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

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

Please people, do not feed the trolls :)

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

802. It is possible to be moral without God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing stops people from violence like killing all of them.

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

See here for a Christian response to it.

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

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

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

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

803. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104990 by AllanW on December 30, 2007 at 9:29 am

Re; comment #26

Yep Brian, I flagged as spam as well. Apart from the abysmal language construction, the ideas are merely incoherent and rambling. A collection of assertions, non sequiters, straw men and dissonant ejaculations.

Get rid, please Admin; it's a waste of our time.

804. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104744 by AllanW on December 29, 2007 at 10:16 am

Just picking up a point by kaiserkriss about the press in the UK.

The point you make was right but it has shifted slightly since. More people read the Guardian now and the Independent has entered. The FT has picked up and in the 'comic' section the Star has entered.

Nevertheless I know of very few people who claim to have any education at all who regularly take a newspaper. I don't have the statistics to hand but would be willing to bet that the vast majority of educated people in the UK now go online for their news and don't even watch the TV news bulletins.

I've recently even begun to stop going to the online Guardian and Times as the standards of journalism are so woeful. I go solely to specialist websites and fora.

Anyone else have a view?

805. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104608 by AllanW on December 29, 2007 at 2:00 am

phil rimmer; you're right, of course :)

It was Clarke not Asimov.

Nevertheless I've not seen a more clear case of blinkered dogma being dissonant from reality for a very long time. I'm happy that this is the case (that it's so clear). This Pope will do more for the cause of atheism or unbelief than any one individual on our side.

806. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104599 by AllanW on December 29, 2007 at 1:37 am

Oh man, I love this. It's an entirely logical response to the effects of the modern enlightenment IF you have a medieval mindset.

It's the corollary of the Asimov observation; 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'. In this case; 'Any sufficiently complex society is indistinguishable from demonic possession.'

Anyone else need any more evidence for how backward this Pope is? How dissonant must his mental state be?

807. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104200 by AllanW on December 28, 2007 at 4:53 am

Oh dear; wrong again krisking.

My point of view to begin with is not as you assume; the best I can do is admit I missed off a few words at the end "we think it's all just heresay and myth ..... until someone shows it isn't." There, happy now?

Back to the points; do you have anything to say here other than to offer scripture and commentary as your evidence?

epeeist is right again with his comments above.

808. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104183 by AllanW on December 28, 2007 at 3:47 am

Yeah, thanks krisking. Your post #104179 was as useful as a chocolate teapot.

How can we know if there is an afterlife?

Jesus said that God said there is.

Thanks for that. Want to supply any other evidence except scripture or scriptural commentary because I'm afraid we think it's all just heresay and myth.

809. Man and God

Comment #104178 by AllanW on December 28, 2007 at 3:37 am

Well, if we're adding our tuppen'orth to Paulas field-study, here's mine.

I remember as a small boy laughing at the explanations I was given at school about God and Jesus and thinking 'they can't believe that stuff can they?' and thereby equating it with Santa Claus and fairies.

The only dalliance I've had with any kind of spirituality or the metaphysical was as an adolescent when I read the major texts and associated commentaries along with stuff on eastern mysticism to see for myself if there was anything there that I responded to. There wasn't.

I have no scientific background (I just read the laymans literature like Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking etc) for interest and the absolute wonder of discovery that it excites in me albeit at one stage removed.

I'd like to think that I'm a descendant through both my parents of that long tradition of phlegmatic, pragmatic, sceptical, 'call a spade a spade' Midlands stock. As such I feel a great deal of sympathy for people who demean themselves and limit their view of the world by fearfully relying on ancient mysticism in the modern world.

810. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103580 by AllanW on December 26, 2007 at 8:13 am

Re; #103574 Krisking

"That's not Christianity......that's politicians using DOGMA to their own ends."

There; corrected that for you. BTW thanks for providing the best one-line rebuttal to the "Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot were atheists" argument; thanks.

"That's not atheism......that's politicians using dogma to their own ends."

811. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #103310 by AllanW on December 25, 2007 at 4:17 am

A number of good points, especially some by rod-the-farmer.

