751. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27189 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Well, firstly, nothing more needs saying about religious American engineers, suffice it to say the hugely excessive religiosity of that country explains most, if not all of it. People researching such things should look at the big picture, not just the 9 percent of world population that is the USA.

There seems to be some truth in the contention that engineering standards are slipping. This is partly the fault of the educational system, and partly the fault of industry generally. Nowadays, electrical/electronic engineers deal with LSI (Large Scale Integration) they design circuits by knowing how to connect together chips that were designed by someone else. That someone however, in order to design chips, must be an expert in the underlying physics of how the various types of transistors work.

I grew up and was trained in the "golden" age of electronic engineering, when we had just started making the transition from thermionic, to solid-state devices. I had been making radios and amplifiers from the age of 9 and had a sound understanding of valves (tubes, USA) and all discrete electronic components. When real-world transistors became feasible I gobbled up as much knowledge on them as I could and had good expertise even before I went to college. My point is that modern engineers have had much of the nitty-gritty abstracted away from them by LSI; they are perhaps not as knowledgeable as us oldies because they don't need to be. Indeed, the swing towards LSI was what made me change careers and go into software.

It must also be borne in mind that there are good and bad in all scientific fields, having a degree does not automatically make one a good practitioner, the most important attribute is love of the subject and the desire to invent and innovate. It is also true that in some fields a bad practitioner can go "undiscovered" for quite a while, a doctor for example. A bad practitioner in physics would be uncovered immediately.

In the field of software one encounters a wide range of skills. A person who writes application programs using a computer language is called unsurprisingly, a programmer. A person who builds a website using a software tool designed for that task cannot be described as a programmer, he/she may well be a programmer, but the task of basic website building does not require good programming skills. That's why the glut of outfits set up to do websites have been severely thinned out, software packages that make that job easy, have made them extinct. A software engineer is a person of high knowledge and skill often with a computer science degree. For example, people who write compilers; operating systems; the languages that others use; embedded software directly controlling hardware at the lowest level. In many cases the best of these are those with electronic hardware and software skills. I once worked for a large disk drive company, we paid big bucks to get people from anywhere in the world who could write microcode, sponsored them for green cards, work permits etc. Companies do not spend money like this on ignorant robot-like people; I have never met an ignorant microcoder. Software at its best is a blend of science and art. You might commission two artists to paint your portrait, both pictures will look like you but they will not be identical. So it is with software, two people may produce code that accomplishes a specified task but the actual code is unlikely to be identical in a non-trivial application. The best code will be elegant, fast, use minimum memory and contain the least lines of code, the art of applied computer science. The success of Microsoft is a testament to this; Bill Gates is a very smart guy whose courage and self assuredness led him to hire people as smart or smarter, than himself; I think you will find very few ignorant engineers working at Microsoft. Many American and British companies fail because they fear brains. I'd also be willing to bet that the vast majority of MS engineers would not be religites; starting of course, from the boss down, but then, many are not native-born Americans and so are God-virus free.

I could write a book on the history of software and in fact, almost did, but Gates beat me to it. To those of you with a low opinion of engineers, I can only assume you have come across the dregs at the bottom of the barrel. You need to have some experience with Japanese, Indian and European engineers before airing your narrowly formed opinions. Look also to China, another country not in the grip of religious fervour, they have already demonstrated their ability to down American satellites if required, they are rapidly overtaking the USA economically as well. I fear that if the current idiotic upsurge in American religiosity continues, it will hasten the downfall of the USA; it will become a nation of ill-educated god fanatics whose trigger-happy attitude towards the rest of the world might need to be curbed by rational force. Of course I hope not, because my son still lives there and I have some fine American friends.

752. Debate between Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins

Comment #27136 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

When did this happen? I can't believe a thing like this happened on my doorstep and I didn't know about it!

753. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27126 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 8:26 am

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is this:

The difference between a scientist and an engineer is often nothing; is an engineer who wins a doctorate in his field any less of a scientist than a person with a doctorate in chemistry or biology? Clearly not, I was amused by the poster who had a friend who said that once the mathematics were understood, physics was not as "hard" as biology! Although not quite ROFL I was close to it, this person must have been a first year student fresh out of redneck school! The greatest physicist alive would never say they "knew" the "maths" of physics; maths is a tool used and developed continuously. A chemist or biologist need only have some knowledge of one of the nuclear forces, namely, the electromagnetic force; it entirely governs their discipline, I suspect there may be a few "biologists" here unaware of that fact. A physicist must have much deeper knowledge; they must peer through the electron cloud to probe the workings of the atom.

