801. Bishops must not sit in reformed House of Lords

Comment #23491 by Yorker on March 1, 2007 at 4:10 am

9. Comment #23483 by alltruism

I see you agree with me. I don't think I would agree with you about those who specified their religion as Jedi Knight on census forms though; what an embarassment it would be if they proved more useful than bishops! :)

802. Bishops must not sit in reformed House of Lords

Comment #23487 by Yorker on March 1, 2007 at 3:55 am

6. Comment #23474 by elvenearth

Without doing some research I can't give you a list, but I bet Noam Chomsky could. The example he has recently used is Bolivia, they elected a leader from the working class whose only qualification was a sound grasp of the issues. Chomsky holds it up as an embarrassment to the USA that one of the worlds poorest countries showed how it should be done.

803. Bishops must not sit in reformed House of Lords

Comment #23443 by Yorker on February 28, 2007 at 5:37 pm

The great teapot asks:

"What is the purpose of the house of lords?"

The purpose of the House of Lords is to ensure that the elected government doesn't step out of line, and to safeguard the interests of a privileged minority.

I am against disallowing bishops' membership just because they chose a career in the clergy; after all, anyone can make a mistake! However, if dubious clerical expertise is all they have, then of course they should be disallowed. The problem with THOL is that no qualifications other than wealth, privilege and in a few cases infamy, is required for membership. It's possible though doubtful, that a bishop may have some other quality that would make him useful, although the usefulness of THOL itself; is highly debatable.

In a real democracy THOL would be superfluous, but like the USA, the UK is not a truly democratic country and so it is tolerated.

804. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23321 by Yorker on February 27, 2007 at 7:47 pm

13. Comment #23317 by charlesj

I understand your worry here Charles, but it's not really a problem once you accept the fact that at its root, everything is indeterminate, we can't be absolutely sure of anything. So it's OK and not circular to say that in the real world as we experience it, science works and religion doesn't. Science for example, can make predictions that with almost complete certainty, will come true; religion can not, has not and will not, ever predict anything with any better success than pure chance.

805. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23318 by Yorker on February 27, 2007 at 7:32 pm

8. Comment #23312 by Janus

You're not the first to ask that question.

The problem lies not with the label, but with the effect the labelling has. Dawkins has often used the Northern Ireland conflict as an example of how calling some kids Catholic and others Protestant, serves to perpetuate the sectarian divisiveness. I used to live in a part of Scotland where divisions like this held sway, I came across a few kids who had been told by parents not to play with such and such because he/she was a Catholic/Protestant.

Young children are natural atheists, they don't give a shit about religion and play with each other for fun. But the label serves its evil purpose, the child accepts that anyone not of his/her label is bad and should be at least avoided and if necessary, attacked. No labels would mean one less excuse for religious violence.

806. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23315 by Yorker on February 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm

I listened to, rather that watched that show while I was doing a little coding, suddenly I became aware that I was putting words in Dawkins mouth, or so it seemed. I was answering each question slightly before or at the same time as Richard did, as if by magic, we were saying almost exactly the same words!

Of course it wasn't magic, simply that I'd heard Richard answer what are often the same questions again and again, so I knew what he was going to say. The questions get re-phrased, but basically most interviewers ask the same stuff, I think the Prof. must have it all down pat by now but still I admire him for not yawning or showing other signs of boredom. This interviewer was above average though.

I guess I'm not alone and others have had similar experience so if Richard ever needs a stand-in, there will be plenty to choose from!

807. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #23246 by Yorker on February 27, 2007 at 5:52 am

26. Comment #23232 by NormanDoering

Well Norman,

Last things first: I'm not asking you to trust my assertions, indeed they are not even assertions; they are merely my thoughts and of course, I might be wrong. You however, seem to be a person who has a problem with having his assertions challenged, you have apparently accepted that this chimp incident will change our view on human evolution, I, have not. Perhaps you're unaware that scientists are by nature, very skeptical people, it is entirely normal for a scientific proposal to be challenged; indeed, it is the very essence of science. I am simply withholding my acceptance until much more evidence convinces me I should give it.