I'm not in the advanced education sector but I'd be interested in any facts those who are could supply about one of these points. The enrolment of foreign students in Universities in the States would be an interesting set of statistics to compare with an analysis of foreign-born advanced degree candidates in America. Is it true that there is an increasing tendency for the proportions of these candidates to be non-American (not a majority yet I'm sure) but that the proportions of those foreign-born who remain in the USA afterwards (and continue to contribute to scientific advances and research) is declining? This might support (or reject) a common argument I hear frequently from science practitioners that the US will maintain it's lead in research as it has a vast lead over the rest of the world. I'm beginning to suspect that we might see the start of this lead eroding. Then again, I may be utterly wrong :). Not my area, I reiterate.

812. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #103287 by AllanW on December 25, 2007 at 1:08 am

Hi infidl; why are Canada and the UK not suitable? Extradition treaties? Is there something you should be telling us? :)

813. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103226 by AllanW on December 24, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Sent2null; many thanks again for that display. I'd love to say I followed it all but I'd be lying :)

urin4it; "all you are doing is lamely trying to disprove what you know is the truth."

Ok; projection, assertion, bad grammar? If we know it's the truth why would we try to disprove it? Ah! I see; we're doing it lamely because we know deep in our hearts we're just wrong. Thanks for looking into all of our heads and sorting that out for us. Wow you must be an intelligent person. Can you enlighten me a little more, please? If those "four paragraph "scientific" babbel arguments aren't impressing anyone" what WOULD impress you and make you, just for one second, have a little less certainty about your belief?

814. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103168 by AllanW on December 24, 2007 at 11:39 am

You just have to be reminded of the Bill Hicks stuff;

"Yay! The average level of intelligence in the world just went up. We lost a moron."

Rasco; we are by-and-large nice, thoughtful, sympathetic people here but every so often you have to agree with Scooternycs point and just laugh.

815. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103106 by AllanW on December 24, 2007 at 10:04 am

Re; #33 and #34

Nice idea guys but I won't settle for anything less than the whole damn planet :) and then whichever worlds we get to explore as a result of not spending vast amounts of the worlds resources (including time and effort) in irrational conflicts; 'kay?

816. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103055 by AllanW on December 24, 2007 at 9:02 am

"2) If you want something big...

Never mention your ultimate aim. Instead ask for something really, really small –What's the harm? Then ask for something really small. If resistance is met point out that the really, really small request has just been granted. What's the difference? "

A quite ironic parallel to the effects of evolution by natural selection! lawl

817. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103029 by AllanW on December 24, 2007 at 8:07 am

Interesting post as regards the current discussion on the CiF Guardian forum by Henuttawy;

B'liar is at least the second war-criminal that the Catholic church has been oh-so-eager to have as a member.

The first one? Well Fr. Michael Seed (infamous as the priest who did so much to convert B'liar) insists that Hitler was a Catholic. And I guess he ought to know.

Where did Seed say this? In an article called "How to become a Catholic", which appeared in the "Catholic Herald" in August 2006, that's where. Quote: "Everyone can find their home in the Church. We can have Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa... [etc.]"

B'liar and the Catholic church deserve each other.

818. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102743 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 2:09 pm

re; #102739

You are right, this is not the place for this discussion. I'll pm you with my e.mail address.

My apologies to all; we now return you to your regularly scheduled programme :)

819. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102737 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Bugger! I forgot to mention the strain placed on the armed forces. Please include that with the above :)

820. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102736 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 1:53 pm

"Expectations are always more than is delivered"

Again I have a few counter-examples (did his supporters expect the NHS when they elected the government including Bevin, did Thatchers' supporters really expect her to break the unions and deliver monetarism unbridled?) but again let's stay strictly with the point.

Aside from the broad economic performance (which I'd bore you with) I think you hit upon the real reason his supporters feel that an opportunity was wasted; he was supposed to swing the balance back towards social justice as a reaction against Tory selfishness. His supporters felt that the inequality of wealth was ripe for adjusting. They felt that education (the route out of poverty) was going to be vastly improved. They felt that a benevolent state machinery was going to be used for everyones benefit.

My reading of the zeitgeist at present (error-prone and limited as it is) is that he ran a more exclusive, tory (small 't'), Big Brother, selfish and dismissive government than ever Major or Redwood etc would have ever achieved.

Income and wealth distribution has worsened; education practices are derided and more ineffective than they were; government and the political process is mocked and derided more than ever before; the civil service has been neutered and corrupted almost beyond repair; crime is perceived to be unchecked and the prisons are full; normal citizens are far more in danger of falling foul of the law than they have been since the Interregnum etc etc

As you rightly say, some things have improved in certain areas but a greater proportion of the population are more frightened, less hopeful, less community-minded and relatively less well-off than they were IMO. These circumstances are traditionally what a Labour-flavoured government should deliver on and more people feel that they haven't compared to those that feel they have.