In conclusion, it can be fairly stated that although those working in pure science would likely have the deepest knowledge of nature, it is left to the engineer to produce the goods. Slavery to the environment is suffered by all creatures apart from humanity; engineers are the ones who freed us. I don't wish to denigrate the great biological advances made in recent history, but without the tools needed to do the work, without environmentally controlled places in which to carry out the work, without homes to live in or food to eat, biological work wouldn't happen.

No question about it, engineers are arguably the world's most important people!

754. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27096 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 6:10 am

MartinSGill has given a fair definition of what an engineer is, but it seems that some of you still haven't grasped it.

Engineers design things, technicians build them. That is not to say that engineers cannot build things, it's just not their main function. Some engineers start their careers as technicians, I well remember the day I became an engineer; I sat down and designed an electronic circuit to perform a specific task. I took the requirement, decided on the best way to go about it (the key point), did the calculations, drew the circuit and gave it to a technician to build. I did not HOPE it would work, my knowledge of the underlying scientific principles behind every component caused me to KNOW it would; my interest in the outcome was to see how close my design would adhere to the parameters I had DESIGNED into it.

Another example: quantum mechanics is just about as "scientific" as you can get, modern electronics would be impossible without reliance upon quantum effects. I wonder if "tunnel diode" means anything to you engineering naysayers? I guess not so I'll tell you, without blinding you with science, it is a component that relies upon quantum tunneling to perform its function.

Shuggy,

I didn't take offence, I simply pointed out your error. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you come back with the statement that engineering is technology, you're trying to wriggle out of a hole by making another error. Technology is that which draws upon engineering and science as a means to making things of a technical nature. You're committing a classic error made usually by non-scientifically trained persons; you're trying to have an opinion about a fact, all scientists and engineers know that such is not allowed in the real world!

Engineering IS applied science; that is a fact – no opinions allowed!

So, don't compound your error by making more, just have the courage to admit you were wrong.

Fishpeddler,

Read with more care. I said engineers relied on mathematics, as do scientists.

Fonex,

I've read one or two of your previous posts; I didn't take you for a fool. I won't repeat your ridiculous statement about engineers; I'll be kind and assume you were ignorant about what an engineer is. Still, unless you retract that nonsense I shall have to revise my opinion of you.

Perhaps some of you have been deluded into thinking that engineers are more religious than those of other scientific disciplines by the insularity of the country you live in. I notice Americans suffer most from this delusion, many seem to think their country's religiosity is reflected throughout the rest of the Western world; this is not the case. I know from personal experience that some Americans can be amazingly insular, as I said in my first post, the only religious engineers I ever met, were American.

I'll conclude by pointing out that many of the most intelligent persons who ever lived were physicists and engineers, so those of you who decry these disciplines should think twice before posting drivel.

755. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27025 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 10:23 pm

The degree of crap being spouted here is astounding, puerile and most of all, disappointing.

amazeen said:

"engineering is not science"

fonex_86 said:

"I utterly HATE these scum (ignorant engineers -- not ALL engineers, obviously); they are arrogant, narrow-minded, stupid, and completely useless, both in the academic and social context."

I find it difficult to believe that persons could display such a transparent lack of knowledge and ignorance on a website like this! I hope you are very young people; I would hate to think you were both stupid!

Engineering of any kind is applied science of the highest order; indeed, it could fairly be described as the very expression of the body of knowledge we call science. The fact that a few of you are able to talk such nonsense on a computer makes my point perfectly. I can only assume that you are either inexperienced or have failed to notice that everything you have and use in your life was engineered for you by a wiser person trained in the practical application of scientific principles.

In my own life as a professional electronics engineer and software engineer, I have met and got to know many other engineers, only two were religious and these were in the USA. In the UK, I never met a single religious engineer.

Unlike Lodestone, I do not take offence, anyone who can label engineers as SCUM, has a mental condition that is more to be pitied rather than angered by. There are other engineers who frequent this site, I suggest you babies run and hide before they come along and verbally spank your ungrateful little arses for you!

