people through such trials to refine them and bring them closer to him? PTL! Proclaim his sweet name!

I have heard this sort of BS on many an occasion from religites. No matter how obviously futile the prayer exercise, they manage to put a positive spin on it.

So to answer the originla question, "Yes he does" but it might not be the answer you want!!!!

737. Amazing Meeting 3, 2005

Comment #26152 by scottishgeologist on March 17, 2007 at 9:03 am

LOL. "Christ on a pizza box"

Well that beats the Virgin Mary appearing in a toasted cheese sandwich or whatever that lunacy was! :-))))

Here it is: Weep.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm

738. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26139 by scottishgeologist on March 17, 2007 at 7:11 am

One thing that hasnt been mentioned so far is another answer to the question: What If You Could Do Something About It?

Like abortion.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if some fundies went for this option as the lesser of two evils.

Mohler has pened a right can of works here (remember a while back he did his own "Dawkins Delusion" thing - mind you I think he came a poor second to DR in this respect :-)

Interesting article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6480712,00.html

Entitled "Furor Over Baptist's Gay-Baby Article"

And a very interesting final comment in it:


Not all reaction to Mohler's article has been negative.

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based.

``This represents a major shift,'' Drescher said. ``This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it.''


"struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it" Just love that one!

739. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26028 by scottishgeologist on March 16, 2007 at 7:03 am

fonex_86

Hi! The snake handling stuff, AFAIK, is not in TGD - I first came across the Punkin Brown story on James Randi's website www.randi.org

http://www.randi.org/jr/040502.html

A google search of "punkin brown" throw up loads of stuff about the guy.

Its not just the fact thaty HE got killed - it was the fact that the sme thing happened to hs wife several years before.

This sort of level of delusionalism is definitely at the point of mental illness.

Wonder what became of the kids?

Wikipedia article here:

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

740. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #26003 by scottishgeologist on March 16, 2007 at 4:02 am

And when prayer doesnt "work" they claim that either the presons faith wasnt strong enough, or that God had "other plans"

Unbelievable that people can swallow this BS

But when it come to "faith" thew snake-handlers take the prize. Read about "Punkin" Brown and weep:

Evangelist John Wayne "Punkin" Brown picked up the three‑foot yellow timber rattlesnake while delivering one of his raucous sermons in Alabama in 1998.

"They say it won't bite," Brown bellowed as the rattler twisted itself into the shape of a V. "If it won't bite, there ain't no sense in being scared." But he had been bitten 22 times during his 18‑year career as a "snake‑handling" pastor of Southern Pentecostal churches.


"The Lord told me it was all right," Brown continued. "The Lord said it would be all right." But he knew things didn't always turn out "all right." His wife, Melinda, had been fatally bitten by a rattlesnake at a revival three years earlier.


Then, as the preacher hopped across the stage, history repeated itself. The rattler struck, biting Brown on his left middle finger. The ‑preacher paid little attention to the bite, and it took a while for the congregation to grasp the sad situation unfolding before them.


"God's still God, no matter what comes," said Brown, his voice fading. A woman in the congregation screamed, and other members anxiously mopped the dying preacher's forehead. "No matter what else, God's still God." Ten minutes later Brown was dead, and his five young children had become orphans.

That last phrase "and his five young children had become orphans." says it all. The God Delusion taken to its ultimate stupid, conclusion.

And based on a few verses in their holy book which a lot of christians dispute are valid (Mark 16).

741. Amazing Meeting 3, 2005

Comment #25996 by scottishgeologist on March 16, 2007 at 1:55 am

Randi is ace! www.randi.org should be on every freethinker's list of places in cyberspace to visit on Fridays.

He really does do some serious demolition work on the nutjobs.

742. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25993 by scottishgeologist on March 16, 2007 at 1:51 am

Re the amputees argument. There is actually another side to this one, and we need to look at less evolved creatures to see it. Crustaceans can grow claws if they lose one. Here's an excerpt from an article:

"Crustaceans - such as crabs, crayfish, and lobsters-are capable of creating a new limb completely from scratch. While scientists have long been intrigued by this uncanny ability little is known about the process. Working with fiddler crabs, University of Oklahoma zoologists Penny Hopkins and David Durica are trying to determine how, when a crustacean loses one of its appendages, it can grow a new one that is fully functioning and identical to the lost limb.

Crabs lose their legs quite frequently, Hopkins explains. When a bird decides to dine on one of the small crunchy animals, it grabs it by one of its 10 limbs and flies away. The crab can free itself by constricting a special set of muscles that causes the captive leg to fall off. It then can grow a new one in about two weeks - even the showy large claw that male fiddler crabs wave about to attract a mate. "These animals grow new nerve, new muscle, new everything!"

Absolutely fascinating.

So lets get this right - God can do all sorts of miracle healing but doesnt heal amputees, despite the fact that in his "creation" there are creatures who do just that.

Either God's got a thing about crustaceans (just like he does for beetles - there are about 350,000 describe species apparently) Or he just likes to leave humans limbless. Or he simply is incapable of doing it. Or, on the other hand, maybe he just doesnt exist.....

743. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25939 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Dan P

there was the infamous "prayer for fertility" study that actually made it into a peer reviewed journal.

James Randi goes into great detail about it:

http://www.randi.org/jr/070904that.html#1

Occasionally, the charlatans slip the net....