I'm happy to be disagreed with (I'm nowhere near confident enough to feel right :)) but I'd take some persuasion.

821. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102714 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Ah Steve, you'll get no flaming from me :). Maybe a little disagreement though ...

While I can do nothing but applaud and support the advances made in anti-discrimination areas (sexual, racial) I have a non-simplistic, detailed and (I'm sure) very boring set of views on our economic and business performance in the last ten years. I have a less well-detailed but nevertheless wide-ranging viewpoint on political and social developments that I'm sure we could happily explore over many bottles of wine but this is not the forum for that.

My point in #102623 was not to formulate the balance-sheet on Bliars' reign but simply that not only do many people who supported him into power (and kept him there) seem to me to feel now that the issue of his religious convictions was an important characteristic of his mental make-up that was deliberately fudged (I think most posters here have agreed with that) but also that they feel quite opposite to your summary that "This country is quite a different and better place than it was 10 years ago" because he failed to deliver the changes they were expecting of him.

822. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102623 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 10:00 am

Interesting point, passutoba; I suggest the vitriol directed at Bliar is in large parts due to the feeling of being let down. Not by his religious conversion or his deliberate downplaying of his faith before that but by a general sense of wasted opportunities that his ten year premiership has actually delivered compared to the expectations of him when he entered office. Would you agree?

I never voted for him; not because of political idealogy (I've voted Labour before) but because I felt that his utterly pragmatic reformation of his party with the sole object of gaining power indicated to me a venal, untrustworthy man. I further suspected that, at times of great national stress (when the executive decision-making was concentrated on his desk), he would display the same shallow, short-term pattern that he had displayed up to that point.

It gives me absolutely no succor to appear to be right. And I stress again that he should be tried in The Hague as I believe this is the only way we will be able to engage with the arabic world and exert any influence whatsoever for the next hundred and fifty years.

823. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102584 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

Re; #102576

Decius, apologies for the swear word :)

'Reward' 'pay-back' = semantics. We were put under pressure to support; the leader of the country has to make a decision.

Whether Vietnam started as a war, became a war, whether Iraq started as a result of America being 'attacked' is open to debate and also irrelevant to the question of why Bliar took us to armed conflict.

Both conflicts were sold at various stages to the public in what we now see as utterly fraudulent ways (WMD anyone?) but is likewise irrelevant; your original point was that we entered as we had no choice but to agree to the US demands for armed, committed help. I disagree and the precedent of Wilson refusing exactly that kind of aid supports my case.

The reason that we did give that support was entirely resultant from executive decision; IMO heavily influenced by the individuals' faith belief in the wars' objectives NOT some nebulous notion of fraternal kinship.

824. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102571 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 8:48 am

Re; comment 102561

I'm sorry but that's bollocks; he felt 'obliged' to agree as a reward for helping out in 2 world wars? Wilson told Johnson to bugger off repeatedly over Vietnam; I think we would have been under a lot more pressure there than over Iraq thirty years later.

He agreed because his hotline to his conscience (God) told him to railroad the advisers, intelligence experts and the country. He should be tried in The Hague.

825. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102500 by AllanW on December 23, 2007 at 3:13 am

Re; #102497 So let's argue about fundamentalism, about carol singing, about how respectful we should be to believers, about anything.


Sorry, Steve, no time; I'm just going out to sing carols :)

826. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #102366 by AllanW on December 22, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Re; #102357

You're right but I always understood the term to have a nuance as far as God was concerned that they were constantly talking to Him hence 'bothering' Him when he has other things to do ...

827. Do our leaders believe in God?

Comment #102235 by AllanW on December 22, 2007 at 5:45 am

Another interesting and sensible article by Parris. Is he the most consistently intelligent and cogent political commentator of the last twenty years?

And this view (and analysis of past Prime Ministers) shows in part how the influence of religion in the UK has been reduced in the last two hundred years.

I think he's right to make the point that, in the UK and western Europe at least, we have mistakenly assumed that this argument has been won but missed the fact that it has not.

828. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #102217 by AllanW on December 22, 2007 at 3:04 am

Ok Wooter. Firstly, kudos to you for conducting this in a language you are unfamiliar with; you do it a lot better than I would in any language other than English. BTW does this site offer any other language options?

Let's see if I can find any bones amongst the superstition and evangelizing dreck.

