1001. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10676 by Yorker on November 28, 2006 at 9:45 pm

Despite efforts by asdf, myself, and others to discourage conversation with the sicko, there is still a majority who can't see what's going on and who have no self-control. You're like a bunch of children arguing over who's got the biggest lollipop, yes, lollipop -- you're not grown up enough to be comparing the size of anything else...

We're supposed to comment here, not engage in useless circular debate, the site HAS a forum, this is NOT it.

Worst of all, such conduct makes us look like a very bad advertisement for the non-believing position; a silly embarassing joke seen by all the world.

1002. Atheists Agonistes

Comment #10344 by Yorker on November 27, 2006 at 10:36 pm

WILLING

What does it take to make the sane people here realise that this Matthews tonk is mentally ill?

Just ignore the crazy bastard! Can't you see that he likes people to insult him? He has shown his sick attitude time after time! He probably uses you guys as some kind of Jesus-fixated masturbatory fantasy. Ignore him, if he continues spewing garbage nobody pays attention to, he'll simply get his sorry arse banned.

1003. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10275 by Yorker on November 27, 2006 at 4:21 pm

WILLING

I think we need to unite on this issue and call for the sacking of all educators who attempt to subvert the official guidelines. If Mr.Dawkins would care to use his public influence and front such an issue, I for one, would support it.

This nonsense is getting out of hand, we need to combat every single instance of public foolishness no matter how small, at the very least, it will raise public consciousness.

1004. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #10269 by Yorker on November 27, 2006 at 4:12 pm

MY PERSONAL RULE

I will only engage in debate with those who state their willingness to have their minds changed by force of reason. I will answer all direct questions and expect the same of others. I suggest that all comments be preceded by the word "WILLING". That way, we can see who is really interested in discourse that moves forward rather than going around in circles and bloating this site with gigabytes of unnecessary text. Comments directed at me that do not show "WILLING", will be ignored.

I offer this as a suggestion that might be adopted by all, and invite all to comment on this proposal.

1005. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9852 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 8:18 am

42. Comment #9838 by David Mathews

David,

This will be my last response to you, it sounds like you are a badly deluded young man, I say young, because your pathetic arguments are unworthy of adult consideration. Are you even aware that scientists insisted that a harmless demonstration of nuclear weaponry would be the best option? The war-mongering religious politicians didn't even want to consider that.

I just wanted to say that you're a perfect example; you nicely make my earlier point that debating your kind is a waste of time. However, you're also a good example of a theist who comes here attacking a largely atheist group with a non-existent argument, you therefore deserve the ridicule and scorn I pour upon you now. If Homo Sapiens selects itself for extinction, it won't be a bunch of crazed scientists who press the button, it will most likely be a god-befuddled politician's MISUSE of science that does the deed.

Lastly, don't attempt to place your low opinion of humanity upon people here, it clearly applies to you; that's all. Further rantings by you, will be ignored by me.

1006. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9840 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 7:40 am

43. Comment #9839 by Brett

>>Either at this point the person says they have evidence (which we can evaluate) or he says on the basis on faith (which means there is no rational way of debating the issue).<<

Exactly as I said in my first post on this thread.

1007. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9837 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 7:33 am

40. Comment #9835 by David Mathews

David, your inability or unwilligness to see sense and understand simple truth, typifies your species. You're like a faulty machine that's B.E.R., you exclude yourself from sane conversation.

N.B. B.E.R. = Beyond Economical Repair

1008. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9833 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 7:21 am

35. Comment #9827 by David Mathews

Sorry David, you can't be allowed to get away with stuff like this.

>>Science has a long and dismal history of service to human violence.<<

Bollocks! Science gave you everything you have, including the capacity to make this glaring error. Science simply makes things possible, human misuse of it does not confer blame upon it!

>>Science has also provided humankind with the tools to destroy...<<

See my last answer. You are badly confused. I could provide a list as long my arm of the benefits science has given humanity, a similar list regarding religion wouldn't even be the length of a fingernail.

If you cannot see the truth here, I pity you.

