51. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107454 by Ty_Webb on January 4, 2008 at 2:39 pm

The worst single terrorist act in the U.S. was carried out by a natural-born, white man.

Er, pre 9/11 maybe. Even if you play the semantic game around "single".

One question I have for those who say that invasion of a sovereign country can never be justified is:

My understanding of the position here is some people are saying that it could be justified for the US to go into Pakistan if it could be shown that terrorists were there and the Pakistani government were not cooperating. If you disagree with this point, where do you stand on the invasion of Afghanistan? I was under the impression that they were harbouring terrorist suspects and refusing to cooperate. I also have seen several people suggest that the Iraq war was illegal. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the Afghanistan one was though. I'm also pretty sure that the US had backing from the international community for removing the Taleban. What's the difference between this and the hypothetical one that quill was raising?

52. The religiosity test: Doubters need not apply

Comment #106195 by Ty_Webb on January 2, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I think Hitchens hit the nail pretty much on the head with Romney's comments. He seems to think that a religious test for office includes the people voting based on the religion of the candidate. This is not a religious test. He could still win. A religious test is saying that in order to even stand, you have to profess your faith in the almighty. It appears that Romney would like a religious test, given his comments about nontheists. He just doesn't want people to vote against him because he is a mormon (can't help thinking I've misspelt that).

53. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104217 by Ty_Webb on December 28, 2007 at 6:04 am

Creflo A. Dollar - could there possibly be a better name for a TV evangelist?

Lying Thieving Bastard I suppose would be a good name for a televangelist.

Would be great to challenge one of them to a lie detector test. I can see it now:

Is your name Lying Thieving Bastard?
Yes
Ding

Do you actually believe what you preach?
Yes
brrrr

Are you just doing this for the money?
No
brrrr

let's try that again, are you just doing this for the money?
Yes
Ding

54. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #103048 by Ty_Webb on December 24, 2007 at 8:52 am

In point of fact, if the christian god is omnipotent as christians seem to believe, then he is most assuredly to blame. Much as he is to blame for everything bad. What I can't understand is how christians manage to thank god for every good thing, but ignore that when it comes to bad things happening.

55. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #103034 by Ty_Webb on December 24, 2007 at 8:15 am

rainbow

How about providing some evidence to support your ideas of intelligent design. And saying abiogenesis seems pretty unlikely so it must have been intelligent design does not cut it.

56. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #102050 by Ty_Webb on December 21, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I'm sure public health would be objectively better without alcohol, automobiles and unhealthy food. All of the previous activities have effects beyond the person engaging in the activity (drunk driver/alcoholic who beats his children, negligent driver who KILLS another, fat person in speedo who blights the landscape).

Well, the world would pretty much fall apart without transport. Unhealthy food only harms the person who eats it and I like alcohol, so that's not up for grabs. If, when someone went into the pub, they spat every second swig of beer over the other people in the bar, I might agree with you on that one though.

- Albert Einstein
- Thomas Alva Edison
- Robert Oppenheimer
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
- Winston Churchill
- George Orwell
- Günter Grass
- Jean-Paul Sartre
- John Ronald Reuel Tolkien
- Albert Camus

And do you notice anything about this list? The thing that immediately jumps out to me is that they are all from a time when people did not know of the harmful effects of smoking. Also, wasn't Einstein's IQ not that high? Or is that a myth that I don't know about?

For the record, I think that the ban on smoking has gone far enough. It's nice to go to the pub without coming home stinking of cigarettes, but I don't think anything further is needed. I would consider someone who smoked in front of their kids as pretty low mind you.

Back on topic, looking forward to seeing this video. I'm only online at work at the moment, so somewhat stuck. Two hours of streaming video probably wouldn't go down too well.

57. This Week's Flea

Comment #102001 by Ty_Webb on December 21, 2007 at 11:19 am

Not to mention that whether atheism leads to nihilism or not bears no relation whatsoever to whether there is or is not a god.

58. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #101950 by Ty_Webb on December 21, 2007 at 8:55 am

However if the chances of a relicator apearing from non-living molecules is less than a billion billion billion to one - you run out of possible life supporting planets.