I hereby challenge any of you ignorant engineering naysayers to explain how you can justify the nonsensical claim that engineering is not science. I would just LOVE to hear what you think engineering is! All engineering relies heavily on mathematics, the queen of sciences, or am I and all the world's physicists wrong here also? I don't think so. The best thing for each of you who made such foolish remarks to do would be to immediately post apologetic comments before people laugh at you. How can you expect to be taken seriously in future otherwise?

756. Religion

Comment #26972 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 5:11 pm

I'll try to find a great routine he did on the decline of American technical skills, it includes the marvellous line:

"You know, we can't make a VCR worth a fuck anymore but we can sure bomb the shit out of your country!"

757. Religion

Comment #26970 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 5:02 pm

7. Comment #26968 by shetlandforpeace

Yes, he's American - New Yorker I think. I first came across George in the USA, he's like a Noam Chomsky of comedy, not afraid to highlight the shortcomings of his own country. There's a lot of stuff on the net about him going way back to the start of his career. Like Conolly, I'm Scots but I prefer Carlin overall, he tackles serious issues in his own unique way.

758. Religion

Comment #26965 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Here's George's Ten Commandments link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CitfTtMIx8

759. Religion

Comment #26964 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Yes, it's old but still makes me laugh. He did another one about The Ten Commandments that he reduces to The Two Commandments, very funny also.

760. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26946 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 12:58 pm

49. Comment #26919 by aleprechaunist

Politicians in the UK, by funding sectarian schools, by failing to jail those making religiously-biased incitements to murder, by pretending that many problems are not caused by religion that clearly are; pander to religion on a continuous basis. I used the word "pander" in its true sense because I think politicians are basically "whores" for votes.

I would have thought that British cultural norms need no defining but since you ask, cultural norms can be defined as behavioural patterns to be expected and considered acceptable within a society. A few examples; the handshake tradition, the way we expect those who address us to make eye contact, the need that we have to gauge the feelings of others by their facial expression…I'm sure you can think of more yourself.

I think Feynman and Einstein had it right, Abe asked us to keep things as "simple as possible"; Dick asked us to avoid "dopey philosophical arguments" that shed no light on the question in hand. I agree with them.

This is a simple issue; the wearing of a face-obscuring head-bag is against a cultural norm of this and most other cultures and an impediment to the all-important need for clear communication in a classroom environment. I can make it no clearer than that, I see no need for, and will not allow myself to be sidetracked into, any kind of "dopey philosophical argument" on the matter.

761. Britain Proposes Allowing Schools to Forbid Full-Face Muslim Veils

Comment #26917 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 9:19 am

This is a simple issue, no need for in-depth analysis.

1. We did not evolve with bags over our heads; if we had, we wouldn't be debating this issue.
2. Pandering to religion whatever the flavour is a divisive mistake – period.
3. Any "culture" whose stated aim is to take over a country not of its birth and force other cultures to adopt its religion and religious laws, makes nonsense of a so-called "multicultural society".
4. We British did not force militant Islamists to come here, they asked permission; we kindly granted it. If they find it difficult or unacceptable to blend into current cultural norms, then they should avail themselves of the other right we granted them, namely, the right to LEAVE!
5. In matters of public education, all cultures in a country must agree to the way education is conducted, no religion-based special dispensation of any kind should be allowed. Failure to agree will obviously cause ongoing problems.

No need to draw a conclusion; it's obvious.

762. Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right

Comment #26907 by Yorker on March 22, 2007 at 8:37 am

"natural selection – a factory for making almost impossible things"

A fine quote that, and one I'd never heard before. I enjoyed this presentation by Prof. Jones, the HIV information was new to me and so I learned something as I always do when listening to or reading him.

I shall refrain from making a frivolous comment about the article header.

763. A Brief History of Disbelief

Comment #26540 by Yorker on March 20, 2007 at 7:42 am

4. Comment #26537 by goldmineguttd

The entire series is on YouTube and maybe on Google video also.

All you need do is download them and burn them to DVD. There are various software packages available that will accomplish the task of downloading, converting (if necessary) and burning.

764. Kissing Hank's Ass

Comment #26250 by Yorker on March 18, 2007 at 3:15 am

Pretty good, and yes; for "Karl", read Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or our very own David Robertson!

