851. 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.

852. 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.

853. 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.

854. 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.

855. 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??

856. 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.

857. 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.

858. 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.

859. 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.

860. 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!

861. 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'.

862. 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.

863. 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?????

864. 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.

865. 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.

866. 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.

867. 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.

868. 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.

869. 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.

870. 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.

871. 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.

872. 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.

873. 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.

874. 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...............

875. 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!!!!

876. 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.

877. 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.

878. 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.

879. 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!!!

880. Wanted: Moral Education for Secular Children

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

great teapot, maybe even just 'children'

881. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48529 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2007 at 9:23 am

my worldview lacks any supernatural elements and that include god. It is quite useful, before I honestly thought 'this is all nonsense' i could be spooked if alone at night and wonder if that noise was a ghost (or at least that thought entered my mind temporarily), now if i hear a bang upstairs im quite confident its NOT a ghost and will make the assumption that something fell or theres a real flesh and blood entity in my house (human or rat perhaps) but it is rather more adaptive than wasting time wondering if my home is haunted. admittedly i do like good ghost stories, and thats because they are 'good' and at their best are well crafted pieces of art.

882. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48522 by phasmagigas on June 8, 2007 at 9:06 am

if as dianelos suggests that naturalism cannot explain consciousness then why on earth can a tiny amount of LSD have such a devastating effect on ones consciousness, ok an old argument but rather a valid one methinks.

I could have used alcohol instead to make the point but LSD for sure is rather more potent in its ability to seriously jepordise ones ability to realistically compute the environment they find themselves in and indeed radically alter what one thinks of as self. Of course this point can easily be rationalised by a believer, i could make one of those up myself so here goes:

If you take LSD which is illegal (so wrong) then god causes the manifestation of the 'trip' as you expect to have the trip and so you in effect have experienced the consequences of the wrong deed (and so be accountable by law for your actions), if god didnt allow the trip to occur (remember LSD cant touch the immaterial soul) the nothing would happen and you would be in essence guilt free of the supposedly wrong act which never happened. Anyway thats the kind of incredible thing i could say to my believer neighbours and they'd agree that it was reasonable.

883. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #47362 by phasmagigas on June 4, 2007 at 8:37 am

re aircraft safety, the carrying of sikh kirpans was/is allowed by some flight operators. Last year I was on a flight and when i checked the allowable items on the flight the kirpan, as far as i could ascertain WAS allowed on board. So no nailclippers but a small ceremonial dagger is allowed because it is a religious item, a little bit of irony there perhaps. If I have totally got this wrong then i am quite happy to hear from anybody who says that kirpan carrying has never been allowed.

884. Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs

Comment #45088 by phasmagigas on May 26, 2007 at 10:35 am

i wonder if the ark section has a nice assortment of animals standing two by two (hurrah, hurrah, as goes the song).

I wonder if it includes scenes of feeding the various foods needed tonne after tonne, grass, eucalyptus, 1000's of other specific plants as food (dried maybe or also kept alive in a giant multi environment biosphere, oops they didnt have those back then) guano, faeces, meat, seeds, decayed wood, fruits at correct ripeness, pollen, extra animals to feed the carnivorous ones tricky for those parasites running through multiple hosts though.
Water, yes they need lots of that too. Oh and what about waste removal:heat, urine, CO2, faeces (well that answers part of the firt bit). Maybe there was an exercise area for those needing a good sprint like cheetas and some climbing frames for the chimps.

Actually maybe ken ham could go to a zoo and be put in an enclosure with a good selection of animals to show us how it was done, a red cloth and a long stick would be helpful.

885. Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs

Comment #44950 by phasmagigas on May 25, 2007 at 4:16 pm

As they say "more money than sense".

Remember all, there are an infinite (ok, almost) number of ways of explaining phenomena with god at the helm, you can say whatever you want and youll be believed, you can just make it up on the spot and be believed, ive tried it (its very easy to be a pretend christian, you can say whatever rubbish you want, i did it only for a few seconds but its an interesting and revealing experiment) Science ultimately will explain any phenomena (with time) and there will be one correct explanation (pretty much) and it will require a considerable amount of effort to describe it unlike the very easy infinite wrong explanations.

886. Baby's 'miracle' recovery in British hospital to give Malta its first saint

Comment #44587 by phasmagigas on May 25, 2007 at 5:09 am

The "miracle cure" has been declared genuine by the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI will canonise Blessed George in Rome in 11 days' time.


I suppose the vatican have to do something to justify their positions now and again and set of a billion old ladies crying.

887. Creationist Periodic Table of the Elements

Comment #44579 by phasmagigas on May 25, 2007 at 5:02 am

so the bible talks of adam eating the forbidden fruit yes? well im happy that it didnt mention the said apple fell to the ground by the will of god otherwise could you imagine the implications for poor old gravity.

888. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43814 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 6:42 pm

steve99.

Ok, i understand you now but come on, the UK general media is transparent (relatively) enough to not be able to fabricate something like that and get away with it without rebuttal somewhere (maybe there is one).

889. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43801 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 5:25 pm

steve 99.

quote "You still don't get it. This is criticism reported by the Daily Mail as being from within the BBC" unquote.