Well, the numbers:

Number of galaxies ~500,000,000,000 (500 billion = 5x10^11
Number of stars per galaxy ~500,000,000,000
Number of planets per star maybe 1 on average? Who knows?
Number of planets with potential for life per planet 0.1?
Number of places on said planet? Given that all it requires is in effect a puddle, perhaps 1,000,000?
Number of years 2,000,000,000
Number of potential reactions per years? 1,000?

Total possibilities: 5x10^11 x 5x10^11 x 1 x 0.1 x 1x10^6 x 2x10^9 x 1x10^3 = 5x10^40

cf a billion billion billion to 1 = 10^-27

I make those odds pretty favourable. Point is that you can make the odds of a replicating molecule turning up pretty small and still expect a lot of them to do so in the universe. It's a big place and it's had a long time to do it.

59. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101926 by Ty_Webb on December 21, 2007 at 7:28 am

Hehe, the old wunch of bankers thing. Nice. Reminds me of a joke my dad told me. It's a little out of date now, but what the heck.

Why did the Irish call their currency the punt?
So it rhymes with bank manager.

Which coincidentally is what I think of the subject of this topic. A joke. Would be funny if it weren't real.

60. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101357 by Ty_Webb on December 20, 2007 at 9:16 am

and of course, the story of Santa inspires imagination. it's a kind of theology for children - "how does Santa get down so many chimneys in one night?" is probably the juvenile equivalent of the problem of evil.

That one's easy though. He just stops time. He's magic dontchaknow. The problem of evil on the other hand is a very difficult one to get around. Some (including me) would say impossible. That's my proof that the Christian god does not exist.

61. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101245 by Ty_Webb on December 20, 2007 at 6:25 am

I doubt it has anything to do with politics. As others have pointed out the Social Democrats will never form government so politics is not the issue it would be if he was Conservative or Labour.

While it is true that unless most of the country takes a stupid pill, the Lib Dems won't be the majority party any time soon, if parliament is hung, there is a good chance that their seats could make up the balance to give a joint ruling party. Then the Lib Dems would have a say in government. To do this though, they need as many votes as possible, so it is common sense to not alienate a decent chunk of the electorate, however deluded they might be.

As to the religion lasting because of indoctrination, I would think it was extremely difficult to indoctrinate a child without both parents being on side. A catholic upbringing with one atheist parent is imo a good way to produce atheist children. Kids tend to rebel against stuff, so the less pushy parent is likely to win through. The less pushy parent for the most part is more likely to be the atheist, because they are happy for the child to decide for themselves...

62. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100824 by Ty_Webb on December 19, 2007 at 11:58 am

He's a politician. It hardly helps his cause to say I don't believe in God and I think if you do then you're an idiot. Who knows what he actually thinks. As to the kids being raised Catholic, I suspect that's the same thing. He wants to be seen as allowing the religious to have their way because that makes people more likely to vote for him.

Plus, I would have thought that the kids would at some point ask why daddy doesn't go to church with them and then daddy can say because it's all utter hogwash. I guess that catholic upbringing or not, those kids are more likely to turn out atheist than catholic.

63. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100800 by Ty_Webb on December 19, 2007 at 10:50 am

For me, this is a net loss of respect for the LibDems. How can someone who doesn't believe in the Catholic doctrine (in all its insanity) allow his children to be taught it as fact?

At best, it's not true and he said it to sound concilliatory (but dishonest). At worst, it's true and Nick Clegg is deeply conflicted.

I wouldn't worry too much rnewson. To paraphrase the immortal words of one Bartholomew J. Simpson, I have as much respect for the Lib Dems now as I ever have, or ever will.

64. This Week's Flea

Comment #100721 by Ty_Webb on December 19, 2007 at 7:57 am

Sorry, all I meant by my post is that the message from Haught is not (all IMO of course) that atheism = nihilism. Rather it is that the lack of god = nihilism. A small difference I know and no more true for it, but a different point all the same.

I am not, for the record, arguing that anything he said is correct.