765. Interview with Steven Pinker

Comment #26076 by Yorker on March 16, 2007 at 2:27 pm

I'm starting not to like this Colbert guy, there's something not right with him, he seems unable or unwilling to see when his brand of "funniness" isn't appropriate. I smell a hidden rat here, something I can't quite pin down yet but I shall.

766. Free Speech

Comment #25712 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Interesting but sad to see that most of the young YouTube'rs commenting on the Hitchens vs Galloway debate, are strongly pro-Galloway, they've fallen for the bullshit. I think they may see their hero take a heavy fall in the near future, that corruption affair is far from over.

767. Free Speech

Comment #25709 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 7:13 pm

14. Comment #25581 by eoinc

I think he does that for effect - clearly, it's working!

768. Free Speech

Comment #25707 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 7:05 pm

31. Comment #25674 by Duff

I agree with you but getting people on this site to unite will be a problem. I've tried a few times - so far without success. People here are mostly talkers, not persons of action. I'm spending less time here now because I'm trying to get support in my local area, we want to tackle this problem using political means. The simple fact is that people who just think and talk are powerless; being right, logical and sane is not enough, individuals are just ignored or swatted aside. For success, right must be allied with might so unity is essential, I may succeed or I may fail, but at least I will know that unlike most, I tried.

769. What We Need More Of Is Science

Comment #25695 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 6:36 pm

It was OK, but not nearly as good as "F**k The Creationists" he did a few years ago!

770. Free Speech

Comment #25641 by Yorker on March 14, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I don't always agree with Hitchens, but in this case he has my wholehearted support.

771. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25422 by Yorker on March 13, 2007 at 3:25 am

22. Comment #25408 by Logicel

Logicel,

I was aware that Dawkins liked Sagan's work.

My first career was electronics engineering so I have some expertise in electromagnetic radiation, I can confirm Dawkins did a fair job in UTR. Glad your getting grips with physics, most people's difficulties lie in the fear of it, approaching it from the fun angle is very helpful.

Incidentally, a few days ago I listened to a speech Sagan made two years before he died; it was remarkably prophetic, almost 100% accurate in the predictions he made about the current situation. I'm about to buy his new book, edited and released by his wife, Annie Druyan.

772. US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

Comment #25381 by Yorker on March 12, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Let's hope his brave act will encourage more of his ilk (who statistically must exist) to "come out" in support.

773. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25378 by Yorker on March 12, 2007 at 6:30 pm

I liked Maynard-Smith, he was an honest and insightful man; he is sorely missed.

774. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25377 by Yorker on March 12, 2007 at 6:23 pm

4. Comment #25326 by Logicel

Dawkins books are best for the science of evolution. But for a person wishing to study and learn the scientific method, then I would recommend Carl Sagan; his "Demon Haunted World" is arguably beyond comparison. I think it should be made compulsory reading for all.

775. 1986 Oxford Union Debate

Comment #25376 by Yorker on March 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm

In American made movies, the hero is usually an American. In reality, the American is most often the asshole. I wonder why?

776. British Book Awards shortlists 2007

Comment #24702 by Yorker on March 8, 2007 at 5:56 am

6. Comment #24701 by BillySands

HaHa! I liked it Billy!

777. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #24683 by Yorker on March 8, 2007 at 3:52 am

Sorry Melisande,

Hitchens' words may not apply to you of course, but I think in general, he's not far off the mark.

778. Darwin's God

Comment #24339 by Yorker on March 6, 2007 at 4:25 am

Thanks to all who supported my comment #7.

I have posted it in the Politics and Current Affairs forum under the title "A political initiative". It will be interesting and exciting to see what develops!

779. Darwin's God

Comment #24288 by Yorker on March 5, 2007 at 5:16 pm

38. Comment #24260 by cheshirecat

Well, my feline friend, you seem to have misunderstood, possibly with innocence, or given your past history, perhaps with wilful intent. I will assume innocence, so:

"Politics is not about whether there is or isn't a God"

Who said it was? I said the nasty effect religion has on the mind of some politicians and its negative effect upon society was the problem. Isn't it strange that you alone seem to have misconstrued this?

"I will never support a party that discriminates against others holding lawful beliefs and engaging in the lawful practice of their faith."