Unless im simply missing your point, is that not exactly what i said in my post? If i am not getting it plese explain what i'm missing. Now maybe you are saying that as it was the mail reporting a bias admitted from within the BBC itself then maybe its all a fabrication?

890. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43653 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 7:35 am

steve99, youll notice my post containing the daily mail link does not endorse it in anyway and as far as i can tell the criticism was from within the BBC itself. Paxman at least is smart and credible, thats not something that can be sid for the fox reporters ive seen.

891. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43649 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 7:26 am

quote ""of course this should not reflect on the majority of those practitioners of that faith". This is hand wringing political correctness of the WORST kind - OF COURSE it should reflect upon the practitioners of that faith!!!!" unquote

it would only be slightly more silly for the reporter to have said "of course this should not reflect on the majority of homo sapiens"

those comments are put in place to appease those who might otherwise suggest that this was only reported to give islam a bad name (irrespective of 'islams' involvement or not)

892. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43641 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 7:02 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

heres a snippet from what is possibly the in print version of fox news (it has the moral majority mentality but would appear pathetically liberal to some in the USA, besides I cant trust any newspaper that has special astrology sections in it). Anyway its looks at the BBC's apparent bias and most of it seems rooted in religion, multiculturalism and anti Americanism.

893. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43616 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 5:52 am

seems Hitchens and co. find them selves between a rock and a hard place, the right will attack them for being critical of their religion, the left will (perhaps less often) attack them for being critical of all religions.

894. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43610 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 5:36 am

blueollie. I see your point re the wrestling match. The programme in their (viewers) eyes would be improved only by having hannity/colmes wear a blue mask and a shield and hitchens would have a red cloak and a pitch fork. I suppose the problem is when people watch this and think it IS the news.

895. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43590 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 4:44 am

pewkatchoo.

My mistake, i should have said the BBC news rather than the BBC period. Lets just say that the overtly biased and attacking stance from the interviewer (and remember fox interviewers were calling shirley phelps an abomination upon her interview)is way rarer in the UK TV news. Now unless ive simply been agreeing with all the bias interviewers previously but ive never seen anything like hannity and co on BBc news, have you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfTDxnbsxZQ

there paxy with RD funnily enough, maybe he agrees with RD on most stuff? but come on, this is a different kettle of fish that hannity, admittedly its not quite equivalent but there you go.

896. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43584 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 4:27 am

after watching that news shot I just thank my lucky stars i was raised in the UK, at the very least I didnt have to have my intelligence insulted with ever flick of a channel (and we only had 4 until recently!) That mindnumbing, self congratulatory, self interested, prozac smiled delivery sells every product under the sun, luckily im not buying.

897. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43581 by phasmagigas on May 22, 2007 at 4:19 am

ive said it before but i still cannot believe how interviews on US TV operate, the interviewers bias totally dictating the direction of the interview, Im just glad somebody as thick skinned and brash as hitchens was sat in that studuo. This interviewing style is something just not seen on BBC Tv for example. The way politics and religion permeates the news waves like this is incredible. I'm just sorry for any kids sat watching that channel with their parents and getting sucked into its void.

898. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43354 by phasmagigas on May 21, 2007 at 6:56 am

norman doering:

quote:6) Logical error. Harris claims religious moderates are responsible for the actions of religious extremists. But no individual can possibly be held responsible for the actions of another individual over whom he has no authority or influence and has never even met. unquote.

ive not got the book at hand but im not sure that sam meant this literally, he suggests they are more bystanders and let things happen that maybe they shouldnt. Would a person be responsible for a childs death if they saw her crossing the road and didnt bother to run out and grab them before the car hit?? same idea perhaps.

oh and the sex on, i think all sam is suggesting that condom use if a good idea.

899. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43320 by phasmagigas on May 21, 2007 at 5:47 am

Quote: A cute little quatrain. But it does have the defect of putting God in time as though He were just another schmuck like the rest of us. In the classic formulation, "omniscience" and "omnipotence" characterize a being outside of time, unchanging, unchanged. Thus, he has no "future" mind, but only a present mind, in which all Time is present to Him as if in simultaneity. The god presented us by atheists seems awfully anthropomorphic and fundamentalist. The eternalness of the mind and will of God, in the Judeo-Christian view, does not forbid his creation from taking a wild, unpredictable, highly contingent adventure through history. It holds that the Creator's relation to his creation is not at all what Dawkins and Hitchens project. Unquote.

so the author is saying 'no matter what argument you have or what evidence you have for a non created universe, it appears that way because god made it so' ??????? again, that is just way to easy.

900. Christopher Hitchens Is a Treasure

Comment #43311 by phasmagigas on May 21, 2007 at 5:11 am

quote:
But suppose God is not like the Hitchens model. Suppose that God is not a Rationalist, a Logician, a straight-line Geometer-of-the-skies. Suppose that the Creator God deliberately made a world of probabilities and failures, of waste and profusion, of suffering and hardships and frustrations. unquote.

pathetic reasoning.
a beautiful sunset:god
speed of light:god
child starves down a well:god
earthquake:god
lost my wedding ring:god
parasite upon a parasite:god
fell under a truck:god
all my seedlings died:god
no rain for weeks:god
flooding:god.


a 4 year old child would be an expert at these explanations.