801. 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.

802. Darwin or Design

Comment #56757 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 6:00 am

talking death and belief more generally its 'amusing' that ive seen on several occasions believers struggling with the death of a loved one (naturally) but what I find interesting that they are the ones who find that 'things just dont make sense'. they are right, in a universe with a loving god it just doesnt make sense that a four year old girl should suffer a dreadful disease and then die from a fall down the stairs. It makes total sense (as such) if there isnt a god.

803. Darwin or Design

Comment #56750 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 5:45 am

dogmatic.

we think of this word as something negative. sciphishow provides a dictionary definition to say that evolutionists are dogmatic. By that definition then yes. But by that definition a cancer surgeon who suggested that the ONLY way (at present) to get rid of a particuar tumor is by surgery (and not by sleeping over a toad) is also dogmatic, by not walking over a cliff edge because i KNOW im going to go down is also dogmatic.

for me one of the key problems with creationists (and they are everywhere round here) is that they know next to nothing about evolution (as it currently stands)and their own beliefs are a hotch pox mix anyway (as if there is no evidence you can say whatever you want and not look a fool as such). I was talking to an aquaintence generally about selective breeding, he thought it was amazing how you can modify the form/behaviour of a creature and then went on to say '...and that just shows that darwins theory was a load of nonsense'. I think he expected me to laugh and slap him on the back in agreement but I said that it actually demonstrated it very well (variable offspring, selection, traits passed on to offspring, change in gene frequency = evolution)anyway i didnt take it any further but he had this shocked look onhis face, manybe i was the first person he'd encountered who disagreed that AS demonstated evo (it certainly doesnt falsify it as he thought!!!).

804. Darwin or Design

Comment #56747 by phasmagigas on July 17, 2007 at 5:20 am

Extraordinary evidence.

A few weeks ago some anglican bishop claimed the UK floods were gods annoyance with the UK over its liberal stance on homosexuality. The problem with that idea is that there have been rain and floods on this planet for billions of years so it doesnt prove that it was due to homosexuals. Extraordinary evidence would be that which couldnt be assigned a natural cause. If instead of storms, lightening bolts flashed down from the sky and hit the butts of ONLY homosexual men the contry over, then you'd start to wonder, but of course that ISNT what happened and instead we get general rain (a bit more than usual) that killed a few random people, who probably werent homosexual.

facetious??? NO, this is the type of extraordinary evidence I require, and it just isnt there. believers may say that is a silly idea (lightening bolts on the butt) and i'd agree with them totally, as it just ISNT going to happen.

805. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #56595 by phasmagigas on July 16, 2007 at 1:45 pm

when people say atheism is another religion and thats its as dogmatic as religion does that mean the religious people are agreeing that religion is dogmatic?

Its incredible that when people criticise atheism they find it not ironic to say that its as bad as the worst of religion, well at least they agree with us there.

806. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #56586 by phasmagigas on July 16, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I can just hear the DM readership 'oh look, see that Darwin, er Dawkins fella is just a mean little bully, that just proves that hes wrong'.

im sure there arent that many atheists distancing themselves from dawkins, MG just likes to tell the world so. the root of all eveil needs to be reshown with that cut section, which is of course on youtube anyway. Im sure RD will have a reply to this section (edit, ah, aready did, succinct)


ad hominem at large.

807. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56518 by phasmagigas on July 16, 2007 at 5:28 am

i'd like to see the author of that letter be capable of understanding the research and therory at Colorado university and THEN refute it as lies via his/her own published peer reviewed papers, of course that isnt (ok, i keep an open mind but i feel its VERY unlikely)) going to happen so some rather 'unchristian' tactics now being used.

Its akin to me (who knows zero about engineering)watching a huge bridge being constructed and denying that its safe to go across just because i 'know' its just too big to stand there on its own, I could see cars going over but know its still not possible. I could picket the bridge to stop people crossing, hopefully i'd be arrested and be strapped down by that point (before i decided to bomb the dangerous bridge). Ignorance is bliss for some i supose.

808. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54162 by phasmagigas on July 5, 2007 at 7:30 pm

bonzai, going further with 'fitness' its interesting to consider the domestic cow, now im not sure but those things have been variously bred for muscle and milk production but also for a high degree of docility, seemingly some animals can be 'tamed' in this way, maybe it was luck but perhaps dairly cattle have been selected for some form of mental disability which gives them the extreme docility that they seem to have. It is quite advantageous to their fitness when you consider the number of beasts alive at any one time.

809. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54098 by phasmagigas on July 5, 2007 at 11:05 am

konquererz.

the point you make on the non escaping from religious beliefs. Interestingly i found a similar thing going on recenlty with a totally different type of religion. next to starwars, the 'transformer' toys hardcore fans (ages 25-30 for the most part)are almost religious in their following. On the back end of the new movie is coming a new animated series and a toyline based on it. Recently a SINGLE image of the new cartoon was posted online. Within days the transformer toy forums were full of screaming comments (many 100's of comments), the majority very negative, the fans hated the new look but what was interesting is what they construed without evidence lots of nonsense:the story WILL be terrible, the animation WILL be awful (ie the moving image), the toys just CANNOT be made that will transform into cars (talk about argument from incredulity), we hate the toy company thats done this to our childhood. We will NOT buy the toys as they WILL be terrible. Now i'd say about 9/10 of the posts were of theis nature and the remaining 10% were more open to the new look and ready to defer final judgemant upon seeing the cartoon/toys next year. What im seeing is a early doctrine of sorts:the original cartoon series, the toys 'style' and the comics. What we now have are those guys grown up being forced to accept change of the doctrine in many ways and being rather hostile to it and then coming out with crazy beliefs totally without evidence to support it (the toys will be awful despite any evidence).

anyway im not sure if there really is any parallell to this and the religious mind but its an idea. what particularly interests me is the set of ideas that spring up confidently without evidence. Now if they all see the cartoon and the toys and think they are great then i'll have been talking nonsense (changed the mind by evidence), anyway I digress....

810. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54066 by phasmagigas on July 5, 2007 at 6:58 am

bizzaro quote:

Chihuahuas are certainly not as healthy as wolves, nor are they better suited for survival in harsh environments. St. Bernards may be larger than wolves, but they are extremely susceptible to hip dysplasia as well as a host of other health issues.

nor has dog breeding ever resulted in a product that is more fit than its predecessor. Just think, how long do you believe a poodle could survive in the Appalachians?

unquote.


this is a very ill construed point. Dogs have been selected for specific traits which by definition take tham away from that which is generally 'optimal' for the animals that they were selected from, if im not mistaken for eg short legs are often achondroplasia rather than from a gradual selection of shorter legs. the severly reduced muzzle length of many breeds retards breathing I guess, what man is doing is basically selecting for shape irrespective of the poor traits they carry/problems they cause (and a lot i suspect is due to inbreeding)NS works on the organism at every level from its ability to run, sniff out food, blend into the back ground, fight of pathogens. What AS does is allows animals to breed which would have NO chance in the wild, it would be very interesting to put a mix of pedigrees together in a controlled natural setting and see what becomes of them after say 20 generations. bizarro, so do organisms continulaly get less fit over the generations??? I suggest they stay as fit as they need for the environment, and if they survive, then they are fit. A chihuahua might well be fitter than a wolf if you put them on a small island (allowing small hiding places for the chihuahuas!!)

if we wanted we could breed microcephalic blind hairless, legless living torso type creatures in a matter of decades (wed have to facilitate the breeding) as the perfect handbag pet, i would agree that that isnt as fit as the average wolf but in the short term its genes would be doing very well if they were in every handbag!

811. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54061 by phasmagigas on July 5, 2007 at 6:38 am

shild

quote"Dogs are all the same species. Behe's "Tentative Edge" of evolution includes Orders, Families, and Genera. This means that, according to Behe, species-level changes are, shall we say, "kosher". unquote

if species level changes are kosher (and its amazing somehow that 'species' is a discrete knowable unit that is so very easy to describe, very convenient) if one can accumulate particular genes in one direction through selection and make the variety of dogs we see then it really doesnt take that much of a stretch of the imagination to go back, and back and then (god forbid!) hit a point where the 'concestors' are those which begat both say wolves and coyotes which are (god forbid) the same genus but different species!! then a bit further back to where they join the african hunting dogs which are (god really forbid) a different genus. Of course the genus/species lines are arbitrary. so where does change stop??? according to behe would it go so far to some divinely limited 'species threshold' and after that it would become a different species and thats not allowed.

quote: Now all you need to do is demonstrate that a mutation beyond Behe's "Edge" has in fact occurred and the ID folks, while not shutting up, will at least give ground by extending their "Edge" further and further until they're back to "First Cause." unquote

shild, which i think is similar to what i said above but you just go further back. It reminds me of when a planet in orbit finds itself in the same predicament (almost!) as the second before and continues going in orbit, basically back to where it was, evo is the same, you make a few changes but back in the same predicament and past those arbitrary (but useful)species, genus, family, class, order....



ive not read the new book, maybe I will, it sits proudly amongst the small number of science books in our local barnes and noble.

812. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53693 by phasmagigas on July 2, 2007 at 4:07 pm

No, the bishop has it all wrong, too much water is infinitely better than too little water, god is pleased. Now if god really was angry at the Uk he would bring sunshine and drought. That man needs to eat some humble pie and resign, bloody idiot.

813. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53378 by phasmagigas on July 1, 2007 at 5:45 am

its intersting how we have in effect bred wolf stock to produce animals that are highly grotesque/deformed in many instances, a pekingese without its fur would be a hideous utterly malformed version of a wolf (it is anyway its just that bald pekingese would be more obviously monstrous), the equivalent in our own species (admitteldy not to happen via any type of selection) would be viewed as an extreme medical curiosity.

When i see my adult dogs now playing its quite a revelation to imagine that with suffiecient selection (or maybe lack of it!!) the same thing could be happening to our own species, there are many adults who do continue juvenile behaviour right through adulthood, I wonder if in traditional societies that type of juvenile horse play is seen less often as the more serious adult roles take over?? anyway I digress...

814. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53376 by phasmagigas on July 1, 2007 at 5:37 am

that whole morality question, evolution explains it quite well, if an animal or human acted upon its every 'immoral' whim it would be reduced to a running, yelling, raping, masturbating, constantly eating, stealing whirling dervish of an organism, that esp within the confines of a society just couldnt be tolerated and even outside of a society would be extremely maladaptive, a praying mantis will sit there for days patiently waiting for a fly, it doesnt traverse the grassland just destroying/biting leaves and twigs for the fun of it (and in mantis world that could be seen as an immoral type of behaviour, a bit like damaging property), nature has imposed a certain set of behaviours on it and likewise with us.

The immoral whirling dervishes dont exist, and those that do come about are abruptly halted one way or another.

edit: actually the nearest example i can think of of the immoral whirling dervish is that (not uniquely) concept of the 'feral' child in the UK, the ones who terrorise people in their neighbourhoods, now im not sure that is a lack of godliness (and it might be!! as ive encountered less immoral whirling dervish kids in the USA than the UK)but a general lack of any control atall from parents, teachers and police.

815. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #53261 by phasmagigas on June 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

shuggy:

quote: 'Beauty is subjective and by many standards, the giant weta is a very handsome insect. My gut instinct says this is a modern myth, the kind of thing that tourist guides make up' unquote.

thats interesting that god of ugly things might be aload of recent nonsense. Im in total agreement with you on the beauty of the insect, the weta in general are incredible looking animals and i have had the good fortune to see THE giant weta, D.heteracantha in the wild.

816. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53118 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 1:21 pm

RD has always had a distinct dress sense, look at the RI xmas lectures (although he did pick the leafy one to disguise the stick insect yes??), anyway, what we mustnt do is let evolution opponents get wind that his clothes are seen as a bit 'liberal' as soon that will be one of the main ad hominem arguments against evolution: 'we know evolution didnt happen because that man dawkins wears those terrible shirts.'

817. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53116 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 1:12 pm

stevee 99:

quote 'I am amazed that this argument continues' unquote.

seems that the religious mind also suffers from the inability to shake of ill conceived arguments once they are planted.

818. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53114 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 1:05 pm

galactor, sorry, I was under the impression that maybe you were a fan of the early 1970's japanese anime 'gatchaman' (better known as 'battle of the planets' in the west). Galactor (which is japanese for 'waste' i think, were the baddies!) and they had a god called sosai/leader X.

anyway i digress off topic........

on topic, yes, the sentence you point out there is magnificent as an example of just how blind the religious mind can be.

819. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53109 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 12:41 pm

you know how fossils are here to test the faith, well creationists were put on earth to test ones patience. Actually i had this idea that maybe god put non believers on earth also to test the faith (via arguments and general disbelief), and we being ultimate 'martyrs' to the cause (because of the scorn we suffer) will actually get greater rewards after death.
we are allowed to be silly sometimes yes??

820. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53108 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 12:37 pm

galactor, nice post, with your name galactor, should your revered god not be the Great Sosai X????

821. Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift

Comment #53090 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 9:48 am

im not sure i see the shift, its still basically mutations>organism body>selection (even if the environment is modified by the org).

and as for, quote:These events, small and large, limit the range of possibilities on which natural selection can act unquote.

then this might explain then why starfish and urchins (and any other creatures) have the same body plan for hundreds of millions of years, i dont see how that is in anyway a shift. If i breed snakes, i expect a mutation might give me a longer snake or a brighter scale but its not going to suddenly give me a new body plan, well maybe the start of one but its a long way off.

822. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #53087 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 9:31 am

the one thing that is extremely infuriating is that polling on evolution would be akinto polling the public on their view on eutectic points in molten rocks, do they accept them or not, most peole wouldnt have a clue and the same for evo, most people do not know what it is and why would they, how many people remember much of their chemistry or physics, how many can correctly label a flower cross section? The point is this, for some unfathomable reason people believe they are qualified enough to reject evo theory and you can bet your bottom $ that those who do couldnt even string together 2 factual sentences about the subject.

823. Rival to evolution may enter schools

Comment #53084 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 9:25 am

if this was an enforced part of the curriculum (the same could happen in England and Wales) then its a very good reason for science teachers to put down their chalk/interactive pens and go on an honest strike on the basis that they would be by law forced to tell the pupils lies regarding alternative theories. Admittedly the Maori myth is far more exotic, maybe that one should be included instead for a bit of cultural diversity, you know, cross curriculum and all that, maybe it could include the 'wetapunga' cricket the worlds largest insect (well, one of them) in the discussion, afterall it means 'god of ugly things' if i remember correctly.

824. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #53058 by phasmagigas on June 29, 2007 at 6:47 am

re the letter to the irish times.

quote: Not a single trace of the remains of any of this vast multitude of failed mutations has ever been found: unquote

errr, so what exactly does that mean, what is a failed mutation, one that reversed itself?? If the 'author' is talking about long extinct 'failed' organisms, well a trip to any museum will show quite a few of them.

must be a joke right. Ive got to the point where i wont enter god/religion debates with people (all i will do is answer a question they pose to me) but as for evolution, that one is easy, there are facts and not opinions or philosophy. Im now fairly well armed with responses to questions like 'shouldnt there be half creatures then??' which ive had before.

825. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52507 by phasmagigas on June 27, 2007 at 6:33 am

(I suppose) according to this guy all the teachers in the UK (for eg) are coerced into delivering lies to children as part of the national curriculum, ie the section on evolution. I'm not sure then why he and his ilk are not taking it up at the highest levels of government in their respective countries and demanding that the lies be withdrawn from the curriculum (i mean is it not a form of child abuse and an abuse of their education by teaching them evolution if its downright lies?). That would of course mean some serious debate and evidence suggesting that its false, I mean theres loads of evidence that falsifies evolution, right?? He needs to stand up and tell all those teachers that they are actually propogating lies. I wonder how long it will be before science teachers start to go on strike in the west??