1009. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9782 by Yorker on November 26, 2006 at 1:10 am

Comment #9770 by BracesForImpact

Yes, I agree that some people will be convinced.

My point is that long-winded debate is not required, it's simple, that's what I tried to illustrate with that little scenario above. Some time ago, Dawkins and Gould made a pact that neither would debate creationists because doing so would make it look as though creationists had a case worthy of debate. I think that debating people who insist upon an existential god for which there is zero evidence, is a similar 'non-case' like creationism, so why help theists by debating them and making it look as if their claim has merit?

People who make unsubstantiated claims they insist are true, cannot possibly win a logical argument. Debate requires that involved parties MUST be prepared to change their mind in the light of logical argument. When did you last hear a theist even say: "Hmm...perhaps you're right, I will have to re-evaluate my beliefs"?

If our aim is to convert people (and it should be) then I suggest putting together an atheist FAQ which could include the reason for not debating theists. I know from personal experience that hard-line atheistic ranting reduces the chance of converting people, no matter how truthful and logical the argument may be, people don't like it rammed down their throat, some will shy away even if they recognize the truth. Certainly, if theists take a hard line and attack us, then we should pour scorn and ridicule upon them and hand out a verbal thrashing.

Overall, I feel our time might be better spent publicising our case, setting goals and taking positive action to achieve them.

1010. Why Are Atheists So Angry? A Debate with Dennis Prager

Comment #9764 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 10:36 pm

Atheist Simpleton vs Francis Bollins (or any great scientist)

Simpleton: Mr Bollins, I know that you are a famous scientist; I also know that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. I don't believe in your god because there is no evidence for his existence. If evidence was available I would change my mind and accept your god with joyful excitement because I'd then be able to tell him how bad a job he's doing and how much of an evil bastard he is. I'm a simpleton but I'm confident of winning this debate because science is an entirely evidence-based discipline, without evidence, your great scientific credentials are useless in this discourse. As a person claiming the existence of God and as an honest scientist, I know you will accept that the onus of proof lies with you. I wonder therefore, how are you going to convince me to accept your claim?

Bollins: 'Er…I can't.

End of Debate.

Result: Atheist Simpleton wins.

We all know that a dishonest Bollins would give in so easily, but no matter how much elegant bullshit he may spin, the simpleton need only say:

Mr Bollins, you have spoken very eloquently for some time, but frankly, you bore me because you said nothing to prove your claim. If you're willing to renounce your god-belief and admit you don't know, then I will concede a draw, otherwise you must logically grant me victory.

……………………………………

After reading debates like Harris vs Prager several times, it becomes boring. Why do atheists feel the need to endlessly debate theists who must always lose because they never will admit the possibility of being wrong? Once one has heard all the arguments, repetition causes a loss of interest. In my view, debating a theist about the existence of a god, is a waste of time.

1011. Creation vs. Darwin takes Muslim twist in Turkey

Comment #9667 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 1:04 pm

Comment #9663 by Martha

Good child-rearing advice Martha. The problem is that it may be difficult keeping children alive long enough for them to attain the age of reason. Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

1012. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9622 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 9:28 am

Comment #8689 by Larry Miller

Yes, I don't think Dawkins would have said it directly as a personal comment.

>>...it appears that the UK might break up next year, largely due to the activities of the Calvinists (surely one of the gloomier Christian sects) in Scotland?<<

Nothing to worry about here, I'm Scottish and sure we won't be leaving the UK anytime soon. Remember that Scotland is the land where religion first got its butt kicked by Hume. In addition, there are far too many financial ties to England that would prevent full Scottish independance.

1013. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9612 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 9:06 am

Comment #9498 by Jason B

>>Gordon Clark destroyed science.<<

Holy shit! I just read that Gordon Clark rubbish, it seems designed to subvert the mind of religious dupes with limited reasoning ability. The author doesn't know the difference between theory and idea, and tries to say that science is nothing to worry about - just be faithful.

Jason, using this statement by Russell is not convincing. He was a great man but like all men, he wasn't always right. His skepticism about inductive argument has taken a heaving beating in recent years.