65. This Week's Flea

Comment #100714 by Ty_Webb on December 19, 2007 at 7:17 am

Who cares what these long-dead intellectuals thought about the effects of atheism? They didn't have any empirical evidence to support their claims. (If anything, they just accepted christian stereotypes about the consequences of atheism without thinking deeply about the matter at all.) Today we have a number of spontaneously atheizing societies with a high quality of life, and they haven't succumbed to "nihilism." American christians readily go on vacation to the UK, France, Australia and other developed countries with atheistic pluralities because they have good reputations.

In fairness, I don't think he is saying that these people think that the effect of atheism is nihilism. I think the point he is claiming is that if you imagine that atheism is right, then God not existing means that there is no point and nihilism is the result. They would claim therefore that you can have atheists who are not nihilists, but the reason is that they are wrong and there really is a god who ensures that they are not nihilists. Haught is saying that Dawkins et al haven't tried to imagine what the world would be like if there were no god.

I happen to be of the opinion that this is still utter BS. I presume that Dawkins thinks the world would look exactly like it does if there were no god. That's what I think. The lack of a god goes a long way towards explaining why for a painfully large chunk of the world, life is very difficult. And why we have cancer, famine, drought, floods etc. On the other hand, I try on occasion to imagine what the world would be like if there was a god. I generally come to the conclusion that I don't know (incidentally, a phrase that most theists seem not to like), but to say that it would be very different from this one.

66. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96959 by Ty_Webb on December 11, 2007 at 6:53 am

It appears that this Bill Donohue chap could do with some work on his spelling. For example, he appears to have misspelt the word "impede" by instead using the letters p, r, o, m, o, t and e.

67. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #94768 by Ty_Webb on December 6, 2007 at 1:49 pm

I think I may be closer to understanding the thought processes behind this article and it is, I think, a semantic difference. The author defines intolerance as a desire to see people place reason above superstition. I, on the other hand, would define intolerance as having a death penalty for apostasy or homosexuality, and such other things as murdering doctors who perform abortions.

That's much clearer.

68. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94447 by Ty_Webb on December 5, 2007 at 5:02 pm

I actually think that most of those people actually further our cause. The Westboro lot are so shockingly awful that they are a great example of what religion can do.

As to the person who will cause the most people to die, I'd give that to Chimoio. Lies like that make me wish that there was a hell.

69. Pascal's Wager

Comment #94371 by Ty_Webb on December 5, 2007 at 1:47 pm

How about saying:

That's funny. I believe in God too. I believe that you will go to Hell if you don't give me 10,000 pounds. If you do hand over the cash, then you will go to heaven. If I'm wrong, you are out a finite amount of money. If I'm right, you gain an infinite amount of happiness. Clearly the obvious choice is to give me the money. Now fork it over.

70. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #94334 by Ty_Webb on December 5, 2007 at 10:46 am

Indeed, or strike them down as they speak. Surely the omnipotent god that christians blather on about is strong enough to stand up for himself. Or maybe not.

71. Ask The God Delusion author Richard Dawkins

Comment #94307 by Ty_Webb on December 5, 2007 at 8:26 am

I'm loving Richard Underhill's comment:

"man needs God, otherwise he remains without hope" hmmm, I think the pope actually meant was "The Catholic church needs fear, otherwise it remains without power".

The most recommended page does look to me like a beacon of hope.

72. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93758 by Ty_Webb on December 4, 2007 at 6:23 am

I remember when I was at school, we used to get given lists of French words to learn. 75 words at a time. It took me five minutes to do it in the morning over breakfast. Bugged my friends something chronic. I'm sure that I couldn't do that now. I just figured that was most likely alcohol related. Maybe not though.

73. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93509 by Ty_Webb on December 3, 2007 at 10:10 am

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the underlying theme I get from the article is that we should be liberal with regard to illiberal ideas. Is that not like a group like the Ku Klux Klan accusing people of intolerance for not tolerating their beliefs? Surely intolerance of intolerance is a good thing and likewise, to be illiberal when it comes to illiberal thought should be encouraged? The argument seems to be that if you consider yourself liberal then you can't ever argue against any kind of illiberal ideology.

74. 'Teddy' teacher jailed in Sudan

Comment #92248 by Ty_Webb on November 30, 2007 at 6:07 am

As if 15 days in jail weren't enough for the vicious and hateful crime of naming a teddy bear, it appears that thousands of them have been protesting and asking for the death sentence. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7121025.stm

Whenever I think my opinion of these people has hit rock bottom, they manage to prove me wrong. Unbelievable.