If you think that stripping branches, leaves and then – a key point - selecting a portion of the stick that has just the right combination of rigidity and flexibility, is less of a feat than making a stick pointed, well, I would strongly disagree. The fact that chimps perform the key operation shows they have knowledge and probably a mental image of the internal structure of termite-mounds, they know the tool must not break yet must be able to negotiate bends. This, I think, is a mechanical operation requiring as much skill and crucially, more intelligence than biting a point on a stick.

I said your comment about the spear shaping was irrelevant because it did not address my original question and yet you used it as a refutation. I said it was wrong – and still do – for the reasons I've just given above!

My own scientific training is not in zoology – although I considered it – but it gives me the confidence to challenge a scientist in any field, even your hero; the writer for New Scientist! All good scientists expect skepticism, they respect no authorities.

I have outlined in earlier posts why I think Pruetz observation will have no effect upon my view of human evolution; I suspect many others may feel the same way. It seems my non-acceptance of your assertions irked you and caused you to discount my reasons, perhaps a re-read would help. However, if still not satisfied, then feel free to assail me again, I've always enjoyed a vigorous encounter!

808. Pope speaks out against 'designer babies'

Comment #23134 by Yorker on February 26, 2007 at 1:27 pm

"the Pontifical Academy for Life, a Church body of experts"

H'mmm...sounds like an oxymoron to me.

The pope and his ilk had better get used to genetic engineering because it almost certainly will get a lot more radical in the future. Hopefully however, they won't be around to complain about it.

809. Faith

Comment #23063 by Yorker on February 26, 2007 at 4:55 am

Although I'm a long-time poster on this site I had never come across this "stpetes" character before and was about to address his drivel directly, then I applied my standard rule of reading all before commenting and saw the post by BillySands. This gave me pause and reason to read the stpetes post again; yes, I think you may be right BillySands, this stuff carries the Robertson stench. I was reminded of the phrase "we recognise the lion by his claw", it was used by scholars who had studied some work by Newton that although unsigned, was clearly his. Of course, that phrase would not be applicable here; I think something along the lines of "we recognise the slug by its slime" would be more appropriate.

So, I won't waste time dismantling the shaky stpetes crooked edifice since it would violate my policy of not addressing trolls directly. Even if stpetes is not Robertson, it seems clear he's a deluded religite who would never admit the possibility of being wrong, so again, it would be a waste of time to engage in discourse with him/her/it.

810. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #23001 by Yorker on February 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

By pure coincidence David Attenborough was on TV tonight showing again the chimp hunting footage and commenting upon it. He was stating the necessity of truthfulness in wildlife film-making but saying also that a balance must be struck to avoid complaints from people who would be upset by the 'red-in-tooth-and-claw' facts of Nature. They showed the colobus monkey being caught and its body parts being distributed and eaten, but the actual tearing apart was only described, not shown. Personally, I think nothing should be withheld.

811. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22999 by Yorker on February 25, 2007 at 5:00 pm

23. Comment #22993 by NormanDoering

Taking you points in order:

I don't consider the Discovery channel to be a source of anthropological facts; indeed, some of the nonsense they've produced has been almost comical.

I think there's no doubt that early humans developed spearing weapons, I just very much doubt it would have been one of the first.

Your last comment about shaping is irrelevant to my question and also wrong. We have known for a long time that chimps regularly shape sticks for use as termite probes and manufacture other tools, this knowledge didn't change our view of human evolution. I thought that Pruetz notion about female and immature chimps taking part in hunting to be something special, was on shaky ground at best. That was why I asked the original question. It has been observed before that female chimps do take part in murderous cannibalism, but generally speaking it is the males that carry out hunting and territorial patrolling.

It's also unlikely that females developed spears because they had to hunt to survive, it's well-known that chimps share their food, male hunters will usually eat the choice parts such as genitals and brains of victims but will give other parts to females and young. I suspect that early humans may have behaved in a similar way.