1014. Take a leaf out of their books/Books of the Year 2006/Guardian UK

Comment #9601 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 8:36 am

I'll give you 100-1 that rozrob is an atheist; no theist would have the wit for this 3 word comment!

1015. Census called into question as new Ipsos MORI poll estimates 17 million Humanist Brits

Comment #9598 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 8:24 am

It would be nice if polls could be trusted, but they can't, the outcome highly depends on how questions are asked.

It's imperative that possible framer bias is not allowed to affect the phrasing of the questions; I'm not sure this was achieved here.

1016. Leaders back faith in public life

Comment #9580 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 7:32 am

I forgot to mention that I'm not naive enough to think BA took their position for secular reasons; they did it so other ticket-buying religites wouldn't be offended. Still, no religious symbols is a step in the right direction.

1017. Leaders back faith in public life

Comment #9578 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 7:27 am

More action is required.

British Airways bravely took a stand by refusing to allow a devout check-in employee to wear her Jesus symbol at work. Then the A of C started bleating on her behalf, BA said last night they would 'review' their policy. This means they will probably cave in.

I'm going to contact BA and offer praise if they stand firm, if not, I will vow never to use them again.

Who will join me?

1018. Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists

Comment #9574 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 7:12 am

Comment #9441 by asdf

I like your attitude but your prongs are unfortunately welded together. If religion could be removed from politics, law and education, we wouldn't have to worry about prong #1 because it would become a harmless joke. However, in order to achieve the aim of prong #2, success in the aim of prong #1 is required!

Religion is dangerous because of its' ability to infect the brains of the policy makers that control our lives. Perhaps we atheists need to conduct a political experiment which would work well in the USA.

Atheists should cast their vote based solely upon religion, normal political issues should be ignored. Chomsky and others have shown that American elections are not fought over issues anyway, so there would be no 'issue' impact.

Of course, voting based upon a non-religious bias in the USA, would mean abstension unless an atheist candidate could be fielded and funded, which seems unlikely right now. But there are an estimated 30 million non-believers in the USA, if ALL of them abstained and made it clear they did so as a protest against religious influence, then beneficial political consequences (for atheists) may result.

A similar experiment could be conducted here in the UK. I suggest all UK atheists contact their local MP making it clear that a vote will be dependant upon their having no religious conviction. I'm going to do this even if I have to do it alone.

Talk is good, but talk alone achieves naught; action is required.

1019. Less Faith, More Reason

Comment #9566 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 6:21 am

>>Many people in Ireland insist that the Ulster conflict is about British rule versus Irish unification, not about Protestantism versus Catholicism.<<

Would the number of Ulster people who make this claim be the same if Ireland was an Islamic state? I think not. There is no question that religion has always played the prima donna role in the Ulster conflict, that fact cannot be dodged forever. We atheists can see this because we have no axe to grind and unlike politicians, we don't have to deny truth for the sake of votes.

1020. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #9558 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 5:38 am

I'm Scottish, but I don't take the Herald. I'll go to my local library on Monday morning, perhaps they'll have a copy of it.

1021. How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics

Comment #9556 by Yorker on November 25, 2006 at 5:30 am

Richard,

Why don't you get Josh to set up a special way (IP address based perhaps) for you to make comments and then ban all other IP's calling themselves Richard Dawkins? If there is another real RD, then he can just change his name.

Unfortunately, this format allows mental midgets to hide their cowardly intent, their self esteem must be non-existent.

1022. Reptiles of the Mind -- Giving Thanks for Rational Atheists

Comment #9412 by Yorker on November 24, 2006 at 5:33 pm

Giving thanks for rational atheists, says Eskow, who's he thanking, his god?

Mr. Eskow, sucking up to atheists like Konner may soothe your poor feelings hurt by the nasty Dawkins and Harris duo, but that's it; Konner will still be an atheist. You decry Harris because he hasn't yet published a scientific paper, yet hold up the very non-scientific John Lennon as an example of a good atheist! Lennon in fact, considered himself a spiritual person and was still trying to 'find' himself when he was murdered.