#1 Failed to tell me how 400 thousand different species came into existence. WRONG; we pointed you to a number of resources that explained basic evolutionary ideas.

There was DNA soup at the beginning. How many times do we need to point out how wrong your understanding is here? See previous.

The earth rotates at 108 k km and we are still not being thrown off. Well man, this is basic physics (not the main subject of this site) but I'm sure we'll dig up a link to some simple explanation for you.

Diversity came from soup which is totally against science, logic etc. Sorry but it's your understanding that is flawed here. Just because you have not grasped how increasing complexity can come from natural processes does not mean that it is against science, logic etc. Read some more.

84% of the world population are believers - does not equate with an understanding of evolution. many believers accept evolutionary theory; it's just that the people you seem to respect do not. False equivalence here.

Material is stable and unconscious. No energy to control or mind etc. Complete misunderstanding of the theory. It is NOT stable, NOT lacking energy and just because it may have no mind/purpose/control does not mean it does not exist. Read some more.

#2 Copying of chromosomes cannot be an action of random chance as Darwin claimed because small changes will cause misery. Sigh. you keep banging on about how you have read all the books and you understand evolutionary theory and the only comment I can make about this dreadfully ignorant sentence is that you plainly have not understood any of it at all. What the hell does misery (value/emotional judgement) have to do with cell reproduction?. Again, others will be able to take this apart step by step but overall you reveal here your complete ignorance.

Out of nowhere Genes popped up. Just plain wrong and I think you know this. Cut out the hyperbole and superstition; stick to the science not Creationist mumbo jumbo.

Making a robot - first problem no soul - robots cannot feel, think, act as we do. Just plain wrong Wooter. Many experiments that show they can act, think and feel depending upon their programming.

Effects cannot be better than their causes. This is a basic point; the consequences of evolutionary actions have shown clearly that, as Dawkins shows, that this is precisely what can be achieved. It is the biggest, stunning implication of an understanding in this area and distinguishes it from many if not all scientific advances made so far. Unserstand this one aspect of evolutionary theory and I guarantee your outlook on the world will be enhanced.

Probabilty of a DNA string possping into existence - however improbable it may seem it is far more likely than an original creator. Think about that concept and you will begin to grasp a little more of what we are talking about in here.

#3 - Ignore completely. Inane.

Final Not fair in English. Tell us in which language you would like the explanations. No promises but maybe it's possible.

102166 We believe in a creator because it makes more sense and it's easier to believe. See previous. Just because your mind is incapable of encompassing the ideas does not mean they are wrong, mate.

Illogical assumptions like genes, duplication of chromosomes, etc. Oh dear; once again with the debasement of the terms by a Creationist. It's not an assumption if it exists!

Your link does not work in this message.

No evolution between species; micro not macro. Again with the Creationist dreck. Evolution does work and is demonstrated in macro terms not just micro. Can anyone give a great link to a simple exposition of this please?

Look Wooter; thanks for the input but unless anyone else can pick more bones out of your relentless sermonizing than I have (and believe me you're welcome to) then I have to say you need to read a lot more, read with an open mind and try to get away from some of your obvious mindset. I know it can be difficult but the bottom-line is that just because you do not know something, just because it's hard for you to understand or accept an idea does not mean that the default position is that God must have done it.

Merry Christmas

829. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101986 by AllanW on December 21, 2007 at 10:49 am

Hey Wooter, P Z Myers provides this nice resume of the development of eyes in vertebrates. Let us know if this answers any of your questions.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php#more

830. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #101942 by AllanW on December 21, 2007 at 8:16 am

I can only applaud empyrean.

But do you see the difference between the approach and language here compared to earlier posters? Reasoned, evidenced (although more is available) and liberal.

Smokers have indeed been forced to adopt different contexts for their habit (public indoor areas are now forbidden) so why go any further in pursuit? There are no health justifications to go further and it becomes obvious that it is petty and vindictive when compared to far more damaging health issues as empyrean mentioned.

831. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101906 by AllanW on December 21, 2007 at 6:18 am

Re; Anabanana; 'spandex and shaved legs?!'

You're thinking of drag acts, dear. Watch 'The Birdcage' :)

832. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #101904 by AllanW on December 21, 2007 at 6:15 am

A quite lovely piece; not surprising from Joan Bakewell. Concise, quite pointed and covering the ground well if a little shallowly. I'd have liked a little more on Blairs answerability; personally to his God maybe but why is it acceptable as leader of the country that he ignore his earthly advisers in preference to his religious conviction?