Chimps don't normally need weapons to hunt prey like bush babies and monkeys, they simply catch the victim, kill it with a bite through the skull and use their great strength to tear it limb from limb. It's not clear from the article, but it's possible that Pruetz misread the situation, perhaps the chimp used a tool because she couldn't get her hand into the tree hollow, after all, why go to the length of making a tool to kill a weak bush baby if she simply could have grabbed it and crushed it to death in her hand?

No, I see nothing here that would change my view of human evolution in any regard.

812. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22943 by Yorker on February 24, 2007 at 7:34 pm

"Because the spear was one of man's first tools"

Was it? How do you know that? I would've thought that throwing rocks and wielding clubs (as chimps do) might have been our first tools and weapons. But even accepting spears, we've long understood the evolutionary link between us and chimps so I don't see how the spear would change our views.

Oh, I just realised that Pruetz thinks that female and young chimps hunting involvment is the reason, but that's still not satisfactory because it was known already that female chimps took part in the killing and eating of babies belonging to females of rival chimp troops.

813. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22939 by Yorker on February 24, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Now that I think of it, I'm wondering how this news may change our view of human evolution? Apart from the spearing tool there's nothing new here, its been known for years that chimps are skilled hunters, killers and tool-makers, Goodall, Hrdy, de Waal and others have documented these characteristics at length; it didn't change our views then, so why now? I can't believe that this is news to zoologists in the USA.

814. Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution

Comment #22936 by Yorker on February 24, 2007 at 6:06 pm

It is well known that chimps are meat lovers. David Attenborough made a marvellous TV documentary about chimps planning and executing the hunting and devouring of colobus monkeys.

In "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors", the excellent book by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, there's a great chapter about chimp behaviour written from the viewpoint of a male and female chimp. It's worth buying the book for that chapter alone.

I have personally watched a male chimpanzee manufacture a tool to rake in food I had placed just beyond the reach of his hand below the bars of his cage. Apart from their obvious intelligence, they are like us in other ways particularly with regard to sex, especially bonobo's (Pan Paniscus), they can copulate up to 10 times an hour! Like us, they have sex in various positions although Pan Troglodytes (the more common chimpanzee species) are less imaginative in that regard and have a shorter per copulation time.

A couple of chimps became famous by showing a remarkable ability to use and understand Ameslan (American Sign Language). They are fascinating primates and like Sagan said, I can't understand why we must keep them in jail. I'm always moved to laugh when I hear some American Jebus-loving redneck deny evolution and the common ancestor of chimps and humans; they should be made to watch some chimpanzee behavioural footage.

815. Atheists come in last

Comment #22923 by Yorker on February 24, 2007 at 2:44 pm

47. Comment #22873 by fonex_86

"What's the use of advocating reduction of carbon emissions (by the more intelligent 15% of society) just to be trumped by the remaining 75% whose intellect is reminiscent of neanderthals?"

Does this include the arithmetically challenged also? :)

816. Atheists come in last

Comment #22853 by Yorker on February 23, 2007 at 3:42 pm

21. Comment #22846 by Bizarro Dawkins

Hello Bizarro,

There's something about your name that places you low in my list of persons to hold in high regard, it shows a certain lack of imagination. Personally, even if my real name was Fred Dawkins, Jack Dawkins or even Richard Dawkins, I would avoid using it to comment here for the very reason I berate you.

I can't speak for others, but your accusation of scant biblical knowledge is certainly true in my case - a fact I'm just a little proud of. When I was young, I studied the Christian guide-book long enough to realise it was largely nonsense and considered further study would be a waste of valuable learning time. I feel it was a wise decision because in 63 years of life, I've never had cause to regret my youthful choice.

817. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22308 by Yorker on February 14, 2007 at 2:55 am

Comment #22300 by Robert Maynard

I agree with your anti-nationalism stance. I've long been a naysayer of the detrimental notions of this and patriotism, both are a threat to the survival of humanity. Politicians however, love patriotic and nationalistic citizens, they're easy to control and manipulate, indeed, the ideal cannon-fodder armed forces member is one who has these attributes plus a strong god delusion!

818. A Familiar and Prescient Voice, Brought to Life

Comment #22306 by Yorker on February 14, 2007 at 2:22 am

Comment #22294 by ScienceBreath

Yes, it's true, I've heard Annie Druyan say that herself. Carl documented everything; he annotated every book he read; his resume was over an inch thick, that's the kind of person he was. There's a book named "Carl Sagan: A Life", I can't remember the author's name but it's worth reading because it discusses his human flaws as well as his accomplishments.

Apparently he wasn't a very good father and didn't want to get involved in mundane household chores etc. Personally, I would forgive him all that, his virtues far outweighed his faults.

819. Believing Scripture but Playing by Science's Rules

Comment #22223 by Yorker on February 13, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I think the worst thing about this cheat – that's the correct name for him – is the fact that he's made a mockery of the entire doctoral process and was allowed to do so by some spineless people who should be ostracized by the scientific community for the unforgivable crime they have committed. I smell the fear of religious influence here.

It's easy to see where this might lead; the religious dollar being used to fund the education of students deluded enough to lie for Jesus. It's tantamount to:

"OK you godless suckers, I'll play by your rules and do whatever you say until you give me that document, then I'll do whatever I can to embarrass you, using the tool I conned you into giving me."

820. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22178 by Yorker on February 13, 2007 at 6:26 am

For Aussie:

A quick aside, I saw your comment about being in the same field as I and we seem to think similarly. Is there something about the brains of software engineers that cause us to see the wood in spite of the trees perhaps? :)

821. Debate between Sam Harris and Reza Aslan

Comment #22173 by Yorker on February 13, 2007 at 6:20 am

I couldn't watch all of this. I was surprised Harris didn't take Aslan apart to a greater extent; I wanted to jump in and do it for him. For me, Aslan typifies the intellectual bullshitter; a person with a hidden agenda who adopts a fence-sitting posture because he fears to come down upon one side lest some superior antagonist exposes the flaws in his intellectual façade.

I found his waffling on about interpretation and sophistication almost literally puke-making; is he really unaware that the majority of people do not read religious material with the sophistication of a literary critic? These writings are not works of poetry or other entertainment, they are presented as facts and meant to be believed; we shouldn't have to "read between the lines" with a discerning mind.

Sorry Reza, I see you as an intellectual coward as well as a bullshitter, you deserve to have your arse kicked, perhaps even literally!

822. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21924 by Yorker on February 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm

122. Comment #21776 by Richard Dawkins

and

123. Comment #21779 by NMcC

Richard,

It seems Mr Flemming thinks as I do, I said basically the same thing somewhat more exhaustively here on Page 2 of these comments.

NmcC,

I think you are referring to that same post of mine!

823. The questions science cannot answer

Comment #21640 by Yorker on February 10, 2007 at 9:31 am

McGrath asks:

But what of that greater question: what's life all about?

I ask:

Why do religites feel that this is the great unanswerable question that cannot possibly be tackled by a pathetic species like us?

He can't answer so I will:

What a stupid question! One usually asked by those who are unable to accept that this life is all there is; it isn't about anything! Sane, non-deluded people live their lives convinced that it's the only one they're ever going to have so they make the most of it knowing how fortunate they are to be alive. They don't behave as if this life is a rehearsal for some heavenly stage show in which they will play a very minor bit part!

Being one of those sane people, I know that life is about what I make of it and that this is true for everyone, if you make an arse of your life then that's what your life is about! This conviction frees me from the fear of death sound in the knowledge that it can only exist when I don't; naturally, as a person, I fear the process of dying may be painful, but that's all. My sense of self is a product of my brain, when my body dies so will my brain and my "self" will cease to exist, I will never even be aware that I once existed, so what is there to miss, or worry about?