You and others like you, simply must realise that we, the rapidly-growing number of atheists will no longer tolerate your bullshit. As long as you remain harmless, we'll tolerate you but not your god nonsense; the days when you could talk shit whilst hiding behind your so-called faith, are over. Such puerile behavior is unworthy of respect, indeed, it's barely worthy of adult consideration! So, time to grow up and live in the real world, some of us like Dawkins and Harris take a hard line, if it hurts your tender feelings, that's tough. Stop bleating, it won't help you and we are not going away.

1023. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and E.O. Wilson on the gospel of science

Comment #9130 by Yorker on November 23, 2006 at 5:59 pm

I feel obliged to come to E.O.Wilson's defence here also. He is a world-renowned scientist and perhaps the world's finest entomologist who on several occasions, has stated his religious non-belief. Indeed, it was he who proposed the strong hypothesis that America's modern religiosity has it's roots in a 'frontier country' mentality. The first immigrants needed religion and the benefit of group-belonging to hold them together, the remnants of that need still exist today.

To get some idea of Ed Wilson I highly recommend the Charlie Rose video (Google) with he and Jim Watson. In it, Jim said he thought Darwin was the greatest man who ever lived on Earth, Wilson paused for a moment and said: "I agree". Wilson has calculated that in 50 years time, half the species that exist today will be gone, he wants to save the planet, that's why he's willing to enlist the help of anyone, even religites, to reach his goal. it's not squishy, it's logical, there are a lot of religites around!

1024. God Delusion chosen as his Book of the Year

Comment #9110 by Yorker on November 23, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Hard-hitting, cutting, biting, perhaps even disdainful, these adjectives could fairly describe TGD, but flawed; I don't think so. I'm no theological expert -- wouldn't waste my time seeking expertise in the interpretation of fairy tales -- so there may biblical flaws, but scientifically and logically, I could find no fault.

Richard Dawkins has a knack -- perhaps even a flair -- for getting up the nose of religion, and a good thing too I might add; it's high time someone did so. He writes clearly and avoids the use of pseudo-intellectual, post-modernistic claptrap often used by lesser authors in this field. These factors may well be the reason for the general popularity of his work, it may also be that his literary success breeds jealousy among some of his detractors.

History shows that many works of literature, music, science and art, were the subject of ridicule and derision when first published; time will be the judge. A critic is always on safe ground when attacking work that's simply erroneous, illogical or inconsistent, Dawkins' work is not in this category; naysayers wishing to avoid a faceful of egg, ought to look before leaping.

1025. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #9098 by Yorker on November 23, 2006 at 4:10 pm

I burned them all to a DVD and have now watched the whole thing.

Overall, it is my opinion that the conference was a great success. A healthy balance was struck and nobody — as you might expect from a panel of well-known scientists and contrary to some opinions here — talked nonsense. It was clear to me that even amongst highly educated people, upbringing and background still play a part in modes of thought. Although evidently flustered on occasion, Joan Roughgarden made no attempt to extol religious virtues and tried her best to be rational; she deserves at least a little credit for that.

Of all the speakers, Konner annoyed me most, not just because of what he said, but because of his incessant toying with the microphone and coughing nervously directly into it. I guess there were no live feedback monitors onstage, so panellists were unaware of how distracting their audio fidgeting was. Sam Harris performed well mainly because of his ability to keep anger under control and remain rational when under attack. Dawkins' public speaking experience was also evident, no fidgeting or playing with the media accoutrements; the mark of a professional public performer. Michael Shermer was an entertaining, as well as an insightful speaker.

Being in light-hearted mood today, I decided to rate the speakers with marks out of 10, not all are on this list, so apologies to those I may have missed. Several factors were taken into account in my rating scheme; e.g. content, attention holding ability, entertainment value, charisma, general interest, and presentation skills. I would find it instructive to see how others would score. No-one was perfect, so there are no 10's; in parenthesis is my assessment of each one's best attributes.