826. The Stupidity of Fox News is Truly Beyond Belief

Comment #52328 by phasmagigas on June 26, 2007 at 6:22 pm

the 'eye' comment, why the hell do they always use the eye, why not use the most complex object in the universe instead (includes the eye anyway, I think?) the brain, or even some other random complex organ: a pitcher plant tube leaf, a chloroplast, a sphincter, a mollusc radula, bringing in less familiar objects might just confuse the issue for them i suppose, well they'd still nod and smile in agreement.

827. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51770 by phasmagigas on June 24, 2007 at 8:12 pm

I was thinking a while back that its not wise to inadvertently tell the doctor your non belief (if your doctor said god willing, and you siad 'not my thing' or something like that), now call this paranoia, but here in the states im not convinced on the doctors impartiality to your best interests and after reading this im even less sure.

828. Doctors' beliefs can hinder patient care

Comment #51769 by phasmagigas on June 24, 2007 at 8:05 pm

its incredible the difference being the carrier of the larger gamete makes to humans. Its actually very scary to think that some doctors could be ultra religious nutcases and could well be happy to harm women in some cases, far fetched? I'm not sure.

829. In the name of the Father

Comment #51766 by phasmagigas on June 24, 2007 at 7:51 pm

quote: In a thousand years' time, if we humans are still around, no doubt our cosmology will be regarded as childish fumbling :unquote

thats indefensible and very insulting considering the comsmology he proposes.

830. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #51104 by phasmagigas on June 21, 2007 at 1:31 pm

im suprised RD stumbled a bit (just a bit) on what would be evidence against evo (which may not necessarily be evidence FOR creation and then again, why would anyone start thinking what would falsify evo for long, there are 100's of things, none of which have been found and would be a waste of time thinking about it)Evidence against evo (and this is akin to what RD did actually come up with)would be something like the human genome being no more similar to say a chimps than to a buttercups.

If creation were true one would expect that human DNA might have some truly remarkable differences unseen in all the other species on the plant (ie and all the rest have common traits). The genome isnt like that of course and the similarities could be rationalised freely by believers, I too can play that easy game:'the genome could have been made similar to test our faith' through to more intelligent rationalising like 'well if we share say livers and bones like other, er, animals (cough) then surely god had to use the same instructions'. That of course could be taken to say that we are therefore animals, therefore mammal, therefore primates and therefore apes too as we have those fingernails and no tails!!

Another bit of evidence that would persuade me that there was a god and we were special would be that upon death we'd beautifully fizzle away like the urRu (i think thats the spelling) in 'the dark crystal' movie, instead we decompose as unceremoniously and grotesquely as any road kill!

Infact I have this general 'feeling' that the reason people believe in god is because we find ourselves in a rather terriyfying place where there quite obviously isnt one, esp with regard to justice as we tend to see it, yes, sometimes we all wish there WAS a hell!!If there was a god the world could well be perfect (animals would have blood openings and offer it to us akin to Douglas adams cow) we wouldnt age and we'd fizzle away upon death, in that case we would not need the crutch of god. oh the irony!

831. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50737 by phasmagigas on June 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm

regarding RD tone in the book, maybe some people are reading it and picturing a screaming madman with spit frothing, when they hear him in person they then hear a more tempered voice, maybe they need to reread the book with the tempered voice. I am really sick of people criticising for its harsh tone, if it does have a harsh tone, so what? Are people of faith so vulnerable to criticism, they should be invulnerable to any criticism, afterall they are the ones with the unshakable beliefs. Unfortunately the harsh tone meme is already spreading and now being used as an ad hominem. The criticism is indicitive of the very thing dawkins attacks, basically its people saying 'tread lightly so one doesnt offend'.

832. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50603 by phasmagigas on June 19, 2007 at 4:16 am

i was circumcised for medical reasons at 8-9 (very unlikely that today that would be done though) and if i have a son he will NOT be circumcised. As far as im concerned it DOES have a negative affect on my sexual experience, i just know that im not having all the fun i should be having and thats not some subjective belief, it has to be fact by 'un'default. Some of those bad circumcisions are appauling and even those deemed successful can leave the penis looking very ugly with scarring and over tight skin to just begin the problems.

833. Review of 'Growing Up in the Universe' DVDs

Comment #50476 by phasmagigas on June 18, 2007 at 11:08 am

i saw this when i was 21 and it pretty much kick started my present world view. those who say 'show it to your kids', i'd agree, i just wonder how many evangelists (who have never seen this) would look at this as some form of indoctrination? well of course it isnt just as long as we dont tell our children that this 'must be believed because i say its true!!' Highly engaging and yes, we love that shirt!! I think its interesting to see just how much computers have evolved since that programme, i wonder how many rolls royce cars could now fit on a pinhead?????

834. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50473 by phasmagigas on June 18, 2007 at 10:51 am

interesting how the first few comments were critical of the honours system, the along comes the more significant follow up news that Islamists are starting to get fired up again and we realise that at least the honours system is nothing more than a ridiculous little diversion that nobody really cares about anyway. I wonder just how many people will lose their lives over this one? choose stabbing, burning, stamping, hanging. When i see groups of men getting all murderous over an 'insult' like this I see it as an excuse to indulge in a bit of tribal male backslapping no different to football hooligans rioting (and these guys would murder too if they could get away with it), I suppose it reinforces their own status above their females and just makes them feel better about themselves generally. sex and status, is that all it ever boils down to? I'm sure we will see demonstrations in the UK in the next few days, should be revealing.

835. In the know

Comment #50222 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 7:41 pm

certaintly and fundamentalism.

When was the last time an atheist picked up 'the origin of species'and said 'look on page 33, read the fifth line (ive no idea what is on that line), its in the OOS and THATS why its true. Personally i dont give a flying damn about my certainty about god, its the ridiculous baggage that the religious carry around with them thats the most annoying, a person screaming hell and damnation to a gay man can have his god (i dont know there isnt a god for sure) but i do know for sure hes wrong for his chastisement of another person.

anyway Vernon is an certain ass, I BOUGHT the certainty!!!, i didnt buy anything, I looked at nature from my earliest years and simply NEVER saw god, it just wasnt an option. I sang hymns each and every morning at school 'god is love, god is truth, god is beauty praise him....' and i heard a nice tune and that was it, its genetic.

and as for the dogma of science, well if im unlucky enough to get a malignant tumour in my life i should feel quite confident if i ignore the physicians dogmatic suggestions of various treatments, no, instead i'll pray a bit, put a toad under my pillow and repeat the words 'unconditional love' all day long, yes that'll work, maybe.

836. In the know

Comment #50220 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 7:26 pm

quote (bonzai)Atheism has been my default mode even before I started thinking about these things. Now I think about it more it appears to be even more natural. I never understand why, even for many atheists, a great deal of effort is required to break loose from religion. I am not bragging or anything. I am genuinely baffled. Maybe somehow I am missing a religious gene.end quote

I hear you, I try to comprehend the religious position but its like in order to suddenly believe and follow a religion i would have to be a different person, its just not there, it never has been so i guess it never will be. Its probably genetic.

837. The Benny Hinn Report

Comment #50219 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 7:16 pm

I agree with room101. It doesnt take too much thought and reasoning to figure out the wheat from the chaff, anybody who falls for this stuff really deserves anything bad that comes of it, they have a choice, luckily so do we, and we'll keep our money thankyou.

I lived in NZ for a while and found on several occasions superstitious beliefs from pacific islanders, in particular the notion of ghosts.

I dont understand the infantile clapping/singing/dancing/euphoria thing, most of us got over that one at dance venues/rock concert/rave whatever you want to call it, the only difference is that the music was at least half decent and the main drive, of course that can still be fun but theres no lies,no conning, no BS.

theres seems to be a difference between people (you decide whos who)there are those who will prostrate themselves upon the sight of a supposed leader and quiver and shake, its seen a lot on oprah, and then there are those who just dont or cant do that, do people scream and shake at dawkins lectures despite his unofficial lead role in the atheist world?