Again, who said anything about discrimination? Indeed, I said I would have no problem with religites pursuing their delusion harmlessly. From previous stuff you've posted on other threads, my guess is that you are a religite unable to accept that others do not suffer from the disease of faith. Just so we understand each other, here's how I feel about faith, yours or anyone elses:

"Faith is a belief in that for which there is no evidence. Faith is something you never get from within yourself. Faith in yourself is not faith; it's knowledge of your own abilities. Faith - when it comes to instilling confidence - is nowhere near as powerful as knowledge. Faith in fact, is something that someone else wants you to have based entirely upon their say so, they expect you to believe what must only be their opinion, otherwise it would be verifiable and be a fact that did not require faith!"

Try to construct a real argument next time, not a childish tantrum!

780. Darwin's God

Comment #24252 by Yorker on March 5, 2007 at 2:50 pm

33. Comment #24240 by troodon

Thanks for the support troodon (I guess you're a raptor fan) :)

Your reply to JeepJay is almost exactly what I would have said. The title "Rational Party" is just what popped into my head as an example. My basic point is that I consider the time is right for a new political approach along entirely secular lines, we would just ensure that religion played no part in policy or decision making. The UK is ready for this I think, just look at the success some misguided people have had recently! I'm certain we could do better!

You're right about the forum, I must log off right now but will post it there ASAP.

781. Darwin's God

Comment #24088 by Yorker on March 4, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Thanks for your comment also Macho Nachos!

782. Darwin's God

Comment #24087 by Yorker on March 4, 2007 at 6:13 pm

16. Comment #24083 by perkyjay

Excellent perkyjay!

Our membership has increased by 100%!

I'm also retired but would pledge £10 a month. Your example may help to trigger others. Come on you young big earners! We already have about £220 a year pledged from two old guys on the strength of ONE post on ONE website, that's a great start!

783. Darwin's God

Comment #24065 by Yorker on March 4, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I dislike using uppercase but this needs to be loud:

THE QUESTION OF GOD'S EXISTENCE IS NOT IMPORTANT!

What IS important is the increasingly negative effect ignorant and foolish belief systems have upon the progress and continued existence of humanity. If religites were unable to have any effect upon society and kept themselves to themselves, I suspect most people would have no problems with them. Unfortunately they have spread like a cancer and now infect every 'organ' of society, no need to ramble on about historical reasons and wax philosophically, that's like fiddling while Rome burns. We need to stop the rot; action is needed; PZ Myers is right, it's time to attack with anger, let's use our intellect as a sword, we've tried using it as a teaching-tool without success. It is absolutely essential that we unite and throw our weight about en masse. I'm damned if I will let some god-befuddled politician force through legislation that would limit my freedom or subdue my right to criticise matters in public. Alone, I would lose, so I need your help, they can't jail all of us. If we fail to unite, they will continue walking all over us and we'd only have ourselves to blame.

We can start by ridiculing idiotic politicians who think we can have a 'multi-cultural' society when one of those 'cultures' has stated its intention to take over the country and reduce a woman to the status of slave and chattel. Why do we tolerate militant Islamists who deny the rule of human law and obey only the laws of Allah? Are politicians scared of losing Muslim voters? I wonder how many Muslims vote since true Muslims shouldn't be voting at all! Bush said he wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, a Muslim country, an idiotic or cynical ploy predictably doomed to failure on whatever account. Foreigners wishing to live in the USA must formally state in writing that they have no intention of subverting the government or changing the country in any way. It seems like a silly question but it gives the government a legal reason for deporting those who behave in the way some Islamists in the UK have done. Does Britain have such a clause on immigration forms, if so, then what's the problem, why don't we just eject them? If we don't have such a clause, we need one – fast. We need to follow the example of Australia; a bunch of Islamists tried to get Sharia law implemented locally, they were told to accept the country and its culture as is, or get out.