Overall though, very welcome.

833. Sorry to disappoint, but it's nonsense to suggest we want to ban Christmas

Comment #101901 by AllanW on December 21, 2007 at 5:57 am

Oh my word! An article by Polly Toynbee that does not stink. In the interests of balance I should go immediately onto the Guardian comment section and repeat those words (seeing as most comments posted by me and others there this year have said quite the opposite).

Yes the article rambles a little, yes it yanks in statistics and quotes in a stylistic affectation that annoys some readers and yes it is an opinion piece not a research document. Nevertheless her heart and opinion here are in the right place so Merry Christmas to Polly.

834. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101891 by AllanW on December 21, 2007 at 5:10 am

Man, some of you guys have way more patience than I have in responding to this Wooter idiot. At least now he can't complain of having no answers as at least four people tackled them all! Well done on those responses.

I guess we wait for the next volley of capslocked ignorance. The really sad thing (him teaching children is not sad but utterly depressing and shameful) is the evident certainty he displays on the basis of a few phrases he has gleaned from some creationist pamphlet.

I guess its the lack of curiosity allied with blind acceptance that staggers me; the last time I remember seeing this level of unsupported bluster was in juveniles who had read two paragraphs more than me about any particular subject. It just made me read and understand faster :)

835. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #101492 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Oh dear Anna.

If he's a deist and an economist I presume he worships Mammon?

Anyway, just ask him to draw the graphs for you that describe how he reached the decisions he made on religion (economists do a lot of that) and justify how they are optimal :)

836. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101391 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 9:50 am

We may not hear from Wooter for awhile as I guess he lives in the States and is, as we type, indoctrinating the poor mites in his care for seven hours :((

837. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101292 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 7:30 am

"Come towards the light, Rowan."

838. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101272 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 7:03 am

Re; comment #101269 PJG

Of course :)

Not only did he fail to answer you he failed to answer most points raised with him. As Roger said, he's following the standard operating procedure of the typical believer troll.

839. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101214 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 5:19 am

Re; comment #101209

No, Wooter, you asked many questions, most of which have been answered. Answer the ones you have been asked.

This forum is not an educational resource as such. If you think you can get people to spoon-feed you a scientific education on their own time and via forum-postings then good luck to you but you may be disappointed.

Answer the questions, Mr Troll.

840. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101202 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 5:04 am

Re; comment #101201

I answered all of your questions; have you answered ANY of the questions you have been posed? No.

I'm not a Biology teacher nor any teacher at all so don't be afraid.

Respond to epeeist et al on the questions you have been asked.

841. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101200 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 5:00 am

re; comment #101196

Wooter; They are scareder(feel disgusting) when i mention
that monkeys are our ancestors.

I can just imagine the circumstances. Propogating this ignorance to children is shameful and the main reason why sites like this exist. Do yourself and your students a favour by rising above your conditioning to develop an enquiring mind.

842. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101192 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 4:42 am

Wooter; having read the latest offerings I can see you are an ardent Creationist. Behe lol!

Access the Nova tv programme on the Dover Trial. Better yet, read everything submitted in evidence at that trial to learn why Creationism is NOT science, ID is religion and anyone who tries to bring this to trial again (Florida, South Carolina and Texas seem to be moving in that direction ATM) could well cost their children valuable money that should be spent on education not frivolous and demented lawsuits.

843. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #101190 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 4:38 am

Re; comment #101173 Wooter

Reading your posts is like wading through treacle. It's not just the grammar and spelling but also the pretzels you twist words into that reflect the seriously distorted shape your mind seems to be in. If you teach primary school kids I'm appalled.

1. Yet again you misunderstand; the book is entitled 'The God delusion'. It refers to individuals who hold a faith position that RD believes is delusional. So the delusion is held by people not by God. They are being described as deluded. God is never being described as deluded or delusional mainly because the author (who is not my mentor, you numbskull) does not hold that position.

2. Aside from not accepting the proposition that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs' you coward, I could almost settle your puzzle. Not me personally but many other humans have indeed covered the earth and space as far as possible. They have found no evidence for your God. If all you have to do is wander outside and find one evidence 'apple' then please do it now. Until someone somewhere produces it, the balance of probability says that evidence for your God has not been produced and therefore people of reason cannot accept his existence.

