751. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63140 by phasmagigas on August 13, 2007 at 8:14 am

as for the R & J show generally, their audience would later in the day watch oprah and montel (who between them perhaps promote more woo nonsense that any other individuals), so by comparison R&J were VERY reasonable.

752. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63138 by phasmagigas on August 13, 2007 at 8:12 am

i imagine that giving people the option to see woo as woo is like a little training ground for rational thinking. when judy (and yes, she always has had a rather nervous edge)mentioned that half the population subscribes to woo it reminds me that an argument from popularity (not that her point was that specifically) is a great one to throw at the religious (just to change the subject) as according to somebody somewhere EVERYBODY but them is gong to hell but not to heaven, so we must all be going to hell!! i'll let the religious argue that one out amongst themselves.

753. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62564 by phasmagigas on August 10, 2007 at 6:09 am

the only think missing from the cover is the ape before darwin, maybe believers think that atheists actually come from apes, now that wouldnt hurt their sensibilities would it!

754. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62431 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 5:33 pm

im suprised the cover didnt actually have sam harris eating a baby or snapping a cross or something.

755. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62354 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 11:24 am

vadjong,

yes, now i am confsed and my 'misconceptions of descendedness' was just something that sprung to mind, I may just leave the evol writing to RD ect hahah. as you know the whole naming thing is totally for convenience, in reality each 'species' should have a branch designation (denoting those sharing a breeding group) (eg 'a')and then another number showing their generation number ('a' 1), as the breeding groups split they would then have another designation after the first number eg 'a1' and 'a2' but as youd be carryiong all the previous generation number too it would get mighty confusing, im sure animal breeders have a similar system, maybe even cladisticians (if there is such a word)

756. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62352 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 11:17 am

as long as half intelligent people operate in courts we may still just have a chance. jesus, UPSETS the therory of evolution, as you say tyler, it does no such thing.

A few years ago i remember reading an article of locusts invading the UK (incidentally it was in the daily mail) but it was just there so i read it. AS i know a bit about that group of insects I can say that the article was almost entirely factually incorrect, even the photo of an 'actual sized locust' was actually a UK grashopper (anout and inch long) and the photo showed it as about 4 inches long, way too big. anyway i learned that if this article was BS then what else that i read is also BS (not just in that paper but generally)

757. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62344 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 10:40 am

vadjong, ah, i see what you mean.

its a matter of naming them. The two species INDIVIDUALS aside of each other still couldnt have arisen one form the other (of course) BUT technically in terms of what they are LABELLED as ie species name, they could have, but that would imply bad labelling.

Eg if phasma gigas (a stick insect) gave rise to a sister group that a million generations on became more differentiated into phasma micropteris (or whatever) then to call the gigas 'direct' lineage (with less change for eg, in a similar environment than sister group)still gigas would cause a sort of misconception for descendedness. cladistically one would ideally call gigas the common ancestor leading to micropteris and another species. so overall if species co exist and one species evolved from the other it implies that one of them is very similar to the common ancestor and may share the same species name (which could be confusing).

dealing with those hominid fragments must be VERY difficult. I just hope there are 1000's of skeletons still to be discovered and add to our understanding.

i hope that makes sense.

758. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62337 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 10:23 am

the title of that article is so misleading as for any given organim its direct ancestry IS linear (maybe for bacteria its different with all that horizontal transfer business)

759. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62335 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 10:14 am

I don't see why this follows.
We coexist today with apes, fish and bacteria that share our ancestry.

760. Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution

Comment #62333 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 10:09 am

whan i forst read this article via some other news page i thought 'shit, people are going to read this and 'ah so that evolution lark is nonsense afterall'. '

i was in the library today and saw 'the idiots guide to undersatnding intelligent design'. I decided to pick it up and sample a random paragraph just to see what it was saying. Ok, the one I picked may not have been typical but the logical fallicies and outright misrepresantation was almost unbelievable. Now i dont remember the exact words but the argument went something like this (and be prepared for disbelief):

God is untestable so unscientific>evolutionary theory based on no god> therefore evolution itself is an unscientific theory.

I cannot believe how dreadful that is, to think that some will read that and think 'no problem'. aaside from the fallicies where does that leave ID which stands on the shoulders of an existent god. Im trying to think of an analogy to demonstrate the ludicrous position of that argument. Maybe something like Mrs Jones the maths teacher doesnt believe that 2+2=5 so how can we possibly believe anything she says in class is true. well maybe its an analogy, im not sure, when i hear too much BS it gets confusing.

give me strength!!

761. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62248 by phasmagigas on August 9, 2007 at 4:51 am

phillips wrote 'londonistan' which i have not read but i suppose it paints a non to pretty picture of islam in the UK (and i thought she liked the idea of irrational nonsense influencing our lives), according to wiki she doesnt believe global warming to be a man made problem, just what is it with christians and the rejection of global warming, i dont understand that one. if the bible had said something akin to 'the apple that adam ate fell to the earth by divine will' then we'd have a rabid antigravity movement too, but i suppose at the time it was written when things falling 'down' were so extraordinarily ordinary that no special mention was given by how the apple fell (well i guess adam picked the apple). Its incredible that a few lines in the bible have resulted in an all out attack on the most profound scientific explanation that we could have. I have to say i feel quite empowered knowing that my worldview is a falsifiable one(god). Imagine walking around having an unfalsifiable world view, the ridiculous certainty, the self gratification, it reeks of me,me,me.

762. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62067 by phasmagigas on August 8, 2007 at 5:02 am

despite the majority of the USA and UK population (for eg) believeing in some degree of unproved nonesense, much of which could be connected with healing i wonder why in perhaps ALL (well most) cases of severe illness/injury people would like to get put into a carefully crafted metal box with combustion engine (maybe even one that flies sometimes) and as fast as can be they are taken to place that uses highly trained people using proven methods and equipment for relief and recovery, ie a hospital. anyway i wonder if phillips is of the 'i use science' when im in the shit philosophy.

Admittedly she might pray all the way but if given a choice of the hospital or the crystal healer for an amputated leg i reckon shed have to swallow her pride and opt for the hospital.

763. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62064 by phasmagigas on August 8, 2007 at 4:50 am

No amount of scientific understanding on how the brain interprets audio signals will ever replicate the actual experience of listening to Beethoven's 9th, for example. In a similar vein, analysing the chemical composition of a piece of fruit is not the same thing as actually tasting it.

764. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61858 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2007 at 6:32 am

Dawkins pours particular scorn on the Biblical miracles which don't correspond to scientific reality. But religious believers have different ways of regarding those events, with many seeing them as either metaphors or as natural occurrences which were invested with a greater significance.

765. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61853 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2007 at 6:20 am

Far from upholding reason, science itself has become unreasonable. So when Prof Dawkins fulminates against 'new age' irrationality, it is the image of pots and kettles that comes irresistibly to mind.

766. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61847 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2007 at 5:59 am

These scientists argue that only 'rational agents' could have possessed the ability to design and organise such complex systems.

767. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61844 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2007 at 5:50 am

so what is the author actually saying, that because science hasnt described the exact origin of the universe or life then it should be seen as an irrational enterprise no better than accepting conspiracy theories about princess diana? (author then goes to medicine cabinet to grab an asprin)

768. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61842 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2007 at 5:43 am

Yet distinguished scientists have been hounded and their careers jeopardised for arguing that the fossil record has got a giant hole in it. Some 570 million years ago, in a period known as the Cambrian Explosion, most forms of complex animal life emerged seemingly without any evolutionary trail.

769. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61841 by phasmagigas on August 7, 2007 at 5:41 am

the DM often has its resident astrologer jonathan cainer on the front page (and alwasy on the inside). I wonder what that guy gets paid (hopefully not more than a school teacher)or does he simply allow them to use his photo and the tea boy collects old horoscope readings from doctors surgery magazines to be reused in the daily mail.

770. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61680 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2007 at 10:13 am

mjwemdee,

me too, well unfortunately just the head!! i also had the VERY cool skeleton with floating parts.

771. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61663 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2007 at 7:33 am

it does make you wonder when people buy 'miracle water' from the fraudster peter popoff (for example) that they actually have the brains to manage daily actvities like washing clothes or drive a car or cook an egg. Its like part of their mind is literally retarded to that of a 3 year old, actual neoteny maybe? I say that as im sure the all 3 year olds could be persuaded that a little pouch of water is magic and will give them great fortunes in the future, well they would at least give a nod of 'yes' even if they didnt quite understand it.

772. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61658 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2007 at 7:10 am

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Pelham-puppet-wicked-witch_W0QQitemZ140143979776QQihZ004QQcategoryZ729QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

the lady in the photo bears a striking resemblance to the green faced pelham puppet witch!!

773. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61655 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2007 at 6:52 am

As a kid i remeber a nationwide UK newspaper having an article on pyramidal powers, you could cut out the pyramid template and stick the edges together and it would do amazing things to objects put under the pyramid. Apparently it could sharpen old rusty razor blades. Anyway I had a think about it and decided that it simply COULDNT happen, I couldnt even imagine how that could happen, but it said it would so i decided to try it (randi would have been proud). I put an old blade (i examined it for its condition) under the pyramid for the time specified (maybe an hour in pyramid time is WAY greater than earth time so expalins the outcome) and lo and behold in the morning it was no different (as far as i could tell) from the prior night. i want in the least bit suprised, even as an 8 year old I recognised that a paper pyramid wasnt going to somehow sharpen a blade. Had i made the pyramid from sandpaper and shredded it with the blade i might have had some success!!

Interestingly my father, a layman with no formal scientific training has always seen woo as nonesense, he never read up on it and isnt a skeptic so to speak but when topics like mediums, angels, esp etc appeard on tv he dismissed it all as BS, one can get an instinctive dare i use the word 'feel' for what is nonsense but most cannot. well its not really a feel, you basically apply the requirement for evidence and there was never any. To be honest when i see fraudsters like mary? altea and sylvia browne on TV you wonder how can anybody not realised their fraudulant position simply by their body language and manner of speaking, its akin to watching a child lie ineffectually and yet the prozac fuelled audience lap it up, incredible.

around 10 years ago we lost a family memeber in unspecified circumstances which understandably caused massive grief for the parents, almost my entire extended family went to a medium show, all charged 10 UK pounds, I absolutely refused to go but didnt try to challenge their actions. Cold reading was used and had exposed the relatives name and an VERY vague manner of death. some of those family members have been persuaded by me and especially after realising they had given this person a substantial amount of money for no real outcome. I despise these fradsters over all others.

774. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61652 by phasmagigas on August 6, 2007 at 5:53 am

'as a clairvoyant youre only as good as the client'

I think that says it all, that could be a new mantra.

can you imagine a brain surgeon of the same ilk 'oops, sorry I actually pulled your brain out by mistake, ah thats because you are not a brain surgeon.'

are some people really that stupid?

and her (the clairvoyants) comment 'i dont feel its working' well we all agree with her there.

NOtice how the audience of a show like montel with his weekly sylvia browne (that most infamous psychic in the USA see 'stopsylviabrowne' on the web)slot appear (well to my mind anyway) they type of people whos lives are hopelessly empty save local gossip and pushing a huge cart round the store and filling it with junk they dont need. Some people love to fill their homes, bodies and minds with junk, be it bead encrusted flower vases, slim pills, twinkie bars, prozac and magic.

it does get a bit frustrating, im surrounded by woo. religious neighbours, associates who go to mediums and horror of horrors my spouse has gone to the chiropractor for what the real doc said was a muscle problem in the shoulder and would go with time. Now several visits to the chiropractor with x ray and manipulation my spouse has 'misaligned vertebra'. Ive got very frustrated with all this as i can bet my bottom $ there is NOTHING wrong with my spouses spine, but 5 visists on things still arent right (oh but the inital muscular pain went ages ago, and indeed it was easing up prior to the first visit to the chiropractor). I am not happy and this difference of opinion really strains our relationship (im just a miserable narrowminded sceptic). thats what woo can do!

775. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61337 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 6:24 pm

veronique, an area for reserch no doubt. it is interesting for sure. I think an important influence on humans continuing height and weight (even ignoring obesity) is that to a greater degree we develop without many of our past parasites, be they worms or bacteria. That could have other negative effects eg I read that eczema/asthma may be connected with out 'underused' immune systems (and im not sure if there is any truth in that)that seems reasonable considering that for millions of years our ancestors have probably had a substantial parasite load much reduced in the last century. The reduction in weight of the people mentioned in the video (veronique, go to yorkers rapidshare link and it should work)seemed to be without known cause. very poor nutrition obviously does have devastating consequences, i remember a heatbreaking (how could an atheist possibly be heartbroken!!) programme in the UK of orphan elephants in thailand being fed a diet of rancid rice water, the animals were rendered blind and deaf and generally underdeveloped from the lack of required nutrients. actually that reminds me, a few weeks ago I spent an afternoon simultaneously entertaining some guests (who happen to be believers) and ensuring my dogs wern't to eat this fledgling that was in my garden on the soil. For hours my dogs were kept out the garden. I slowly came to realise that the guests showed not the slightest bit of interest or empathy for the red mawed hungry bird i was so desperate to at least give a fleeting chance of survival, another of those interesting little life lessons.

