51. How to abandon your God

Comment #140507 by Shuggy on March 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm

He seems like a nice guy who is genuinely trying to put into words a lot of people's attempts to make sense of the numinous ideas they have, confronted with how big and mysterious the whole shebang is. Being cold-blooded and "there isn't an OT God so there isn't any god at all so stop blathering" about it may make you feel better, but it won't address a lot of people's feeling that he is saying the kind of thing they want to say.

Is there a possible discussion about pantheism/Einstein's god that isn't just dismissive?

52. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #138098 by Shuggy on March 3, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Comment #132917 by notsobad on February 25, 2008 at 12:01 pm

The subtitle is hilarious. It just shows how desperate they got.

No, I think it's clever marketting. Since "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are guaranteed (?) in the US Constitution (Declaration of Independence?), this is a dogwhistle way of saying atheism is unAmerican. Hell, it's practically unAmerican not to buy this book!

53. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #137482 by Shuggy on March 3, 2008 at 1:29 am

I found this a useful thought experiment:

Suppose [a fairy] were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that [fairies] exist[]. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?

Fish has spent his whole career pointing out why it wouldn't: not because of the nature of [fairies], but because of the nature of interpretation. As long as Dawkins remains who he is now, he will remain incapable of seeing [a fairy].

After all, a genuine [afairyist] must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick - in short, as anything but evidence that [afairyism] is false.

Now what, Mr Campos, is the fundamental difference between fairies and angels of the Lord (or indeed of Anyone Else) that makes extreme scepticism about the one seem reasonable and about the other not?

54. A God blog

Comment #137464 by Shuggy on March 3, 2008 at 12:13 am

teratornis:

Currently, science does nothing to increase the underlying scientific aptitude of people. We still depend on the occasional rare genius to fuel the enterprise of science.

When it comes to recruiting and training scientists, we are still very much like diamond hunters, who must trek all over the world and dig up mountains of ore to find a few prized gems. New technology can produce artificial diamonds that are so good, the only way to distinguish them from natural diamonds is to note their lack of flaws. Science needs a way to mass-produce artificial scientists who are as good as a Prof. Dawkins.

Science needs to advance beyond its current hunter-gatherer phase and learn to manufacture intelligence. Science needs to experience its own industrial revolution.

While science does nothing to make humans think more scientifically, it has done wonders in the last few decades to make it possible for humans to think more scientifically.

I'm thinking how very literal-"thinking" computers force us to think about what we really mean, because they will do what we ask, if we know how to ask for it.

Also, high-speed, stop-motion, microscopic and telescopic TV, video, movies and Internet, etc have brought the previously unseeable into view of not just scientists but ordinary people. I admit that to a very large extent, people have blown the opportunities these present (Did any Huxley, Asimov or Vonnegut predict how porn and violent games would dominate computer usage?), but not all, and not always.

55. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #133192 by Shuggy on February 25, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Mango:

it reduces the risk of STDs in men

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

Maybe, but by how much? When the absolute risk is small, a large relative risk reduction may conceal a small absolute risk reduction. And so it is here. When pressed, the author of this study admitted it would take more than 20 circumcisions to prevent the transmission of one minor STD (This study of 500 males didn't find any major STDs, so presumably the Number Needed to Treat them is greater than 500).

And now another study has come out, from a bigger NZ cohort, with a greater proportion (40%) circumcised, that showed NO protective effect (in fact non-significantly more of the circumcised men had STDs).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18280846?dopt=Abstract

56. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131108 by Shuggy on February 22, 2008 at 1:16 am

I'm afraid I don't share the general enthusiasm. I couldn't figure out where the story was going. Since it was called The Lava Lizard's Tale, I thought we were going to learn something interesting about the evolution of the LL, perhaps in relation to the lava. For example, has it evolved its camoflage colouration within the last 108 years? And if RD smiled when he said "and that brings me to the point of the lava lizard's tale" I didn't hear it.

57. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131096 by Shuggy on February 22, 2008 at 12:49 am

Naked celt wrote:

Broadly, there are four strategies a government can adopt when faced with cultural conflict:
1. Crude nationalism - " foreigners can fuck off.
2. Refined nationalism - " foreigners can stop being foreign or fuck off.
3. So-called multiculturalism - " foreigners can be foreign amongst themselves, and we won't bother them.
4. Integrationist multiculturalism - " let's talk to these people, and make sure we all understand one another. They will be doing some things that we find unacceptable, and vice versa; those will have to be negotiated and discussed and argued over, which will take time and effort, but hopefully it's worth it in the end.

Excellent disambiguation. I'd only disagree with your name for No 4 (which is obviously the solution of choice). "Integration" can be a bit of a dirty word when it means assimilation and loss of identity. I'd suggest something like "organic" or "developing" multiculturalism.

58. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #122565 by Shuggy on February 5, 2008 at 1:17 pm

emmet:

How many adults bemoan the presence of their own foreskin? Its absence?

No good studies have been done, but self-selecting polls suggest that more bemoan its absence than its presence, and those who bemoan its presence only do so in societies where it is usually absent.

59. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #121095 by Shuggy on February 3, 2008 at 12:48 am

114. Comment #118855 by bamboospitfire

For those of you interested in the origin of this vile practice, you will be unsurprised to learn that you need look no further than the book of Genesis.

Actually, the covenant of circumcision is not in the Book of J, the source book for Genesis, but the other covenant, with Abraham cutting birds in half (Ch 15) is. It's thought the Israelites may have learnt circumcision from the Egyptians (who in turn got it from further south in Africa) and wrote it into Genesis about 500 BCE.

60. Belief in Belief

Comment #118446 by Shuggy on January 30, 2008 at 5:05 pm

17. Comment #117445 by Upgrade01A

Free will is an illusion. The other side cannot help what they believe any more than us non-believers cannot help our lack of belief.

Christopher Hitchens had to write what he wrote because of the state of his mind just prior to the writing which can be traced back to the books he has read, and many other environmental conditions, including his upbringing, genetic makeup, sibling and friends.

If one tries explaining how free will can possibly exist, they find themselves getting tied up into strange loops and layer of patterns looking for "wiggle room" that does not exist. Perhaps Mr. Hitchen's comments will collide with a believer in such a way as to cause them to change their mind.

We do what we want, but not what we will.

Did you have to write that?

61. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #118198 by Shuggy on January 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Tyler Durden:

"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond.

Huh? What an idiot.

If a 12-year old boy does not want part of his penis chopped* off you abide by his wishes Mr Tobias - this has nothing to do with maturity or "trust" but respect.

I think Mr Tobias is thinking of the reverse case. If a 12-year-old says he wants part of his penis cut off, how do you know he has not been coerced by his custodial parent? (Doesn't sound like rocket science to me.)

*In strict accuracy, sliced. "Chopped" would only apply if he were African. This leads to another point.

Michell Gilks:

Circumcision is done for one reason for males, and two reasons for girls. Because sex is considered so evil and wrong, they attempt to limit the pleasure as much as possible. This is what circumcision is for solly in boys,

That may well be one of the original reasons, but they have diversified amazingly. A list at
http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions.html
gives some 30 classes of reasons, which are elaborated into about 340 (!) reasons at
http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions&refs.html .
Clearly, something else is going on, and as someone here said, we should be very, very skeptical of new reasons, even when backed up by "scientific evidence". The rest of that site goes into that aspect in detail, eg the current Big Reason, HIV, at
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

and one reason for girls. The second reason for girls is so you can tell whether they are a virgin or not.

That's a new one to me. The list of "reasons" for female genital cutting is smaller but similar. For example, look at a site like
http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=45528

The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision.

Circumcision reduces excessive sensitivity of the clitoris which may cause it to increase in size to 3 centimeters when aroused, which is very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse.

Another benefit of circumcision is that it prevents stimulation of the clitoris which makes it grow large in such a manner that it causes pain.

Circumcision prevents spasms of the clitoris which are a kind of inflammation.

Circumcision reduces excessive sexual desire.

...

It takes away excessive libido from women

It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.

It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections

It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

It should go without saying that all these reasons are bogus, just like all 340 reasons for cutting boys (which is why I get tired of "How dare you compare the two!")

62. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #117917 by Shuggy on January 30, 2008 at 1:29 am

Mango:

it reduces the risk of STDs in men

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

Maybe, but by how much? When the absolute risk is small, a large relative risk reduction may conceal a small absolute risk reduction. And so it is here. When pressed, the author of this study admitted it would take more than 20 circumcisions to prevent the transmission of one minor STD (This study of 500 males didn't find any major STDs, so presumably the Number Needed to Treat them is greater than 500).

and the passing on of STDs to women

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060213102949.htm

Your link is to a misreporting of that study. (A lie will be half way around the world before the truth has its pants on.)

299 couples where the man was intact were compared with 44 where the man was circumcised. After 30 months (if the pattern of the rest of the study was followed), infection rates were 7 per 100 person-years for the wives of circumcised men and 10 for the wives of intact men. This may look like a protective effect, but in statistical terms, p=0.22, meaning no statistical significance. In real terms, it can be back-calculated that 8 of the wives of circumcised men were infected. If 11 had been, the rate would be the same for both, and that difference of three infections in 30 months is too few to be considered significant.

But the study was widely reported (by Reuters) as showing that all 299 wives of intact men were infected, compared with only 44 wives of circumcised men, as if these were just the small (infected) samples of two much larger and equal samples. This makes the supposed protective effect look much greater and more accurate.

See the garbled report and the relevant part of a more accurate report, here:
http://www.circumstitions.com/News20.html#hiv-female

This is quite typical of the way circumcision is reported.

63. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #117453 by Shuggy on January 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm

RomanticRationalist:

I can say with some confidence that one factor in the loathing felt for (especially) gay men is simply that, to a male fundie, the idea of another man looking at them and thinking of them in the generally degrading way they look at and think about women, makes their skin crawl. To me this indicates that the real problem is with the fundie's attitude towards women not some other guys sexual orientation.

That, and the (mistaken) idea that gay men are somehow "like women" (and thereby betraying the patriarchy, though they don't put it like that). They look down on women, therefore they look down on gay men. Notice also that they manage to hold "weak and effeminate" and "predatory male-rapist" in their heads about the same gay men at the same time. Thinking things through is not their strong suit.

64. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #116207 by Shuggy on January 25, 2008 at 8:47 pm

This fag is very grateful to Heath Ledger (and Jake Gillenhall and Ang Lee and E Annie Proulx and Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana and all the other fag-enablers) because Brokeback Mountain was the catalyst that enabled my husband and I to stop shagging about (as it were) and move in together.

I don't know that Heath was a bad actor (I knew him only from The Knight's Tale, which was a pretty bad film) but he was good enough in BBM.

I would really like the Phelps spawn to follow Heath's body to Australia. I'm sure the fag and fag-enabling QANTAS flight attendants would give them a memorable 12-hr journey.

Afterthought: I can't imagine what's going to head the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras this year. But I can imagine what it will be about.

65. Interview with Neil Shubin, author of 'Your Inner Fish'

Comment #113778 by Shuggy on January 20, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Boy, if I could ever keep my head and stay on track and go for the nub of an argument as well as Shubin, I'd have avoided a lot of trouble and embarassment in the past. What's he like with a real interviewer?

66. Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

Comment #113510 by Shuggy on January 19, 2008 at 8:43 pm

44. Comment #111490 by Shuggy on January 14

I have created images to illustrate three of the worst examples of Stupid Design (the oesophagus crossing through the trachaea; the downward-pointing uterus; and the backward-pointing light-receptors and blind spot) compared with more Intelligent alternatives, here: http://www.cafepress.com/wero/2005296

I think I'll add the looping vasa deferentia and the male urethra passing through the prostate, but somehow I don't think many people will buy the T-shirt.

I have now done so, at http://www.cafepress.com/wero/4609887

67. The New Theology

Comment #113206 by Shuggy on January 18, 2008 at 11:10 pm

15. Comment #113173 by Ducklike

Okay, everybody run up to your attics and dig out those "Sgt. Pepper" albums, we've got some work to do!

Just what I was thinking. Loudspeaker vans outside churches? "Fixing a hole" certainly, and "I read the news today, oh boy" [I forget the title] and "Within You Without You" and maybe "Being for the benefit of Mr Kite" but "Lovely Rita"? "She's leaving home"?