I'm also convinced I shall never understand the mind of otherwise intelligent persons who are able to compartmentalize their brains in order to allow for the remote possibility that death is not the end. They cling pathetically to that nebulous carrot that religion offers them, a carrot without which, religion would be naught; perhaps it would be better if we took pity upon these poor "souls". Ah well, when I'm dead I won't have to tolerate them anymore, pity I won't get the satisfaction of saying, "I told you so!"

824. The Current: Part 3: The Religious Right

Comment #21487 by Yorker on February 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm

This man is largely speaking the truth. He's absolutely correct about the American middle-class being under economic attack. I may have mentioned elsewhere on this site, the book, "Decline of the American Programmer"; I first came across it when I was living and working in the USA making big bucks writing software. I still keep in touch with my American ex-colleagues, they all say the same thing, getting software work is becoming very difficult; clever people in Eastern countries have reached the stage where they can produce good software far more cheaply that we in the West. The internet has empowered them; inter-continental telecommuting is now commonplace.

The big corporations ruthlessly worship the dollar-god, controlling politicians of both American parties and followers of the sky-god alike; Chomsky as usual, was right on the button with his predictions made years ago and like he says, there is really only one American political party. I'm not certain about Pinker but Chomsky is an atheist, I well remember his very amusing anti-God reply to the question of what he would say if he had five minutes with young Bush!

825. Interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Comment #20219 by Yorker on February 1, 2007 at 5:48 am

If Neil de Grasse Tyson has aspirations to follow in Sagan's footsteps, then I wish him success, Richard Dawkins has also said he wouldn't mind donning that mantle; we definitely need more scientists willing to explain the work and most importantly, the method of science to the public. I agree with Tom Day that it's possible for a scientist to make contributions of a different kind (as Neil does) but its all the more powerful coming from a scientist of stature, Neil must be careful to get the balance right – as Sagan did – I don't think he quite has it yet.

Even then, he will be criticised by his peers (as Sagan was) for using science as a way to make to make money instead of doing real, valuable research. In Sagan's case it was unjustified because Carl did do some worthwhile real science, so far, I know of none by Neil so he will probably come under heavier fire.

Having taken the time to research him further, I could take some minor issue with more of what Neil says; a lengthy essay could be written on the subject of the popularisation of science but this is not the place for it so I'll leave it here.

826. Interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Comment #20177 by Yorker on January 31, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Been a while since I posted here and this one isn't going to increase my popularity rating, but I have to say nonetheless, that there's something about Neil that I find off-putting. His performances on the Beyond Belief conference gave me some insight into his character and it was there that my negative feelings about him started. I'm not sure exactly what it is; perhaps it has to do with his apparently liking himself a little too much, not that I have a problem with that per se; I could easily put up with a little scientific egoism if Neil was a scientist of some stature but as far as I know, he hasn't made any significant contributions yet. His book on Black Holes will have to be outstanding to compete with the many great books already available on this popular subject.

So, I will follow his career more closely and maybe even read his book if it gets some good reviews from critics I respect. Perhaps he will do something that will make me change my mind; I hope so, because I share his general scientific enthusiasm.

827. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18936 by Yorker on January 23, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Oil vs Water; a simple truth about their relative values just came to me. Water is obviously infinitely more valuable, without it, there would be no life. Oil is only valuable to those who have plenty water!

828. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18602 by Yorker on January 22, 2007 at 2:24 am

About time Chomsky put in an appearance on this site, I was beginning to wonder what the problem was! One of the few people truly worthy of admiration, Noam is a master debater who really understands how the world works and who the secret power mongers are.

It always amazes me how many Americans don't even know him, of course, those who fall for hype and general political nonsense probably wouldn't have the attention span to listen to him. Hated by those to dislike his unswerving habit of telling the truth, he often has to have police protection, sadly, he's no longer a young man but I hope he lives a long time yet; replacing a gem like Noam will be virtually impossible.