776. Atheists of the world: unite!

Comment #61330 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 5:28 pm

A thought came to my mind so i'll post it quickly lest i forget.

As an atheist i welcome the chance to have my worldview falsified by a visitation from god which is known to me and the world, it has yet to happen. I could not bear to be someone who walks the earth with an unfalsifiable belief, i feel that would be so dishonest, so arrogant, so weak so pathetically easy.

777. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61326 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I like steves point that intellignet design is vacuous, thats exactly how i feel. If i were somehow to accept intelligent design I wonder if i would have to think about the natural world atall, well one would but more like watching an episode on discovery of the guy making a drum or a plane engine, its intersting BUT for me it is the BLINDNESS of natural selection that makes it so engaging, indeed so fulfilling.

778. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61324 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I remember reading that if one gamete has all the organelles and the other contributes just DNA, the theres less microscopic parasites to transfer, ie non from the DNA only gamete. manybe this is old hat or falsified, im not sure where i read it.

779. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61323 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 4:11 pm

the discussion of the underweight mothers resulting in underweight grandchildern was interesting.

I suppose there are many ways this could happen. Maybe the underweight mother produces an underweight child who then can never realises its full genetic potential and this could run to the next generation (simply becaus her child is carried by the smaller than she could be mother) and so on for a while. Then again, how does one determine the 'weight' of the child or person. Ultimately I guess its the size and density of bone that detemines the size of muscle which is of course highly variable depending on usage, and fat levels obviously vary too. The character of reduction in size/weight (or however it is measured) is not carried in the genes of course but is simply the action of environment on the genes. One can almost see an advantage of small resources leading to smaller than average offspring. I guess a child who is genetically potentially 6 foot 3 inches needs way more resources and would suffer more than a child who is genetically 5 foot and half the weight. Maybe its not just the nutrition constraint, maybe poor nutrition actually triggers some genetic developmental response in the child to be smaller, and that in turn continues into the next few generations, if food shortages hit past populations for decades than this 'downsizing' could be advantageous. pure speculation on my part, but there it is.

780. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61316 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 3:18 pm

yorker, got it, thanks!!

781. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61236 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 9:48 am

me too! i got as far as steves reply to 'why males'. previous attempts including download havent worked either.

782. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60997 by phasmagigas on August 3, 2007 at 9:30 am

gerneral question. how do i do the block quote????? answer appreciated.

thanks.

783. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60995 by phasmagigas on August 3, 2007 at 9:25 am

When atheism and the scientific method/ideas (esp evolution of course) are branded 'just another religion' by the religious, it is somehow supposed to weaken the position of the said atheist/scientist. Does this not weaken their position too. They are the ones agreeing that belief and atheism are both 'just' religious beliefs.

784. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60132 by phasmagigas on August 1, 2007 at 5:02 am

scottishgeologist I LOVE that avatar!!

785. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60131 by phasmagigas on August 1, 2007 at 5:01 am

In the UK at least there is something very different about what islam and identity compared to christianity and identity. Following islam seems to have more in common with being a football supporter. A group of islamic boys can often be seen confidently walking amongst the non muslims and unless I am imagining things their attitude is very much 'i am islamic and you are not' rather like 'I support football team X and you do not' during a match but the islamic team is always playing. The 'default' christian who is likely to be a little old lady who didnt really give it any thought does not have this attitute, and nor would a group of 4 'christian' boys who wouldnt give a damn about it anyway. It is incredible to see hundreds of people regularly going to the mosque, the only thing ive seen that emulates the 'vibe' is when there are 100's of supporters going to a match. It is quite charged and does bring out all those innate tribal qualities. If you were to ask one of the muslim guys 'tell me about yourself' after his name he would likely say 'I am a muslim' (even if he wasnt going to pray). The problem with many muslim young men is that they (and does this sound familiar) honestly believe they are BETTER than those heathens who they live amongst, I know many muslims from the UK and trust me, they have little respect for non believers, I have muslims close within my own family and so know first hand some of the attitudes.

786. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60129 by phasmagigas on August 1, 2007 at 4:45 am

scaremongering? I doubt it. If you took a placard that said something like 'islam can be dangerous' and walked through a town in the UK with a high muslim population like Bradford or Blackburn, I just wonder how long it would be before there was a full scale riot and death threats?? If you did the same in an american town (you couldnt find the christian equivalent in the UK) with 'christianity can be dangerous' you would get some foul comments but I highly doubt you would get a riot developing. Is my prediction re the riot an exaggeration. Im not sure.

787. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59048 by phasmagigas on July 27, 2007 at 4:02 am

abstinence, how well and truly naive. Try that with a couple of 35 or 40 or 50 year olds and it isnt going to work so to expect that from teenagers, ho, ho, ho. Now had we been made in gods image it just might be possible but fuzzy little mammals, nope, not a chance in hell.

788. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57904 by phasmagigas on July 22, 2007 at 5:35 am

yesterday i was talking to a lady who bore a cross round her neck, from my perception of her she is a good person, one who would follow the 'silver rule'. I got the feeling that she would attribute her 'silverness' to god if i had asked her. I would suggest though that she would be silver without it, thats just who she is. A few days earlier i was talking to another lady who bore a christian message T-shirt, quickly and proudly professed to listening to contemporary christian music (i wont be borrowing any of her CD's, for whatever reason, that music would drive me to suicide over no other, why is it just so awful)and within fve minutes had convinced me that she was a self indulgent, opinionated, proud and judgemental individual. She is of course like this because thats just in her nature but for me it was the assurance of her faith that somehow was the support rod of her flaws. I found this all interesting because one of the two women seemed so 'silver' because of her faith (i can bet) and the other seemed so tarnished because of it (as far as i could tell). I simply concluded that one of them is a 'better' person than the other, god or not.

789. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57608 by phasmagigas on July 20, 2007 at 7:15 am

generally, theres one thing i dont understand. if the majority of americans (including those in all sections of government) believe evolution to be false (and they are all experts on the subject right? so entitled to their opinion) then WHY arent there nationwide protests outside all schools demanding that teachers stop teaching kids lies? If they beleived that the teachers were by law teaching falsehoods why isnt there a move to legally remove it from the curriculum. I mean, a neighbour of mine is a creationist, so he should therefore be kicking up a stink at the school saying 'why are you teaching my kids lies', maybe they just arent that convinced by their own position. If my kids school were teaching creationism as a truth and not a religious idea I would be kicking up a stink for sure.

790. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57607 by phasmagigas on July 20, 2007 at 6:57 am

from dianelos quote:

"I have mentioned this idea before, but here's the answer again: According to the basic hypothesis God is a perfectly good person and therefore willing to share that goodness. So S/He creates us capable of growing in virtue (Why "growing"? Because one can't be good except on one's own merit). If the hypothesis is right then, our experiential environment must be optimized for this goal: to give us the optimal space for growing in virtue. Now one grows in virtue by exercising one's ethical will, and to exercise that will some experiential substrate is needed where that will makes a difference (hence first-person data of love, beauty, pain, etc), and where there is some shareable and orderly resistance (hence our third-person experience of an mechanical environment we call physical). And why the intricate quantum phenomena that tell us that there is no real physical reality out there? Because, even though the whole point is not to make it too easy to us, God does not want to give us an environment that would misguide us. So S/He took care that that mechanical experiential environment be not compatible with the hypothesis that a mechanical reality produces it – because that would be misleading and would make the hypothesis that God does not exist more plausible." unquote.

when i read this Im not sure what to make of it. Is it personal opinion, derived from revelation, something you read, something for which their is evidence? I know what you are getting at (if the assumptions were somehow and somewhere based on any kind of reality that can affect us) but when i read it its the kind of thing that doesnt make me think 'that applies to me and i will act upon it'. Its all so ultra speculative, reading it doesnt in any way add value to what goes on between my ears, theres nothing useful there for me. Pondering god in every conceivable way does not in any shape or form change the fact that god is there or not. Ive heard mental gymnastics from beleivers and either i was too dumb to understand it or it simply meant nothing anyway but i was left wth the impression that faith just wasnt enough, i wonder how many people believe on faith alone compared to those who do any degree of rationalisation.

791. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57407 by phasmagigas on July 19, 2007 at 8:21 am

dr benway, actually, you said it, it would have made them feel better and thats part of it, you and i know what its like to lose something (as do we all) and the relief when its back is quite euphoric (even if it is 'just' a wallet).

792. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57399 by phasmagigas on July 19, 2007 at 7:38 am

re the lost wallet. if you kept the money youd keep quiet yes? If you handed it in would you also keep quiet? I bet most wouldnt, would people not like to show their charity and trustworthiness to others by a slight mention of it?? and why would they do that?? Its certainly nice to be trusted. I once found a wallet, i called the owner who was massively relieved (it had quite a lot of important stuff in it)and arrived to get it with a bottle of wine, its funny but had i kept the wallet id have felt terrible but it would have included no notion of god whatsoever, none whatsoever. Id have felt terrible for disadvantaging another peorson for no good reason, id have felt bad for that person, I would have actually empathised with the painfully long process of phone calls, changing security numbers , bank card renewal etc. in plain i'd have felt like an ass, infact consider if i had kept it and then told people, only the lowest common denominator would have agreed it was a justified thing, indeed I could quite easily lose friends had i kept it.

793. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57398 by phasmagigas on July 19, 2007 at 7:21 am

quote from post 55260 (dianelos):

'You mean what happens in the afterlife if you don't obtain virtue in this life? Nothing much, your experiential environment after death will also be optimized for attaining virtue. In the end we shall all merge into God. So there is a difference here: my worldview implies that attaining virtue is not just an individualistic process, but a humanity-wide process. Already in this life we are God's co-creators of ours and others' experiential environment. My guess is that in the afterlife our entire experiential environment will depend on how we all acted in this life. So anybody's good deed in this life benefits us all in the afterlife, and anybody's bad deed here hurts us all in the afterlife. And the afterlife itself will probably pass through several cycles of environmental change. To reach God is a mighty long way. unquote

Dianelos, hang on, im missing something here (you do use the word guess though), so how do you know all this? This honestly sounds (to my mind anyway) like something Sylvia browne would come up with.

794. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57396 by phasmagigas on July 19, 2007 at 7:03 am

evangelising atheists.

well im not one of them, i never bring up evolution or god but if the subject does arise I will only answer questions that are thrown at me, i will never throw questions back unless im trying to get a point across such as 'can you accept that its possible that a brown and green grasshopper in a green field could be at an advantage if it had a bit more green than another one? Sounds patronising maybe but its things most have never even contemplated.

Sometimes though you just have to grit your teeth. I was once asked 'why would god make such an ugly creature?' as i showed this person a large insect that had happened to land on me. I so wanted to say something like 'because he didnt' or 'how could god possibly make something ugly, you saying god makes ugly things' or 'yes, why would god make such an ugly thing, a good question. the said insect was a jewel of construction and I peversely enjoyed the fact that I found it exquisite and the believer found it ugly.

I will also make rubuttals if somebody says something that as far as i can tell is erronous like the comment i recenly had (when discussing artificial selection) that 'selective breeding basically disproves evolution' or words to that effect, this was said flippantly as if the person just had to get it in, wed been talking simply AS as a general topic (it had been on TV) so i had to say that it actually was the contrary, that it demonstrated it perfectly, and evo has yet to be falsified. That then opens up further questioning usually which im happy to answer, I never say god didnt do it, i simply explain my position and if they dont like it thats fine.

795. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57089 by phasmagigas on July 18, 2007 at 9:09 am

Ali stands against what she is always vulnerable to. That is of course being killed. It is almost certainly a fact that there are 1000's if not millions of people who would like nothing better to publically butcher this woman, and for no better reason that it will allow them to show the world their necessity to be a man in a group and get respect from his group. Anybody who is likely to be a potential victim from religious zealots has way more courage that most. You think there arent people who want to do the same to RD, CH???? Then again, there are likely millions of peole out there who would if they could right now transport you to withn their grasp would kill you simply for being an infidel, yes thats YOU and me.

796. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #57070 by phasmagigas on July 18, 2007 at 8:35 am

mr empirical says quote:If Yahya and his associates don't like science, let's see them live without all the many fruits of modern science, and of the rationalist approach. unquote.

where I live (USA) I can assume that 9 out of 10 of my neighbours are believers and that most of those will reject evo, its funny then to see that their ( the few that ive seen for one reason or another) medicine cabinets are loaded with all kinds of medicines and health products, orthodox or otherwise. I wonder how many of them question their doctors advice when they give out those desperately needed (or not so needed) pills?? then again the amount of quack medicine you see is indicative of peoples desires just to grab any old crap as long as they and their ailments are in the limelight.

The problem is the masses thrive on the ingenuity of a few so there are no real prizes for rational thinking generally.

797. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #57002 by phasmagigas on July 18, 2007 at 5:43 am

the books argument (as stated) is the most gut wrenching appeal to ignorance argument ive seen. Its one of those topics that Gould could write profusely on (he could talk about just what do we mean by evolutonary change:morphology, DNA sequence, behaviour, cell physiology all which can change of course). ignoring the false conclusion to the argument, the premise is flawed from the start. Aside from the millions (billions?) of species that existed and dont look like modern forms at all (eg a trilobite or eurypterid) there are those which will look superficially morphologically similar (to the lay person. remember all arthropods are just 'bugs/critters' and to some maybe a turkey is no different to a T.rex, hell at least they might see that it is SIMILAR though!) eg a snail from the mesozoic to those today but of course in terms of its genetic content it will be rather different, it will have a host of new innovations battling pathogens and parasites and in detail you can bet that NO organism is the same in every detail (on average) as its own ancestors but a few generations ago. What a pathetic argument, the problem is there are 100's of millions of people who will lap it up, although maybe evangelicals will distance themselves from it due to its islamic origins.

798. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #57001 by phasmagigas on July 18, 2007 at 5:31 am

ive not seen the book but if its main argument is that stated then it truly is amazing how ignorant/deluded some minds are. Then again this week (as i mentioned in another post) I had one of my neighbours jovially tell me how selective breeding basically disproves evolution, the person expected agreement but i shot off a simple rubuttal saying that it actually demonstrated it very well at which said person went quiet, I await the next conversation. For those faced with anti evolutionists, before any conversation takes place act dumb and ask them what evo actually is in a nut shell, and you can bet your bottom $$ they wont have a clue (other than saying the words slime, monkey, eye). Interestingly the second to last creationist i ended up talking to felt that evolution could somehow be disproven if I couldnt prove i loved my wife (?!?! I think thats sometimes used as a fallicious god argument). I should have asked him that if i took his thumb and banged it with a hammer and he said ouch/scream/otherwise respond (pain is a state of mind yes?) then i have amazingly proved evolution!! as i proved he can feel pain.

799. Darwin or Design

Comment #56770 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 6:58 am

extraordinary evidence.

Heres a thought experiment to see whos dogmatic or not.
we make a time machine, go back in time, past 6000 years to reveal what really happened back then, do we see adam and eve and around that time do we see all species created after the earth somehow quickly forms or do we just keep going back without witnessing any creation and see events as predicted by evolutionary thoery/geological evidence. Ok, now this is about biblical literalism but as we know creationists are a varied buch so its hard to please all but seems the literalists are the most dogmatic so this is for them.

Question to biblical literalist: if we go back in time and see evo DID happen, would you accept its validity?

Question to evolutionist: if we go back in time and see adam and eve and noah and all that (ie special creation etc) would you accept that evolution didnt happen?

well as im in the second camp id be happy to say that I was wrong and the bible was right after all. How many literalists would accept they were wrong on witnessing evolution, ah of course, god would be visually tricking them to 'test the faith'.

800. Darwin or Design

Comment #56767 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 6:49 am

yorker I quote you "As for dead people, I saw my first one at age fifteen and have seen quite a few since then, it's unmistakeable, not at all like sleep, nowadays when someone dies – as a friend did recently – I never view their bodies, I prefer to remember them as they were in life; when they existed'

when one of my grandparents died I remember my familiy (who are typically british in that they arent religious but not atheist either, you know the sort, dont really ponder on it too much) in a state of denial suggesting my grandparent was but sleeping (and religious ideas flit around at the time), I never agreed with them as my own private thoughts were fully immersed in reality, the body was so different than anything in life. I feel religion is a type of denial, maybe the ultimate denial, like pretending everything is fine when it isnt, and ironically its not being in denial that makes me enjoy life more, well as far as i can tell.