Carolyn Porco 9 (great enthusiasm)
Sam Harris 9 (great self-control)
Richard Dawkins 8 (polished performer)
Lawrence Krauss 8 (logical & insightful)
Patricia Churchland 8 (great enthusiasm)
Mahzarin Banaji 8 (original & entertaining)
Steven Weinberg 7 (logical & honest)
Michael Shermer 7 (insightful & entertaining)
Harry Kroto 7 (enthusiastic & charming)
Neil Tyson 6 (entertaining)
Elizabeth Loftus 6 (charming & honest)
Joan Roughgarden 5 (honest)
Susan Neiman 5 (analytical)

Finally, a word about two people not on my list. Ten years ago, Paul Davies would have been a high scorer, his books at that time were very good, sadly, it seems like he writes to curry favour with the Templeton Foundation nowadays and so I see him as something of a turncoat. Lastly, I've always liked Ann Druyan; she's an intelligent, animated and attractive lady but not on the list because it seemed like she was there basically to say a few words in honour of Carl, nevertheless, she remains a favourite with me.

I for one, look forward to next year's event.

1026. Beyond Belief 2006 Videos

Comment #8634 by Yorker on November 21, 2006 at 9:36 pm

I just watched #3 directly from the Beyond Belief site, excellent stuff and the first time I've heard Richard Dawkins say the word "fuck". I don't know why, but I was taken aback, I suppose it's just because he doesn't normally talk that way.

I was impressed by Carolyn Porco, she echoed thoughts that I've had for some time, particularly with regard to a replacement for religion.

1027. A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

Comment #8568 by Yorker on November 21, 2006 at 5:22 pm

I've never really understood why people need comforting by religion. Like most of us who've lived a long time, I've had my share of ups and downs and suffered occasional tragedies. In all honesty, no desire for religious comfort has ever entered my mind; I take what life gives me and deal with it. Naturally, I use experience and knowledge in my attempts to avoid possible impending disasters and notice that the older I become, the better I get at it; the result of increased experience probably. But no matter what, my zest for life itself; has always seen me through. There are many things in reality that offer comfort, e.g. music, literature, art, poetry or interest in a hobby, to name just a few; even when sad or depressed, I find a healthy dose of music can set me up again, no need for anything outside this world.

I guess religious persons need religious comfort because it's bred into them; it's as if acceptance of non-reality generates a character weakness that needs a fix of the drug that originally caused the problem; a kind of vicious circle. The obvious cure must be to break the circle and replace non-reality with reality. I could be wrong of course, and religites perhaps find what seems easy to me, difficult to accomplish. The knowledge that this life is not a rehearsal and that my time is limited, keenly whets my appetite for life, to think as religites do, that heaven awaits, seems to me a tragic waste of the only life they'll ever have. Even if heaven exists, who on earth would want to spend eternity there? I'm with E.O Wilson here, just think how boring it's going to be after the first few trillion years!

1028. What Does Someone Believe? One Man Has the Answer

Comment #8336 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 10:36 pm

Belief in this, belief in that, belief, belief belief, I'm fed up hearing about people's beliefs. For me, holding a belief just means that one has accepted as truth, an explanation or reason for some phenomenon or doctrine. This acceptance may have been soundly based on compelling evidence, conversely, it could be based upon total nonsense.

This article seems to see beliefs as having great virtue, I see belief as a flaw in human character brought about by laziness; people often believe things simply because it suits their purpose or viewpoint, they can't be bothered to work at finding the truth. I think knowledge is far superior to belief, there are many things I don't know but I'd rather be ignorant than hold "beliefs". There's nothing wrong with not knowing; I'm always suspicious of people who tell me they 'believe' something.

1029. How Full Is Your Quiver?

Comment #8203 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 3:53 pm

A little piece of intellectual "low-tech" comment needed here I feel.

This godite seems just about smart enough to know where the cock goes but not a f***ing clue about where the food comes from.

Comment #8185 by Malcolm

Unfortunately, Malcolm a good education is no guarantee of a well-paid job or a position of power, just take a look around you.

1030. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8195 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 3:39 pm

Comment #8181 by island

It's evident that you haven't studied Einstein's work in depth, rather than get into a tiresome refutation hassle with you, I suggest you do some Googling about him but be careful to avoid the crackpot sites. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not decrying Einstein, I'd say he was probably the second or third best scientist who ever lived.