There's an old saying about the pen being mightier than the sword, I suppose it's possible when dealing with rational people, unfortunately, religites are irrational and aware that violence is always the ultimate sanction. The most logical, beautifully written book exposing the folly of religion will have no effect upon the crazed lunatic who wants to casually and slowly slice off your head with a butcher knife while chanting 'Allah u Akhbar'. Incidentally, I wonder how many of you have seen one of those beheading videos? Some are worse than others but all are horrific beyond words, mere barbarism doesn't describe it, I think they should be made required viewing for all, not just religious apologists. I think the shock value will make even the staunchest fence-sitter fall off their perch. I notice that many videos have disappeared from the Web, they don't want us to see the truth; they forget we have hard disks. I have no wish to offend the family of Ken Bigley here, but just think what British reaction would be if his unedited murder was shown on the BBC. Of course it won't happen, they would say people would be upset; well of course they would, THAT'S THE POINT! They would be more than upset, most would be sickened, sickened enough perhaps, to rise up and force our stupid politicians to change the location of their own heads; back on their shoulders instead of up their arses!

Well, there are multiple examples one could give about what needs to be changed but this is not the place for it, however it is the place to spread a message so I repeat:

WE NEED TO UNITE, ORGANIZE AND TAKE ACTION!

We need to elect a person or persons to speak for us; we need to raise funds; we need to be vociferous and visible, not just here in the UK, but worldwide. We must be seen and heard to combat irrational proposals and vigorously resist those who would impose their god-riddled ways upon us, especially in the fields of government, education and indeed any sphere of public or private life. Such an endeavour cannot be a hobby, our leaders must be full-time; they will need to be paid. We most certainly have people skilled in many disciplines, raising funds should pose no problem; initially we would need donations to get the ball rolling, I would give, would you? The success of books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Dan Dennett are a good indicator that we have irritated religious overlords and their flocks; united, well-funded and wielding our intellectual might with force, we shall make them quake!

I don't wish to imitate Martin Luther King, but I too had a dream. My dream is that one day rationality will hold sway upon this Earth and give humankind its best chance for long-term survival. We have achieved much, we can achieve much more by casting off the demeaning shackles of religion; forget about trying to convert adults whose capacity for rational thought has been destroyed by the god virus, let's just bypass, isolate, and render them ineffective. In short, reverse the current situation; there is no doubt in my mind that this can best be achieved by political means.

Conservatively, we can expect about five million UK atheists, but in reality we could expect much more support since only around 40% say religion is important to them. Imagine what we could do if we were able to convince just ten million people to donate just five pounds per month! I would happily donate more than this. Religious organisations are able to get much larger amounts from followers, why shouldn't we achieve our more modest goal? We can't offer everlasting life in an imaginary heaven but we don't threaten everlasting torment in an everlasting hell, we offer instead a better, safer, more equitable world for our children and our children's children…the possibilities for powerful, truthful and meaningful arguments are virtually unlimited. We could do what no political party in history has ever done, we could become a worldwide force, not through warfare but by the power of reason and the willingness to help other persons of reason to form similar organisations in their own countries. As time went by, other outmoded war-inducing doctrines like nationality and patriotism would disappear, we could truly become citizens of the Earth and husband it wisely, enabling us to concentrate on our ultimate goal, the exploration of the Universe. Far-sighted people already know that we must do this if we are to have a long-term future, failure will mean our certain demise. Such failures are very possibly the reason that we have yet to encounter alien intelligences, if that's the case there is no reason why we should allow it to happen to us. Exploration is embedded within us, we came from the stars and they beckon us to return.

I realise this is a whopper of a dream and I shall not live to see its culmination, but just to see it begin and to know I played a small part in its formation, would be reward enough. Realistically we must start small but we must start, why not begin by winning the general election and installing the leader of our RATIONAL PARTY as PM?

Who among you will share my dream and join me in this noble, righteous and indeed, essential quest?

784. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #24000 by Yorker on March 4, 2007 at 4:46 am

32. Comment #23979 by Munger

35. Comment #23991 by etny

Good posts by both of you! Insightful and ringing of truth.

785. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23940 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 4:51 pm

2. Comment #23897 by cheshirecat

"You probably don't like this website much then."

Now why would you say such a foolish thing I wonder?

There is much more going on here than simple god/no god pointless argument; but since registering here shortly after the site was launched, I have heard the same arguments used repeatedly, after a while it becomes boring and certainly non-productive. Perhaps you're new here and haven't noticed, or you are one of those people who don't take the trouble to read or study what has taken place here historically.

In another apparently disconnected post you said:

"You don't think a man stupid for simply being wrong."