Randi is brilliant at nailing this sort of stuff.

744. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25936 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Goodwithwood,

If Frank Zappa were around now, he'd own these faith-heads no problem!

his comment in that positiveatheism list of quotes I gave is scarily prophetic:

"The last election just laid the foundation of the next 500 years of Dark Ages."
-- Frank Zappa, in 1981

745. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25934 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Hey BaronOchs

Your comment: God comes across more as a slot machine, insert the prayer and collect your miracle.

- serious deja-vue there! Because in an earlier posting I referred to the Duke University study into IP. In the BBC report on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3193902.stm

The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Tom Wright, said: "Prayer is not a penny in the slot machine.

"You can't just put in a coin and get out a chocolate bar.

Brilliant!!!

746. God's dupes

Comment #25901 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Totally agree with the comments so far. Sam Harris seems to have a "way with words". A classic example of the sort of sayings that make you say "wish I had said that!"

He seems to be able to cut right through the BS and summarise things very nicely, pithily and with humo(u)r (that was a sop to conservapedia BTW...)

More Sam, more!!!

747. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25887 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Fedler, the "superior" thing probably comes from the doctrine of the Elect. The idea that God has chosen some people to slavation and some to damnation. What Calvin referred to as the "horrible decree". The doctrine basically makes a nonsense of free will and the idea of "choosing " Jesus or "deciding to become a Christian"

In the bible, christ refers to "his Elect" several times. If you want to read a blistering attack on this doctrine, check out "Holy Willie's Prayer" by Robert Burns. The Scots dialect may be a bit difficult for some, but the poem is brilliant. At the time of burns of course, Scotland was like a theocracy where the churches held enormous sway

Here's a link to it:

http://www.worldburnsclub.com/poems/translations/holy_willies_prayer.htm

Some would actually argue that Burns was a "God fearing man" but his reputation as a bit of a "lady's man" would tend to go against that. He liked a good drink as well....

748. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25879 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Oh yeah, heres another link to a study that shows that prayer doesnt work: (The Duke U study)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3193902.stm

I like the line "putting God to the test" What's wrong with that? Is he scared he's going to fail? Wait... if I put out an exam paper for a non-existent candidate, I can wait all day and he isnt going to show up, the result is "failure"

But you can look at it another way. What if prayer studies showed, "hey, prayer does make a difference, prayer to God does help" Just think what a mighty weapon of God that study would be.

Atheism stopped dead in its tracks - "The God Delusion" gathering dust on the shelves. Muzzies flocking to churches to hear "the Lord's word" .

Richard Dawkins seen cycling down a leafy lane like a John Major-esque spinster off to communion.

A "Mighty movement" of the holy spirit, sweeping the secular west at last, borne on the wings of irrefutable evidence.

Tell you what, if that happened, I'd be in church. I'd be stupid not to.

But (quick reality check) it just doesnt happen like that. Why? Is God shy? or is it a case of the invisible and the non-existent looking rather similar?

749. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25867 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Prayer is the biggest load of BS that the religites can come up with. A study was done last year, published in the American Heart Journal which PROVED that there was no positive effect WHATSOEVER.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_060330_prayer.html

The only people who benefit from this talking to the sky fairy are the deluded dolts DOING the praying. Talking to the sky, FFS!

I remmeber a charismatic type once telling me that God had 3 answers to prayer - "Yes" "No" and "Wait"

Well, hey, if I set up a lump of stone (and being a geologist, I'd choose something cool, really cool, like rhomb porphyry, eclogite or kimberlite) and then if I prayed to it, I'd get exactly the same responses!!!

These lamers do my head in - "I feel that God is telling me" or "I prayed about it and guess what , it happened!! " Wow, what about the dozens of times it DIDNT happen, no doubt you have conveniently forgotten about them. Of course what you then get is the win-win scenario: If you get what you want, isnt God an awesome dude, like, totally, amazing, fantastic and all that hyperbole. But when you DONT get what you want, then its a case of "It must be his will" or "His ways are higher than ours" or "God must have special plan"


Actually, there is one good thing about prayer - when these idiots are on their knees talking to their imaginary friend, they are NOT out an about polluting young minds, irritating the crap out of everyone else or spouting their homophobic, genocidal, mysoginist, exclusivist BS.

750. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25748 by scottishgeologist on March 15, 2007 at 2:08 am

The knee jerk response to this is in itself enlightening. It just shows how irrational the whole thing is , and, lets face it, if one man can make the whole edifice feel threatened, then either they are way off beam, and totally deranged OR they realise that their edifice is just a tissue of deceit, lies, control-freakery and BS.

Very similar response in fact to the slew of anti-Dawkins books that are appearing.

They just make themselves look ridiculous, And of course, by all this high profile protesting, they are providing the infamous "oxygen of publicity" (It was Margaret Thatcher who first said that wasnt it?)

They obviously feel that their house of cards is threatened.

Advice to theists: Shut up. Keep schtoom. And who knows, the atheists might just slither away and leave you with your cozy comfort blanket.

Oh yeah, re frankzappa, I agree , cool name. F Z was brilliant. His list of quotes here is priceless:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/zappa.htm

Possibly, only bettered by his lyrics in "The Dangerous Kitchen"

http://www.lyricsdomain.com/6/frank_zappa/the_dangerous_kitchen.html

What on earth was he on when he wrote that...? :-))