1031. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8169 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 2:57 pm

Comment #8102 by island

>>I typically only don't include someone's name when I respond directly under them<<

In this posting format you can't know which post your post will be directly under, it's a matter of timing over which you have no control, better to use a reference I think.

I said:

>>If so, it's not a question of naivety, it's simply a matter of fact that we currently have zero evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence<<

This is a simple statement, which, unless you have contrary evidence, is undeniably true. After a lifetime of science-based work, I know that the predictions made by a theory must be verfied by observation. Unverifiable predictions will cause that faulty theory to be revised or discarded. How you can say my simple comment above is like saying our theories lack predictive power, therefore mystifies me.

While it's certainly doubtful that global nuclear war would entirely wipe out humanity, it's nonetheless plausible that it could set us back hundreds of years. If that situation pertains to intelligent life universally, then inter species communication won't be possible - ever.

I spent about twenty years of my life involved in the generation and propagation of electromagnetic radiation, I never found any means of signalling that violated old Abe's relativity laws or Maxwells equations. Bear in mind when you quote Einstein, that great man though he undoubtedly was, he was also human and dead wrong about a few things.

Your earlier comment about possible ET communication by christmas also mystifies me, how is that going to happen? Our galaxy is 100K LY across, has space warping and stable worm hole creation been achieved since I retired?

1032. Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November...

Comment #8106 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 12:25 pm

The BBC has been steadily sinking for some time, but this is a new low, When Attenborough was boss, they made some good stuff; now, it's 85% crap.

I've just about had enough of them, they waste £20 million a year of our licence money on taxi fares, and we get garbage like this in return.

I's simply a public disgrace.

1033. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8094 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 11:52 am

Comment #8083 by island

Are you referring to what Kingasaurus or I said?

If so, it's not a question of naivety, it's simply a matter of fact that we currently have zero evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. Personnally, I think it very likely the Universe is brimming with life, but distances are vast, we may simply never know.

If you look at life on Earth, there is no evidence suggesting that intelligence has any survival value, indeed, the evidence seems to point the other way - primitive creatures have been here longest. Perhaps the universal default fate of intelligent life, is to the reach technological stage where it can invent globally destructive weaponry and then use it for self-anihilation.

Of course I hope not, but that's the way things look here on Earth right now.

1034. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8089 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 11:37 am

Comment #8079 by Kingasaurus

Yes and sadly, your solution to the Drake equation may well be correct. I hope it's not, but I must also be mindful that the Universe is the way it is, not the way I might want it to be. As a younger man, I hoped that certain knowledge of extra-terrestrial intelligence would be found before my demise, but (I'm 63) it looks like I'll be disappointed.

I have never felt the need to invent - as some do - false beliefs to serve as a secondary life support system. I don't have time for that, my time is limited and precious, I want to use it wisely on this, the only life I'll ever have.

1035. The Big Question: Why are we here?

Comment #8074 by Yorker on November 20, 2006 at 10:55 am

I think all Dawkins meant here is that it's entirely possible that we're the only intelligent species in the universe. So not only *might* we be unique, as far as we know, we *are* unique and will remain so until evidence to the contrary is clear.

Incidentally, this show was one of a science series broadcast here in the UK about 3 years ago.

1036. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7522 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 5:30 pm

Comment #7470 by Jon Edwards

Well put Jon, I like your style.

1037. Dawkins's version of the deity does not exist

Comment #7519 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 5:23 pm

Yet another pseudo-intellectual article written by a person who thinks putting his god beyond the reach of science, causes he/she/it to exist. A poorly thought out, boring and thoroughly disappointing chunk of meaningless text.

1038. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7512 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 4:47 pm

Walt,

I never debate people who use phrases like "God the Creator", I long ago realised it's a waste of time. Worthwhile debate is only meaningful if all parties agree that their minds are open to change in the light of utmost reason. I have yet to meet a single god follower willing to accept that simple and honest proviso. As an atheist I'm 99.99% convinced there's no god but I'll concede I could be wrong. Just look at what this thread has become, not one religite here has even considered for a microsecond that they may be wrong. Saddest of all, they don't even realise that this weakness automatically prohibits them from sane conversation, they just keep prattling mindlessly on.