I reckon theres something involving neoteny with the religious mind, i think we ALL screamed, jumped, clapped, and shook when we were under 5 years old.

838. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50148 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 9:09 am

sargeist.

What you have come against is that inconsistent rationalisation that believers use. They can rationalise ANYTHING to accept belief but will reject any similar 'rationalising' that goes against it. The problem is its VERY easy to rationalise as you know and anybody can do it. The reason bullets didnt turn into flowers is because the man who was to die obviously had found his time at gods side, from his original plan, oh or was it perhaps that god doesnt show such vulgar obvious 'miracles' as that would be too obvious a showing of his prescence (and so ensure belief is on faith and not evidence). You and i both could make up rationalisations for ever.
Its an interesting althogh totally dishonest party game, if you babble believer nonesense at a party (stuff you just make up) its incredible how many people will nod and agree even though you just made it up, I think this would make an excellent documentary, just seeing what people will believe. I'd like to see somebody feigning being an evolutionist who didnt know anything about it for more than a few seconds.

839. Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Comment #50118 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 6:21 am

so 19% of americans dont believe in evolution because they believe in jesus christ, hmmm, I wonder if the questioners give out hostess cake bars to those who give that answer, its quite likely that they really like those too.

840. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50110 by phasmagigas on June 15, 2007 at 5:27 am

I wonder how many women find themselves not only pregnant after a rape but also HIV positive? Its amazing that the vatican can sit on their well fed behinds free from any suffering and condemn a woman in the worst possible scenario that a human can find themselves in. I can visualise the empty chatter, the plates of uneaten food, the chastisement, the extravagent process of robing, the plush warm rooms, I can also visualise the makeshift home, calories for the day, mental and physical injuries, little medical help, desparation and fear and i just wonder who the hell those rancid decaying old men think they are.

Its almost like those flaccid minds (and bodies) gleefully rejoice in the suffering of a woman and subsequently a child born of rape, but their imposition upon the lives of somebdy 1000's of miles away (and a few words by the vatican alters what millions immediately think-how does, how can that happen??????)must somehow satisfy their desire for ultimate status, which is somehow tied in with sexual domination, its ironic how our evolutionary past (which they probably reject) is what fuels their desire for elevated status and sexual command over people.

I can almost see the vatican patting the back of the rapist and congratulating him on his 'good work, keeping all those woman in order'. Its the same mentality, status and sex.

841. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50044 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 5:11 pm

if Hitchens is on question time it will add a bit more interest as its unlikely he'll be asked questions by only christians for once.

842. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49980 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 10:54 am

yorker, i agree that RD type input needs to be included When olasky starts talking creation and amino acids and improbablilities we need a biologist to refute that (im not saying hitchen cant do it to a degree but a more informaed biologuist can push that argument and keep it going until the believer just has to shout 'GAP'), unfortunately when olaskey starts talking amino acid sequences many believers are going to accept that as a good argument.

843. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49938 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 7:24 am

he (olasky) quotes the possibility of a 20 amino acid protein spontaneously forming to be an impossibility, now unless im mistaken thats exactly what evolutionary theory also would predict. Im guessing that this quote is taken totally out of context???? olasky starts to sound like a frothing nutcase into his second stint, miracles are easy (but rare and unproven), actually i would suggest that a 20 amino acid protein forming spontaneously is infinitely more likey than a whole dead body spontaneously reconfiguring its pre death atomic configuration and becoming functional again, these two events are incomparable by massive orders of magnitude.

olasky also suggests the faith/charity go hand in hand, well if 95% of the US population are faithful it would be quite a suprise if it didnt, maybe its people/charity go hand in hand.