75. Getting Overheated

Comment #89557 by Ty_Webb on November 21, 2007 at 5:09 am

keith, I'll give it a try.

We have a choice to make. In general, humans are lazy (or efficient) in so much as they will opt for the simplest solution to a problem. If you live in the suburbs, you won't walk to work because it's too far. You'll drive - or maybe take the train. They are also short-termist. They would rather have pain later than pain now. That's why credit cards are so popular and why Brits are some ridiculous amount in debt. That also means that if there was some way of dealing with global warming that involved no negative impact whatsoever we would already have done it. That we've not done this means that we at least think that there will be a negative result in dealing with carbon emissions. I don't recall the exact figures, but isn't it something like GBP100 billion a year to cut our emissions by sufficient to make a difference? I'm not saying that the overall impact would be negative, not yet anyway, but rather that the short-term part of that overall impact would be negative.

My own take on the whole global warming thing is that there is presently a certain amount of carbon locked up under the earth's surface in the form of oil. When we burn some of this stuff, it turns into carbon dioxide. It took millions of years for this to get into the earth's surface and not very long to get out again. Assuming that the global CO2 levels would be in balance absent us, then all of that oil that we burn ends up in the atmosphere and, according to the models etc, will cause the temperature to increase.

There is however a finite amount of oil in the earth's crust. Once it's gone, it's gone. And, once it's gone, there will be a certain fixed additional amount of CO2 in the air. I figure that this means it doesn't really matter whether we burn our last bit of oil in 50 years or 100 years, the results will be the same. And that means that no matter how much we spend on avoiding global warming, unless we stop using oil completely (which for the record I don't believe is particularly likely until it is forced on us by necessity - namely running out) we are merely delaying its arrival. So we have to deal with its effects at some point anyway.

I fail to see the point of going through the inevitable pain now when we are going to have to go through the pain later anyway. Wouldn't we be better off trying to prepare for it than trying to stop it, since stopping it is verging on futile?

There are other, significantly better in my opinion, arguments for conserving our natural resources.

76. Getting Overheated

Comment #89447 by Ty_Webb on November 20, 2007 at 7:20 pm

BaronOchs

A reduction in carbon emissions will have a negative consequence. If it didn't, everyone would want to cut back on them anyway. The simple fact that this argument has to happen means that there is a negative impact to making such a change.

For the record, there may be a positive impact as well, although I am marginally less convinced that this is the case. Or indeed the best option.

77. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #88099 by Ty_Webb on November 14, 2007 at 4:58 pm

No it demonstrates (if done correctly) the prevalence of prayer. It says nothing about potential. You might as well say that the large number of people who buy some kind of lottery ticket demonstrates the potential of lotteries to solve poverty. If all the people who bought a ticket actually won we wouldn't need to spend any more taxes on welfare.

Michael

I was going to say something similar, but then I had another think about it. I think it says quite a lot about the potential of prayer. Millions of people are praying for world issues and it's not making the blindest bit of difference. To my mind that says all that needs to be said about the potential of prayer.

As an aside, how do I get the quotes to work? Thanks hungarianelephant

78. The US map of faith

Comment #55842 by Ty_Webb on July 12, 2007 at 2:53 pm

I live in Bristol, England and there must be at least 2 dozen churches within a miles walk of my house.

The good news is that most of the churches have nowbeen converted: they are now flats, estate agents, chartered accountants, a climbing school and a couple of sikh temples.

All hail the death of religion in Europe!

Hehe, I saw in Scotland last weekend a church that had been changed into an indian restaurant. Cracking stuff

79. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32583 by Ty_Webb on April 17, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Part of me is beginning to wonder if perhaps religion isn't such a bad thing. From the sounds of this article, if it weren't for religion, all these religious types would be running around murdering each other left and right.

My take on this one has always been if you believe in an afterlife, then killing someone is simply speeding up their transition. If you don't believe in an afterlife, then killing someone is taking from them everything. I think personally speaking that atheist morality is therefore far more strongly grounded than fear of punishment after death that religious folks appear to need to stop themselves from hideous acts.