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

Comment #111521 by Shuggy on January 14, 2008 at 10:53 pm

69. Comment #97471 by Quetzalcoatl

And ease up on demonizing Catholicism-no other religion has done more to promote human rights, science and goodwill

Did everyone else's irony alarms overload when they read that, or was it just me?

I'm still unwinding mine's needle from its pin.

• Science? A news item (that should go up here) came through today about students at the U of Rome objecting to Ratzo's half-heartedness about forgiving Galileo.
• Human rights? There's some fear he's going to declare the male-only priesthood ex cathedra (ie, with papal "infallibility")
  

Note Bill Donohue's presumption that their boycott caused the supposed failure of TGC at the box office.

FLY RUNNING ON FLYWHEEL: See how I make the wheel go round!

It couldn't have been because it was up against I am Legend and the Chipmunk movie, now, could it? If it comes right, they'll pretend they had nothing to do with that.

I think it's the kind of movie that'll do better in the UK and Europe than the US. For one thing, it asks you to think more than Narnia or LOTR did.

I agree, more of the exposition could have been shown, rather than told, but after 300 and Beowulf, I found the visuals refershingly realistic.

As for calling the movie "atheistic"? Did it ever mention any gods or goddesses? Did Narnia? Did LOTR?

69. Fish out of water: Your Inner Fish

Comment #111490 by Shuggy on January 14, 2008 at 7:33 pm

I have created images to illustrate three of the worst examples of Stupid Design (the oesophagus crossing through the trachaea; the downward-pointing uterus; and the backward-pointing light-receptors and blind spot) compared with more Intelligent alternatives, here: http://www.cafepress.com/wero/2005296

I think I'll add the looping vasa deferentia and the male urethra passing through the prostate, but somehow I don't think many people will buy the T-shirt.

70. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111485 by Shuggy on January 14, 2008 at 6:51 pm

253. Comment #111292 by kierkegaard88

Whether or not one purchases Vatican propaganda, only the ideologically driven could contest [consign?] Theresa's service to the "trash" of history.

...and those who've read Hitchens' biography, and the accounts of the people with AIDS she's told need to "offer up" their suffering, rather than relieving it.

One, indeed, may thank God for Norman Borlaug;

That is, if one believes in such an entity. But why not thank Norman Borlaug for Norman Borlaug?

without setting up false dichotomies as religious (and now, apparently, non-religious) fundamentalists

You really are sticking your head in the lion's mouth, aren't you? How does judging Mother Teresa by her works and not her teatowel make one into that self-contradiction, a "non-religious fundamentalist"?

...are apt to do; and without imputing to evolutionary psychology – or science as such – the status of fundamental theology.

This sentence has almost disappeared up its own fundament, but such imputation is a figment of your imagination. I think Pinker was using Borlaug, Gates and MT as examples of how easily people are deceived by appearances, and you vindicate that.

71. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111481 by Shuggy on January 14, 2008 at 6:37 pm

256. Comment #111296 by ghull

Pinker provides a very nice presentation of the issues indeed, but there is a glaring defect in his account. He represents the evolution of moral traits as the culmination of an "arms race" between the ability to effectively APPEAR moral and the ability to distinguish true morality from mere appearances: "The most effective way to SEEM generous and fair, under harsh scrutiny, is to be generous and fair."

But it is extraordinarily implausible that mechanisms that confer the ability to deceive will somehow ("in the long run") evolve themselves out of existence. That is, you don't expect something that is good at doing A, under selection pressure favoring the ability to do A, to culminate in something that doesn't do A.

Furthermore, it is presumably a MATTER OF FACT that being generous and fair is the optimal way to appear generous and fair. What's to prevent the evolution of hyper-deceit, an ability to appear more generous than those who are actually generous? ... So there is no guarantee, on Pinker's account, that we will end up with actual generosity and fairness.

Surely we need a model that accounts for the evolution of moral capabilities AS MORAL, and not as e.g. the best way to get past hypocrisy detection.

But hypocrisy detection is also part of the arms race. It also evolves, as fast as hypocrisy, because failing to detect hypocrisy means you are deceived and, for example, mate with some lazy SOB who passes themself off as a good provider, instead of someone who is going to contribute to the rearing of your offspring.