I didn't say the man was stupid, I said he was making idiotic philosophical arguments, others apparently agree. However, anyone who makes silly statements AND is not prepared to admit the possibility of error; IS stupid. If that applies to Craig – and I think it does - then stupid I label him. If you consider him entertaining then I think you have a weird sense of humour my feline friend. Just to clarify a little more: I said I won't bother with pointless debates anymore but I read everything and will always take the opportunity to praise what I see as good posts, I shall also defend my position with gusto.

786. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #23895 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 12:50 pm

"An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year's Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is "a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist".

How predictable was this? Catholicism really is an insult to human intellect.

787. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #23892 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm

If this is the William Lane Craig that made such an impression on John Humphrys, then my opinion of John has just taken a dive.

Craig is just another example of "Philosphus Idiotocus" who seems to be unaware of the logical maxim that the onus of proof lies with those making the claim! Wolpert, I'm certain, would admit the slight possibility of being wrong, but Craig would not; just another example of the utter uselessness of trying to debate with sufferers of the god disease. Why do apparently intelligent people keep making these pointless attempts? When one has heard all the arguments before, its mind-numbingly boring to hear them trotted out again and again. Personally, I will not bother about these silly "Does god exist?" debates involving supremely arrogant religites, anymore.

788. The return of God?

Comment #23867 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 8:37 am

8. Comment #23865 by Donald

Nice one Donald!

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

Comment #23857 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 8:09 am

Mikado:

Please try to refute me with up to date references, that link is old. I dislike people who insult my intelligence by thinking I would post nonsense I couldn't back up. Channel 4 in the UK spent a week of evening programs showing the the plight of Vanuatu.

If you need further education try this link published TODAY!

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0830-07.htm

790. The return of God?

Comment #23850 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 7:44 am

Sorry John, I think you may have lost your way a little.

No, one does NOT have to respect Craig's belief, indeed, mere belief should NEVER be respected, no matter whose it is; only fools respect belief.

Why does no-one ever explain to those "bright young people", the impossibility and futility of attempting debate with anyone unwilling to admit they might be wrong. If young people get suckered into religion the realistic ones will end up disillusioned and the gullible will die deluded, their lives having been a complete waste of time. No doubt a few might have achieved great things but religion will ensure they molder in their graves as mute inglorious Miltons.

791. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23838 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 6:33 am

I'm tired of these pathetic plonkers who bleat on about Dawkins not engaging in proper theological discourse and other similar garbage. Why do these dolts think one must become an expert in fairy tales in order to recognise one? When I fail to see a pile of dogshit and step in it, I don't rub my nose in it as a veracity test! I do what Dawkins does; quickly recognise it for what it is and scrape it off my shoe without touching it!

On theology, I think like Dawkins, it is a non-subject. But as Mencken said, there are many who need it in order to make a living assuring idiots they can avoid an imaginary hell.

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

Comment #23837 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 5:54 am

"The jury is still out"

More Falwell nonsense. The fundie jury may still be out - it probably always will be - but the real jury made up of sane scientists returned its verdict a few weeks ago.

Global Warming like evolution, is a fact.


I just did a little research and found that NASA scientists now think that melting ice may be becoming the dominant factor in sea-level rise which would account for recent ocean cooling, although cooling dips have been noticed on a decadal basis. The general ocean temperature trend is of course, still rising.

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

Comment #23835 by Yorker on March 3, 2007 at 5:29 am

Sorry to interrupt the back slapping guys - you might want to think again.

Scooternyc said:

"Global Warming is nothing more than politics attempting to create hysteria in order to tax our dollars even further. It's irresponsible."

I wouldn't make such a sweeping statement for fear of ending up with a face-full of egg. Without doing any personal research on global warming, I would be inclined to accept the verdict given by the large majority of scientists that it is a fact. The recent evidence presented by the British Antarctic Survey confirms that huge chunks of Antarctica are melting. Perhaps unawareness is causing you to make a faulty judgment; the USA has a survey team there also, but it wouldn't surprise me if their findings were suppressed by the Bush government; keeping the population ill-informed and scared, is a favourite control method of theirs.

Dreamer's Dilemma said:

"Have they come up with an explanation for the cooling of the oceans within only the past three years?"