3. Gibberish. Explain your meaning and understanding of 'reason', 'logic', 'pre-assumptions', 'analogies' etc. You have proven nothing apart from your own prejudices and ignorance so far, my friend :)

4. Have you watched the 3 films PJG suggested yet? Let's take things simply first before having a discussion about abiogenesis etc. I'm sure you'll see this as evasive; from my point of view it's just avoiding spending more time than I care to spend on the illiterate ramblings of an ignorant, pugnacious fool who refuses to even contemplate the work, effort, reading, introspection and searching that many people on this forum have undergone to reach their own current understandings and which is available to you as well if you could be bothered to see past the God-blinkers.

844. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #101131 by AllanW on December 20, 2007 at 12:52 am

Damn! I missed the development of this thread as I was busy last night and a number of the points I wanted to make have been made already.

RM; Apologies for labelling you a troll. And BTW I do sulk sometimes so you are bang on there :0

PK; I'm sure we'll appreciate your posts written under whatever name.

Point of thread; (bullets to avoid repetition)
- Christmas is a secular festival at least as much as a Christian one in my experience.
- All the points about 'singing about something does not demonstrate support for it'.
- Carols at Christmas etc is a cultural, communal event not exclusively religious.
- Bad PR/hypocrisy; only a binary mentality would see it this way IMO

845. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100711 by AllanW on December 19, 2007 at 7:00 am

Richard; yet again a flippant, insubstantial post. Please read the whole sentence; my 'failure to see' refers to any evidence of you not being a troll. See how that works?

Provide any substantial responses on the many points made with regards to your posts on this thread and I might construe that as evidence that you are not a troll. In their absence I remain convinced you are a troll and as such need no further feeding.

846. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100694 by AllanW on December 19, 2007 at 6:10 am

Richard Morgan; if you fail to address the points raised in your own posts and the responses to them, I fail to see how you are anything other than a troll. Bye.

847. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100671 by AllanW on December 19, 2007 at 4:57 am

Richard Morgan;

Thanks for the lesson; you have nothing of value to teach. Please take the worship-blinkers off and see the world as it is. I mean the self-worship blinkers of course; you're welcome to keep the God-worship ones on if you choose.

RD never condemned religious education; merely labelling. Your premise is false.

I'll ignore all the snide remarks; they demean you and would me if I responded in kind.

'Hypocrisy at best, double-talk at worst'; have you any idea how muddled this is? I guess your point is that it might be thought hypocritical to fail to believe in sky fairies if you then enjoy songs about them. You would have a point if those were the only things that mattered in any persons life and we lived in a vacuum. In the circumstances (I mean for the rest of us obviously :)) we live in the real world, have complex (non-black and white) emotions, experiences and lives. This means that we can very easily encompass the idea of enjoying all sorts of things (art, stories, films, sunsets etc etc) while not sliding into existential angst about their origin.

Wake up man, smell the roses and don't take it all so seriously.

848. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #100598 by AllanW on December 19, 2007 at 1:06 am

Re; comment #100573

On the contrary it is you who must provide the evidence FOR answered prayers (he's your God claim after all :)). Have you heard of the idea that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'? Just give proof, externally verifiable (ie not just 'It felt like it to me' internal/personal/subjective experience) that could NOT have been just coincidence. If you do I promise that a lot of the people here will take it very seriously and our minds could be changed to believe.

As for the rest of that message .... damn! If I could just understand what the hell it is you are writing I might stand a chance. In the meantime I'll just ask again for you to try to frame a clear, concise thought in written language that I can understand. But I gotta respond on the 'wife/soup' analogy. You answered your own question; if I thanked a 'delusional' (I think you mean illusory) being for the soup my wife just made then she would have every justification for feeling miffed. If it were done in general (i.e. at a few stages removed) as in 'thank you God for making the universe in which my wife exists to make me this delicious soup) then she may be mollified but would think me delusional. I'd agree with her.

Don't forget to get back to me on this and I might even be able to frame some response on your quest for the primeval soup :)

849. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #100310 by AllanW on December 18, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Re; comment #100285

Ho hum; another NorthernBright post that needs to be pasted and saved (I have to make a separate folder for them now, I suppose) :)

850. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #100303 by AllanW on December 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Another nice example of RD getting 'snippy' with fatuous interviewers. Good man, keep it up :)

I hope that listeners who are uncommitted on the issue of faith and who have a modicum of intelligence and haven't yet read TGD (although in the UK there can't be too many of those by now, surely?) will begin to think that they should read it after hearing RD in this vein.