But really being generous is the only way to appear generous that always passes any hypocrisy test that's thrown at it.

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

Comment #110833 by Shuggy on January 12, 2008 at 9:35 pm

How religious is Hillary, really? I know she makes religious noises, but she also says abortion should be legal and safe (and rare - she should also have added "early"). Is her religiosity she just what a candidate has to say?

73. Blind Faiths

Comment #110661 by Shuggy on January 11, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Suaveterre:

you are stating that you disagree with their 'culture'. Which according to multiculturalism is no better or worse than ours.

This "multiculturalism" of yours looks like a straw person to me. Where is this definition stated? Where is it believed?

Obviously, if different cultures are different at all, they can be judged, and some described as better or worse than others. One question is, can those judgements be anything but subjective? (My tentantive answer is, some can, some can't.) Another is, can we stand those differences? Can different cultures rub along together? (I'd say some differences can be tolerated, some can't.)

74. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #110525 by Shuggy on January 11, 2008 at 12:33 pm

krisking:

I have met some Christians who are the most amazing individuals.

So have I. They fall into roughly two classes:
1. Those whose christianity is as amazing as they are, and almost indistinguishable from secular humanism.
2. Those whose amazingness has been hobbled by their christianity, and are amazing in spite of it, not because of it.

75. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #110329 by Shuggy on January 11, 2008 at 2:07 am

I have found a flea in gnat's clothing. It's called "The Divinity Code" by Ian Wishart (Howling at the Moon Press - his own company, I think, so self-published). The cover ( http://briefingroom.typepad.com/divcodecoverwb.jpg ) is a ripoff of The Da Vinci Code, but the contents, at a quick glannce, look like a pretty incoherent Dawkins flea.

Here's a pretty damning review: http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikatotimes/4339078a14336.html

And Wishart's rebuttal: http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/books/index.html

76. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109853 by Shuggy on January 9, 2008 at 11:44 pm

My question is, who do atheists shake their fists against?

Idiots.

I bought TGD a year ago in the Bantam edition. Looks (and flops) like a paperback to me....

77. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #109849 by Shuggy on January 9, 2008 at 11:30 pm

I saw the film on Tuesday. I didn't know that the religious aspect of the Magisterium had been taken out after the trailers were made (you can still see them there).

In other words, the film has been INTERCISED. ("It's only a little cut.")

What's funny is that the Roman Catholic Church is still clearly recognisable when all trace of religion has been removed. Could you say that about the Quakers? You certainly could about the Mormons.

Otherwise, I liked it. Wonderful CGI with some little jokes (alternate London still has the Gherkin), marvellous character acting (the Gyptians and the Magisterium), Nicole Kidman the more evil because she's so beautiful, and excellent child actors with no cuteness.

I'm buying the books tomorrow.

78. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108042 by Shuggy on January 5, 2008 at 10:11 pm

4. Comment #107341 by Copernic on January 4, 2008

Wolpe did a fine job of countering Sam's (B. Russell's) teapot analogy in that the orbiting teapot can be verified yet God cannot so the analogy fails.

But the teapot could not be verified when Russell posited it. Maybe we should move it to a distant star.

79. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107977 by Shuggy on January 5, 2008 at 6:09 pm

215. Comment #107948 by atheisticism on January 5, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Is it bigotry to suggest sexual orientation has a psychological base? Sexual attraction of any kind has a psychological element.

No, as long as you consider "sexual orientation" and don't implicitly pathologise one orientation, by treating it as a deviation from the other. But I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a psychological base". Since sexual orientation occurs in the brain/mind/personality/self, it has a psychological component by definition. I don't know if this takes us any further in finding out why some people swing one way, some the other, some both.

The great

Well, rich

musician Sir Elton John was hetero when his career began, then changed to bisexual, then finally homosexual. This confuses me. Anyone have some insight to offer?

Without talking to him, it's hard to know what happened for him, but I take it you mean his behaviour changed. That doesn't mean his orientation changed. He might have been acting contrary to his natural inclinations then (that's very common), or he might be now (very rare). Many men marry for the sake of conformity, and more or less gradually find they prefer men. The woods are full of them.

80. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106890 by Shuggy on January 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm

128. Comment #106862 by Steve Zara on January 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It is quite common in higher animal species, and very common in primates.

I wish people wouldn't say "higher" (especially not here). We've all been evolving equally long, we're all equally evolved, equally "high".

So what should people say? The underlying concept is "more closely related to us". But would it be accurate to say "more complex"? Evolution does not necessarily move in the direction of greater complexity, but does that matter?

81. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106883 by Shuggy on January 3, 2008 at 4:25 pm

123. Comment #106856 by eXcommunicate on January 3, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Shuggy - Unfortunately your design could be misconstrued to read "a theist" rather than "atheist."

I guess it could, but there's no limit to people's capacity for misconstruction. If I changed it to Big A - small atheist, people could say "What's an A-atheist? Is it someone lacking in atheism - i.e. a theist?" Ya can't win! You'd have to ignore the A VERY hard to read it as "theist".

Or do you think I should plagiarise our plagiarist and put ATHEIST across the bottom separate from the A ?

82. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106877 by Shuggy on January 3, 2008 at 4:16 pm

I just sent him this comment:

"I surely did not expect it to show up at RichardDawkins.net." Why ever not? You plagiarise an idea from someone, they react.

"Not to mention that some of the emails I received simpl[y] use Richard Dawkins without the use of Mr., Dr., or Professor." (But you just did mention it.) Not to use an honorific is a Quaker tradition, because all people are equal. It's also a BBC usage. To use one, but a lower one than a person is entitled to, is a deliberate insult, one that you persist in and use sophistry to wriggle out of. He may indeed not be offended, but that makes your insult no less.

"OUT simply stands for "Observable Underlying Testimony"" Since Observable and Underlying are near-opposites, that's hardly simple. Seems to me you were straining for an initial.

What's the matter, weren't the fish and the cross and the crucifix and the lamb enough? It isn't as if any christians in the western world have to hide anywhere, and in the US, sometimes some of them ought to hide more.

I don't expect he'll publish it.

83. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106823 by Shuggy on January 3, 2008 at 2:15 pm

For those who thought the scarlet "A" wasn't enough, I created a more explicit version, and it's at http://www.cafepress.com/wero/4407434

Should I make a more explicit version of this one...?

84. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106813 by Shuggy on January 3, 2008 at 2:01 pm

40. Comment #106423 by Will in Aus on January 2, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I have a big problem with plagiarism. After having "don't plagiarise" drummed into me whilst studying science at Uni, it makes me cringe every time I see such a blatant example of it.

I have a big problem with "intellectual property". After hearing James Dyson gloat about having kept the patent of the cyclonic vacuum cleaner (which he just adapted from the cyclonic sawdust separator) from Hoover, I began to wonder what would have happened if Paul Citröen had patented front-wheel drive, or Ug the caveman, fire. Aren't we lucky nobody owns the rights to the Internet or the w w w! The free transmission of memes is how human culture advances. Rewarding people who contribute new memes is essential, but secondary.

Josh, is there not some sort of copyright held on the OUT campaign concept.....surely this would be an infringement?

If there were a copyright on the OUT campaign concept, it would be held by the gay community, but we're generous like that.

OBChristianOUT: "CHRISTIAN OBSERVABLE UNDERLYING TESTIMONY" doesn't even make any sense. How can it be observable testimony if it's "underlying"?

85. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103806 by Shuggy on December 26, 2007 at 11:15 pm

#103802 by righton

I keep coming across the interview where someone asks RD to give an example of a mutation that increases the information in the genome. RD pauses, then there is a wierd edit and he starts talking about something else.

Could anyone tell me what happened? I am a molecular biologist and I know RD could have given many examples of mutations increasing information in the genome.(gene duplications, transposons/retrotransposons, mutations causing new acceptor splice sites, etc.)

So what happened?

Here is a current thread on this topic:

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14255&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=tv+mutation+question+creation%2A+interview

86. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103803 by Shuggy on December 26, 2007 at 11:04 pm

202. Comment #103798 by Downunder on December 26, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Re 183#3103730 Steve Zara. ... every now & again you show to have suffered greatly from being gay.

No, he has suffered from homophobic reaction to people's being gay.