You seem to be using this as an argument against GW when it fact, it actually supports it! The increase in GW does not follow a linear curve; it has irregularly-spaced humps and dips in it. Although it's true that surface ocean water has cooled a little since 2003, it pales into insignificance compared with the overall temperature rise, the oceans are significantly warmer than they were thirty years ago. An understanding of basic scientific principles would cause me to expect ocean levels to fall if there was a genuine overall cooling, instead, they're rising due to GW-induced thermal expansion and the melting of ice.

Perhaps both you gentlemen were kept in the dark about the plight of the people of Vanuatu; they're desperately trying to get a nation to take them as refugees because their island homeland is disappearing underwater due to GW. I thought this was global news, am I to understand that this never reached American ears?

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

Comment #23795 by Yorker on March 2, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Couldn't sleep, so I made up some LU question and answer stuff.





Q. What's the easiest degree to get from LU?
A. Mathematics, no number can exceed 6000

Q. Why is studying at LU, economical?
A. You only need one textbook.

Q. Why are LU computers, the world's fastest?
A. Their processors need only 13 bits.

Q. Why are LU law graduates in great demand?
A. They win all cases by default.

Q. Why are LU faculty members always starving?
A. Have you tried living off $6K a year?

Q. What's LU's most popular course?
A. Sex Education : "In God, We Thrust"

Q. What's LU's motto?
A. "Godidit, Doggonit, Godidit"

Care to add more anyone?

795. Daggers Drawn

Comment #23787 by Yorker on March 2, 2007 at 6:19 pm

The info is here:

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/event_future.php?d=20070327

796. Daggers Drawn

Comment #23781 by Yorker on March 2, 2007 at 5:08 pm

"This week the Maze asks if we would be better off without Religion?"

Do we really need debate over this? Of course we would be better off without it! If nothing else, it just adds unnecessary complication to issues politicians already have great difficulty with. If a politician publicly states a decision was made after consultation with God, I agree with Portillo – call the men in white coats. In my opinion, a wise politician (oxymoron?) should never mention religious belief or disbelief. Making Cameron's mistake would sow a permanent seed of distrust in the mind – as it did in mine – of a thinking voter, it would always leave one worrying that any bad decision might have been caused by religious influence.

Naturally, Cameron would have probably weighed things up and decided that since believers still outnumber the sane, it was wise to at least feign religious belief. He may have overlooked that fact that in a nation like ours, even believers will not forgive bad decisions whether God-induced or not.

This issue is about to be debated again by Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling vs. Neuberger, Scruton, Spivey; is the outcome in doubt? I think not. However, I wondered if members of each side in these public debates meet prior to the event to plan a common strategy?

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

Comment #23765 by Yorker on March 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I see you haven't yet gained enough imagination to select another nickname, Bizarro.

I agree with you that the media give an unbalanced view of your revered founder, they are far too kind to him! The plain fact is that Falwell isn't educated period! It's clear though, that he's looked up to by followers of even lesser education, which is the reason your joke university can proudly display a 3K year-old dinosaur fossil. Perhaps I'm being too harsh here, it's possible you've had the sense to hide it after the professor whose name you mock, made you all look worse than silly.

798. Merkel wants EU to be vocal about Christian roots

Comment #23537 by Yorker on March 1, 2007 at 1:37 pm

"The period of secularisation was important"...

Sounds like she wants to ditch sanity and return to the Dark Ages, if so, she can - as someone famously said - "include me out!"

Since Europe has started two World Wars, a reference to its Christian roots is something I would want to play down my dear Angela.

799. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23530 by Yorker on March 1, 2007 at 1:23 pm

If there really was a God my first prayer would be that He save us from the haverings of "Philosophus Idioticus" of the Plantinga breed. Right off the bat this nonsense was predictable...ahh what's the point, I'm not going waste my time discussing this fool, he's clearly B.E.R. (Beyond Economical Repair)

800. If God is talking to you, too, Mr Cameron - don't listen

Comment #23493 by Yorker on March 1, 2007 at 4:49 am

8. Comment #23437 by LookToWindward

I agree with you. Recently, I have been pondering just how much British politics could be influenced if all varieties of non-believers made it publicly clear they would not vote for religious politicians? We are still the minority but we number in the millions, it may cause hypocritical politicians some cause for alarm to know for certain that a large chunk of votes is out of their reach. The difficulty of course, would be getting unified agreement among us about how the statement should be presented; our non sheep-like characteristic is also our greatest weakness. The more intelligent politicians don't worry about us because they understand that fact.