829. God's Hostages

Comment #18382 by Yorker on January 20, 2007 at 8:38 am

Ah, Sam's words make me yearn for bygone times. It's so hard to find suitable women these days, indeed, I've had to dump three of them in my quest for a woman with the right stuff of yesteryear...:)

830. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14310 by Yorker on December 22, 2006 at 2:14 am

Kids Self-Education Plan

OK, looks like we have some interest in this.

Today, I can't spend much time here, if someone else wants to start the thread under the forum Civic Action, I'll join it when I get back. It's not really civic action but if that's where it must go, then fine. I like the way it's shaping up!

831. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14262 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 5:54 pm

So, the truth is out. Everybody's at it!

832. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14257 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 5:10 pm

The bee's in my bonnet now, I love action. Here's a few more thoughts:

1. A brainstorm of suggestions about content and format from all interested parties.

2. Then a poll to decide upon the best brainstorm points.

3. Decide upon content and who will provide it.

4. Designate people or teams to carry out specifics and make a start.

I stress that these are just suggestions, unlike religites, I'm open-minded:)

833. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14253 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 4:52 pm

126. Comment #14252 by Jared on December

>>I don't know much about practical web development...<<

Thanks for the quick reply Jared. No problem, knowledge for content is what we would need most of, everyone's got some of that. Everybody interested in helping in any way would be welcome as far as I'm concerned.

834. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14251 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 4:31 pm

Luthien

Just a quick thought about the 'journey'.

We could give each kid a login and maintain a database that held the position they last visited, then we could popup a "Hi Billy, last time you were here blah, blah...do you want to start from there?" type of welcome box they could respond to. I think a high level of interactivity would be an important factor in keeping their interest. What do you think?

835. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14246 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Niels, Logicel, Luthien, Jared, Sancus and any other interested person.

I like the animation concept as a learning tool. Some of the best sites I've seen, use animation to teach hands-on basic electronic principles, e.g. operational amplifiers, logic gates etc. A simplified system like this would be perfect for teaching kids. A basic picture representing a subject could have many clickable hotspots leading off to other pictures in ever increasing detail. If you like, I can find some example sites for you to look at.

A few weeks ago, I saw an article here that mentioned the word 'homsap' in a religious context. I liked the word and decided it would be wasted on religion, so I registered HomSap.com and bought some webspace for it. I hadn't really decided what I might do with it, so right now it's just sitting there parked with a default web page (a coffee cup) running on an Apache server.

If we decided to actually do something, I offer it as a test bed website where a kids teaching tool could be developed. In support of the effort, I would keep paying the monthly webspace fee as I do now. All members of a development team could be issued an access password. There is also a phpBB forum I put there with a few trial posts in it, I have not publicised it in any way yet because I'd not made a decision as to direction.

I guess that's all I should say about that right now, but why don't we see how many may be interested in contributing to such a venture, provision of content and animation design would be major requirements; there must be a wealth of knowledge here so what say you?

I almost forgot, Logicel; do you remember that special thread you wanted? This idea may be a good candidate, but open to all who have an interest; I think I saw something from Josh about requests we may have, so a special thread for this topic may be a wise move. I await all responses.

836. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14180 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 11:29 am

Well, my test worked, he's shown his hand, we all know what he is, now I'm now going into my normal troll-infuriate mode of talking about, but not to them. I suggest we all do this.

He's clearly an idiot; notice how he still says it's Dawkins prize and he still thinks I'm being cowardly not to deny Allah. I'm not going to please trolls; they are intellectually deficient.

837. I love the commercialisation of Christmas

Comment #14152 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 9:42 am

9. Comment #14132 by Edutheria

>>What is wrong with commerce?<<

I could give you a lot of answers, but instead I'll ask you a question.

Would you spend $60 on a designer shirt that a worker got paid 7 cents for making?

838. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14150 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 9:33 am

20. Comment #14140 by Lionel A

Naval stuff in Glencoe...hmmm. You're a fairly old man then Lionel, certainly older than I. But I see your point, a Yorkshireman playing the pipes would naturally be irritating :)

839. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #14147 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 9:17 am

157. Comment #14133 by peterg123

Do you have any idea at all about what you're talking about? Richard Dawkins has made it perfectly clear he doesn't believe in ANY god. In addition, he never funded the BC as you imply.

Had you done a little more reading and a little less mindless raving, you would know these things.

Do you seriously think anyone here will be scared of jihadi sites? Atheist persons disdain gods of ANY flavour, that covers any silly god you care to name.

Tell you what, YOU put up $25K and I'll denounce any religion you like...on second thought, I'll do it for nothing. All gods are nonsense. Now piss off!

840. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14131 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 8:36 am

Ha,ha!

Glad to see a few of us have a sense of humor, I was beginning to think it would be impossible to raise a laugh out of you lot!:)

I suppose you could call yourself a 'Britophile' Jared.

Well, I don't swing anymore Jonathon...and although I could move it both ways, I always found the in-swinger better for yorking. Before I got to old (for cricket, I hasten to add) I had become an off-spinner and a fair all-rounder. Nowadays I only watch...again, the cricket that is!

841. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14108 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 6:49 am

10. Comment #14106 by Jared

Jared,

As a UK newbie, you may not be aware of the myth of the lonely Scottish shepherd and the real reason we wear kilts (fast access). English people delight in perpetuating this story as a means of denigration:) To be fair however, the Scots comedian Billy Connolly has also done his bit to keep the myth going, it was he who invented the added refinement of taking the sheep to the edge of a cliff -- they push back better...:)

842. I love the commercialisation of Christmas

Comment #14104 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 6:27 am

Atheism is the only point of agreement I have with this guy. Ever since I found out the lie of Santa, christmas has meant nothing to me. Nowadays, I do my best to minimise it's impact on me; I find the fakery, insincerity and commercial greed, distasteful.

843. 7 monks injured in clash over monastery

Comment #14103 by Yorker on December 21, 2006 at 6:14 am

3. Comment #14076 by Richard Dawkins

>>...So are female sheep, presumably for fear they would offer too much temptation...<<

What? Are you saying it's not just us Scots that indulge in this pleasant recreation?

844. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #14000 by Yorker on December 20, 2006 at 3:06 pm

108. Comment #13992 by Luthien

Shame you didn't get the funding, especially since it's a laudable enterprise, I hope you can succeed eventually.

845. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13975 by Yorker on December 20, 2006 at 11:46 am

103. Comment #13961 by Jared

>>...I find I'm more interested in WHY those methods work...<<

Yes Jared, so am I, indeed, you pre-empted me! My plan was to make the original post and hope that it generated enough interest so forward-looking discussion might bring something useful to light. Looks like a good start! Does anyone want to propose any ideas?

Meanwhile, I'm off to watch that BBC4 program about the texts omitted from the New Testament. (at least I think it's BBC4, I'll find soon)

846. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13973 by Yorker on December 20, 2006 at 11:33 am

99. Comment #13955 by Luthien

Hi Luthien,

It's uncanny that you mention an open source educational system. As an ex-software engineer, I almost produced such a system. Back in the days of DOS, I was contracted by a group of entrepeneurs who wanted to sell their closed-source system to education authorities. I attended a week long discussion about the form the package should take, I turned down the job because they were unable to agree with each other, I knew from experience that starting under circumstances like that was a recipe for disaster.

So I agree that an open-source, continually evolving system is probably the right way to go.

847. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13936 by Yorker on December 20, 2006 at 7:05 am

92. Comment #13926 by Logicel

Yes Logicel, here in Scotland we have a pretty shameful history of duped, religiously-biased violent football supporters for some of whom, this ex-game is their entire life.