I, as a now fallen Catholic, apologise for the holier-than-thou attitude of the Pope and Cardinals

That's a nice thought, but if you've bailed, or even if you hadn't, you can hardly speak for them, any more than I can.

and can only offer the feeble excuse that they are "in the boat, have to row in tune or must jump overboard to swim for their life".

It would be stunning if one Easter Morning, His Holiness, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI, né Joe Ratzinger, came to the balcony of St Peters, and to the assembled tens of thousands and hundreds of TV cameras, in 35 languages including Esperanto, said

My dear brethren and sistren, having read The God Delusion, I have come to the conclusion that there is no God, and the rock on which our church was said to be founded is made of sand,... etc. etc. I apologise to our dear gay brethren and lesbian sistren and call on governments around the world to repeal all statutes that deny them full equality,... etc. etc. We have been mistaken in denying women their reproductive rights, etc. etc. ... and we humbly apologise to the families of the 82 women in Nicaragua who died from ectopic pregnancies as a result of our foolish policy ... we call on the Government of the United States to ... promote safe sex and provide free condoms in Africa ... in nomine pa^h^h oh, no, we don't believe that any more. Amen

but it's not going to happen soon. (What would happen if it did? Would he be shot "by a madman in the square" [with a magic bullet that entered the back of his head]?

One of the major events that made me leave the church, after say 75 years of indoctrination, was when our Melbourne Bishop (now Cardinal in Sydney) on live TV, refused communion to all who wore rainbow sashes during a Sunday morning mass in St Pats Cathedral. The Bishop throwing stones while sitting in a glass house! He must think that he is God to condemn people in public. I accept that gay people have to live their lives, like all of us, within moral bounds.

which in the nature of things, they have to set for themselves. If that's Pell, isn't he far more culpable for covering up for a paedophile priest?

do you feel that gay is normal or do you feel that it is a natural affliction, say like having to wear glasses or some such?

How about a blessing and a gift?

do you accept that afflictions impose some limitations, I can think of let's say legal marriage, which seems essentially in conflict with its natural intent?

Nature does not have intentions.

Rest assured, the churches must feel the pressure of so many leaving, the hierarchy will wake up to the fact that "round-earth" concepts work fine and that gay people are not devils.

And we're not sick, either. How about a natural variation, like left-handedness or red hair? (Redheads are particularly susceptible to sunburn, but we still don't consider it an "affliction".)

87. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103486 by Shuggy on December 25, 2007 at 7:55 pm

windweaver, quoting Malcolm McLean:

nothing can happen but the supermarket is in stock and you have sufficient funds in your wallet to buy sausages. In all cases God has answered the prayer in the positive.

In what sense did God do anything, in that case? Would God have answered it in the positive if you found you didn't have enough money, but you could afford sardines? Cheese? At what point does God's involvement become so negligible that we may say he wasn't involved?

What is striking about the "What has God got against amputees?" argument is that healing amputees would require serious decrease of entropy and hence use of energy, unlike healing from cancer. Is McLean saying that God never uses, or can't use, significant amounts of energy (the way he used to)?

88. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103482 by Shuggy on December 25, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Paula Kirby:

I'd like an "Atheist" pullover too. Or sweatshirt. Just not a t-shirt. Do you have any idea how often it's warm enough to wear a short-sleeved t-shirt in the north of Scotland?!?!

See http://www.cafepress.com/wero/1440313

89. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103481 by Shuggy on December 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm

quill

These things just keep setting new records for cover ugliness.

Not just ugliness, the strong diagonal element of the latest contender makes its title look twisted. (But it wouldn't if our eyes had been Intelligently Designed....)

90. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103479 by Shuggy on December 25, 2007 at 7:23 pm

A refutation or confutation of TGD would imply an ironclad proof of the existence of God/dess/es, wouldn't it?

91. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #103187 by Shuggy on December 24, 2007 at 12:34 pm

"I feel like this is an attack on my beliefs as a religious person," said Houser.

This sentence doesn't parse. Houser's beliefs are not a religious person. Nobody is attacking Houser, only her beliefs. Houser and her beliefs are separable. That, of course, is what bothers Hauser.

"Imagine no religion is an attack against me,...