That was my last post on this degenerative thread.

1039. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7400 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 1:23 pm

Comment #7348 by Walter Yergen

>>So Carl Sagan made the same assumption that Richard Dawkins makes. Is that significant? Scientists who "know" that they cannot create or destroy energy understandably believe that nothing in nature can create or destroy energy. I think that they are wrong.<<

>>What do you mean by "We"?<<

"We" means you and me and everyone else on this planet, our atoms were forged in stars and after the Earth is destroyed our atoms will be recycled.

Everything that exists on the Earth is made of atoms, you say that's wrong. If you deny this atomic "fact" as Feynman called it, then get ready to pick up the Nobel prize for physics, you are about to change the world. All you have to do is present your evidence to science and get it accepted. Keep in mind that some "dopey philosophical idea" (another Feynman expression) isn't going to cut it.

If it's OK with you, I'll take the word of Feynman, Sagan and Dawkins in preference to yours.

1040. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7392 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 12:57 pm

Hi maryhelena,

You said:

>> But theology is not static - and therein lies it's potential for change. Or, re-interpretation if you like. One can, as it were, chop down the theological tree but it's religious root is able to sprout afresh. That's been the case throughout history - and I see no evidence that it will ever be any different.<<

The tale told by every religion is static and must remain so to avoid looking even sillier than it is by changing its story in an attempt to match the needs of a changing world. The veracity of something that needs continual "re-interpreting" is suspect in the first place, you can't "interpret" nothing into something, the simple lack of evidence is, and always will be, the nemesis of religion. In your agricultural phraseology, if I buy a tulip bulb, plant it and a hyacinth grows, should I "re-interpret" it as a tulip or complain to the original vendor? I think your statement is – appropriately enough – poppycock; you see no evidence of change because you don't want to, everyone who looks with open eyes can see that the stranglehold religion once had on people, has been reduced to the feeble grasp of a drowning dogma. Soon, the now-useless corpse of religion will sink.

>> We can change our diet - but food we must eat. However much we change there is always an element of our nature that remains permanent, static. It can't be otherwise. Indeed the only sure thing in life is change - but life itself remains the constant element.<<

This is just wrong. I can easily foresee a future time where food as we know it won't exist; even now we can be fed intravenously if needed, if we continue breeding like religites and not husbanding our planet, the time when the wars over food may come much quicker than you think. Even with wise husbandry, genetic modification – perhaps even generation - of foodstuffs will certainly be required. Life itself is not constant, it evolves; just as there are people today who deny chimpanzees as our relatives, it's very possible that thousands of years from now some of our descendants may discover your fossilized remains and deny their lineage with you.

The fact as you say, that people who were once atheistic and now embrace religion, doesn't mean anything, they are far outnumbered by people to whom the reverse situation applies, the old saying that "it takes all sorts" is vastly overrated and probably wrong. The fact we have all sorts doesn't mean we need them, indeed, I'm certain we could do very nicely without the religious sorts at all, keep in mind that atheism is the default condition of humanity, god-ism invades the brain after birth, not before.

I didn't say that prevention of child indoctrination would be easy; there will always be some religiously perverted parent who will attempt this form of mental child abuse. As time marches on and atheism becomes dominant, such parents will die out because the worldly disadvantage they force upon their kids will be all too apparent. Again, you don't see how this child abuse can be prevented because you don't want prevention, you clearly want perpetuation of the god myth. No, it won't be easy, but we atheists will keep trying and we shall succeed.

1041. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7345 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 9:29 am

Comment #7340 by Skeptic Jim

"I'm a christian but... I don't believe in the bible, god, jesus and think christianity does more harm than good."

Sorry Jim, I don't get it. Doesn't CHRISTian come from Jesus CHRIST and isn't belief in him what christianity is about?

1042. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7341 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 9:23 am

Comment #7296 by Jim Dean

I don't understand. Who are you referring to?