It would life-threatening if I made such a statement in public, such is the power of this business-induced drug. I call it ex-game and non-sport; it is simply business, the team with most money can buy the best players and therefore win. Where is the sport in that? Duping supporters is a great way to rake in cash. We have even had lottery winners giving millions to their favourite team!

848. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13922 by Yorker on December 20, 2006 at 5:45 am

90. Comment #13908 by Jared

This post by Jared brought to my mind the methods politicians use to control people and make them dependant.

Philosophers have long said that politicians find religion useful, but that's only part of the weaponry they deploy to keep the majority of us weak and malleable. It's a big part though, akin perhaps, to a long-range cluster bomb dispenser.

Governments want a populace that is educated but not too educated; the last thing they want is a nation of critical thinkers able to see the real issues and undermine their carefully laid plans to keep us quiet and emasculated. They have many other weapons deployed, such as:

The Industry of Deception: (advertising)
This is their heavy machine gun, it has a potent high rate of fire, designed to keep our heads down and stuck in our trench. The simple 'don't think, just buy' message is enough to keep most of us poor enough to be passive and dependant but not poor enough to rebel.

Sport:
This is a short range skirmishing weapon – a smoke grenade, not big on casualties but effective at screening movement. A favourite of governments worldwide irrespective of political doctrine; giving the public something unimportant like sport, is an effective blinding and distracting tool to be used in covering up things they don't want us to know about. The Romans understood this weapon very well.

Patriotism/Nationalism:
This is not a weapon in itself, it's a morale builder, but it assists all other weapons. Telling the people they live in the world's best country while they're being screwed over, is an excellent, everlasting continuous-usage tool. Used in conjunction with religion, it is best method yet devised, for making soldiers into dead heroes. It has the additional benefit of dehumanizing and downgrading foes, making them easier to kill. The Nazis were masters of this tool.

Fear:
A major multi-purpose weapon; a scared population is easy to control, easy to unite and easy to dupe. Fear hides the nasty side of patriotism and makes it easier to apply. Bogey men like Osama Bin Laden are a godsend to politicians.

War:
This is their most powerful weapon; a blockbuster bomb. It is only deployed when major resource theft, political destabilisation or land-grabbing is the goal. In every case, almost all the weapons described above are deployed first so the population are united and suitably duped into believing the reason for war to be something other than the truth. Fear is a very important player in the run-up to war.

Of course, there will always be some of us who will think critically; who will see the truth; who will rebel; but as long are we are the minority, governments have nothing to fear. They'll simply label us as cowardly, unpatriotic, negative-thinking or godless and the majority of non-thinking, largely religious dupes, will support and applaud them for it before sending their sons and daughters to die.

We god and war naysayers must become the majority and we shall, it's a long battle but we are winning. Worldwide, the young people of today are more politically savvy and less likely to blindly follow greedy and selfish politicians; bolstering their education is a top priority and a key point well understood by our enemies within who are attempting educational subversion.

849. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13906 by Yorker on December 20, 2006 at 3:05 am

146. Comment #13897 by Jared

Thanks Jared, you meme-propagator you!

I'd never heard of an aurora of polar bears before, but like you, I'm a lover of alliteration -- an 'avalanche of atheists' sprung to my mind. That seems to have already happened, Rod Liddle can be found here on this site, buried under an avalanche of atheism!

850. The Blasphemy Challenge

Comment #13896 by Yorker on December 20, 2006 at 2:22 am

140. Comment #13879 by Veronique

Hello Veronique,

Thanks for your response and welcome to this anonymous world. You're the second Veronique I've met and you're the same age as me -- two coincidences in one post.

Yes, it's difficult for me to understand the mind of the converted atheist but many here are making it a little clearer. I'm well aware of the Oz piss-taking gene, your compatriot "Aussie" can't resist gloating to me about your team's cricket successes :) (even though I'm not a Pom!).

For a person new to this, you're doing great, no worries! Notice the :) above, it signify's a smile; this one :( signify's sadness. Many will be happy to help if you need it. You will be respected for your content, not for your skill at putting it together. Have fun!