What, we're not even allowed to imagine no religion? That really is the creation of a thoughtcrime.

"... as any person of faith should take it as an attack against them,"

No, only a person of shaky faith, or what does "faith" mean?

92. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102943 by Shuggy on December 24, 2007 at 2:40 am

I don't much care now what Blair thinks, but it puzzles me how any Anglican can convert to Roman Catholicism. Do they sort of say "That was only a pale imitation; this is the Real Thing (TM). When the Anglicans taught me that Mary died in the ordinary way and that the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome and the wine and wafer only change symbolically, that was lies, but now I know The Truth (TM). And when the Anglicans taught me that they were going to Heaven and the Left Footers to Hell, that was a mistake, and now I know the reverse is the case." Extraordinary! The only thing that could strike me as more extraordinary is going the other way.

93. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102919 by Shuggy on December 23, 2007 at 11:39 pm

OT?

This morning on New Zealand's National Radio, all the political leaders gave Christmas messages. Not one mentioned God, Jesus, religion or spirituality. All were about families, being together and road safety. Some mentioned water safety (we have a lot of road accidents and drownings over the holiday break). The National (conservative) leader spoke only to the rich, as if everyone was going to drink champagne. The Green leader asked us not to waste wrapping paper. I think without exception they reminded us to enjoy the beauty of the country and rejoice in how lucky we are to live here. (Don't expect too much...)

94. This Week's Flea

Comment #102454 by Shuggy on December 22, 2007 at 9:51 pm

From the interview
"But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning."

Bingo...

Is there some rule, somewhere, that says that when an event reaches sufficient importance, it may not be subjected to a method which is devoid of religious meaning? Where, I wonder, does the Big Bang fall on that scale? After all, if the Universe never came into existence, all bets would be off, wouldn't they?

Hmm, what sort of method would be replete with religious meaning?

What is religious meaning?

95. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #102449 by Shuggy on December 22, 2007 at 8:30 pm

He continued, "Christians have always been used to being punch bags

Well, lion tucker, maybe, but didn't that stop about 313 CE? And since then, the rest of us have been, well, kindling, not to mention faggots.


As for objecting to nativity scenes, I only object to the ones paid for through my taxes.

96. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #98898 by Shuggy on December 14, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Who's Mary Magdalene/John/the yellow-haired woman on Tina Beattie's book's cover?

97. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94119 by Shuggy on December 4, 2007 at 9:05 pm

imagine a sort of intelligent Ann Coulter speaking with a British accent in a voice like Minnie Mouse

• Universe banged out of nothing in a nanonanonanonanonanonanosecond? Check.
  
• Shrödinger's cat is both dead and alive? OK.
  
• Particles match their spins across the universe? Sure.
  
• Photons are waves or particles depending on the experiment? Uh huh.
  
• An intelligent Anne Coulter? Richard, what have you been smoking?

98. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93631 by Shuggy on December 3, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Northern Bright:

"The fools says in his heart, there is no God." This verse from Proverbs always leaves me feeling torn - if atheism has been around for so long, it's rather depressing that it hasn't yet made more headway ... yet on the other hand, I'm encouraged that, even in an age where religious supersition was, it could be argued, excusable given the lack of scientific understanding, even then there were humans who were logical enough, rational enough and brave enough - and can you imagine just how brave they would have had to be? - to say "No: there is no God!" I find that pretty inspirational.

When you consider how much in the world was mysterious and frightening before it was understood - earthquakes, thunderstorms, tsunamis, ordinary storms, auroras, plagues, individual sickness (especially in children), birth defects, it amazes me that anyone was brave enough to say there is no God, for the psalmist to refer to.

What really gets up my nose is people who quote that line today. Now, it's just abuse.

99. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93627 by Shuggy on December 3, 2007 at 6:51 pm

God bless ye merry gentlemen, should he in fact exist,
But he does not so lets just eat and drink 'till we get pissed,

A thousand years from now I ween we'll none of us be missed,

Oh oh tidings of bleakness and doubt, bleakness and doubt, oh oh tiiidings of bleakness and doubt!

But I think the last line can be improved on....

100. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93626 by Shuggy on December 3, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Mrs Coulter, eh? That really is life imitating art.