On his failed marriage as an atheist, talk about a massive non sequiter (which he does see himself)(edit, whoops, a poor correlation, not a non sequiter), for starters a guy in his early 20's is quite a different mammal than when he is older. As others have suggested it would be great to have somebody who could really add some welly to the graet debate, the more olasky talks the more I can see him fit for a show like oprah talking grace, sin, and love. hmm and as for atheism poisoning things, im not sure about that, how many wicked things are done because one doesnt believe in a god, its like saying how many wicked things are done because you dont believe in dryads.

the most drippy icing on olaskys cake must be his remark regarding innoculation at the end. It is ridiculous to compare motives or reasoning of pro/opponents of innoculation so widely separated in time. In 2007 only the most maladaptive mind could consider innoculation to not be a useful thing.

Hitchens certainly gets in the last word, anybody who brings up pascals wager (in support of belief as i suppose this guy did) needs to be held down by 4 people and have is tie very firmly 'peanuted' as is done in UK schools.

844. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49936 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 6:56 am

olasky describes the origin of free journalism and then suggests that in the past the truth was supressed and that if the (real) truth were revealed it might make the king look bad and youd end up in jail. he also says that people were more likey to believe things that were true. hmmmmmm...............

845. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49933 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 6:31 am

so the good samaritans who olasky mentions wouldnt have done their good deeds without religion????? so they are only doing the good deeds for a ticket to paradise???? heck and the guy whos to set up an orphanage in africa had to pray to make that decision, admittedly i am not doing that good deed but if i wanted to i certainly wouldnt need to pray to make a decision over it. Perhaps the misconception here by olasky is that maybe just maybe the good deeds done by christians in his examples may not have done them without beliefs, well maybe they would!! He seems to have less faith in people than I do. its as nonsensical as saying when i do volunteer work i do it because I DONT believe.

edit: whoops donny you beat me to it, and i amost said shame on them too!!!!

846. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #49929 by phasmagigas on June 14, 2007 at 6:22 am

25 mins in Olasky challenges hitchens assumption that the 9/11 hijackers werent the the most devout people on the planes. Aside from the possibility that hitchens was wrong (and maybe he was, but how do you measure devoutness anyway?) im not sure why olasky even made this comment, yes, one of those moments where you say 'EHHHH???' maybe he was suggesting that there were more devout poeple on that plane who werent trying to fly it into a building. What hitchens suggests is that if you do fly yourself into a building then you are very devout, not that all devout people fly into buildings by choice.

847. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #48851 by phasmagigas on June 9, 2007 at 7:28 am

I honestly wonder if these men are so corrupt because they deny what they desire more than anything, more than power, more than money, that is of course to have sex with another man. Could that honestly be the reason????

Can you imagine the self centerd torturous reasoning these neotenous minds contemplate, literally like children not allowed to put their hands in the candy/sweet jar, ultimate reward for doing so, ultimate punishment for not and decide its better to destroy the jar so nobody can have it. Too far fetched? well after food consumption sexual desire/requirements is perhaps central to all peoples motivations.

At least haggard did engage his desires physically and maybe thats why he is half the monster that these men are, i pity haggard but these guys are beyond that.

848. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48824 by phasmagigas on June 9, 2007 at 6:20 am

Allen may have been influenced by that nasty woman in bible camp, she didnt like potter either.

849. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #48802 by phasmagigas on June 9, 2007 at 5:12 am

Of the americans(for eg) who reject evolution you can bet that the majority of them would also fail at describing what it even is (something simple like mutation, selection, accumulating changes). A very small minority would understand the process and still reject it (im not sure which is worse). Of course there are those who accept it and who also cant describe it but as they also accept the use of asprin and (relatively)efficient engines without knowing how they work they are at least being consistent. the average person might not need to know evo theory but part of me thinks that as it explains our origins (and just what is a more fundamental enquiry)so well it is perhaps the most obvious thing we should learn and understand. I dont even remember being taught anything about evolution before being 18 but i do remember singing 'who put the colours in the rainbow?' at school and still know all the words!!!

850. Wanted: Moral Education for Secular Children

Comment #48530 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2007 at 9:31 am

great teapot, maybe even just 'children'