1043. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7337 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 9:07 am

Comment #7309 by Chaley

You seem to think that being old prevents a change of mind, you are mistaken. It may be true of people who have spent a lifetime without thinking, but that's about all. I'm 63 and have changed my mind about several things in the last ten years, I expect to continue in similar vein until the day I die. It comes from spending a lifetime learning, during which I've gained a little knowledge in many subjects but expertise in only two. Unfortunately, for some, it's possible to be old, uneducated and foolish.

1044. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7332 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:50 am

Comment #7329 by Some dude

Use some of the "little biddy itty" atoms you're made of and buy a book on sexual reproduction, (avoid the stork edition), we have very, very good knowledge of how babies are born. While you're at it get a book on cosmology also; it won't answer all your questions but it will help you ask better ones.

1045. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7330 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:41 am

Comment #7308 by stefanc

You speak of seeing God and he told you there was no God. Amazingly, you called that a religious experience, it sounds much more like a mental aberration to me.

1046. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7326 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:24 am

Comment #7317 by Walter Yergen

We didn't come from nothing Walter, as Sagan said:

"We are made of starstuff"

So, we came from the stars and to the stars we shall return. Your atoms have at least in some sense, a kind of immortality.

1047. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7323 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:19 am

Comment #7310 by Jake Danger

Well Jake, are you ging to tell us what evidence you've seen that Dawkins hasn't?

1048. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7315 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 7:46 am

hoju said:

"Science" is not a religion, but it is being sold as one. There is no "Science". There is only the pursuit of knowledge via methods that have been formulated by thinking men and put into practice by a select few."

You are confused. What your second sentence describes is the thing we call "science", it is NOT practiced by a select few, it is practiced by anyone who applies its method. As Feynman said:

"There are no authorities in science, at best, only experts, it doesn't matter who you are or what your name is, if your theory is not supported by observation, it is wrong"

That means ANYONE can be a scientist, if some mute inglorious Milton solved Fermat's Last Theorem, mathematical scientists would be forced to accept it.


Hoju said:

"Mr. Dawkins clings to a belief system that discards any evidence that does not fit into its limited narrow minded, and largely antiquated model."

What nonsense! I have yet to see any EVIDENCE Richard Dawkins has discarded. Before you make such ridiculous statements, provide some evidence yourself!

hoju said:

"I recall all to well how often in my short lifetime "science the noun" has been proven wrong, over, and over, and over."

Of course it has! That's what it's about! Unlike religion and other foolish doctrine, science constantly corrects its own errors, thereby advancing and adding to the body of knowledge that it is. Clearly, your lifetime has been short; a more mature person would not have made such an erroneous statement.


hoju said:

"But especially no use of Richard Dawkins and his new brand of scientific dogma that so closely resembles the discourse of the religious pontificates that I find it indistinguishable.

And he has the same sort of mindless, non-thinking, non-questioning followers."


Coming here to hurl insults as you do, is just about the most mindless behavior you could adopt. What do you hope to achieve? All you can expect is a sound (luckily only verbal) arse-kicking from your elders here.

I don't think you're an idiot hoju, but you do seem to be either mentally disturbed or a person who's allowed anger for an undisclosed reason, to overrule rationality.

1049. I'm an atheist, BUT . . .

Comment #7305 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 6:55 am

MaryHelena wrote,

"Religion, as the fundamental desire/need/orientation for man to seek spiritual values is static."

I agree, and therein is the seed of its demise. The fact that the tales of religion are static (and cannot be updated for obvious reasons) is a fatal weakness, which I think, will result in its natural death sometime in the future. That is why religion needs to indoctrinate children; the godites know that reality will tell a different tale and so they must inoculate kids against reason as soon as possible, the collusion of parents helps them greatly. However, as I've said before on this website, this is a dynamic evolving planet, upon which change is inevitable, that which is static and unable to change eventually dies.

Religion only needs replacing for those afflicted with it, one doesn't miss what one's never had. My father, by accident of birth, was nominally Catholic but atheistic in reality. When he judged my intellectual capacity to have reached the stage where I could understand, he took me aside and explained how he had had religion forced upon him and wanted to make sure that the same did not happen to me. He assured me that whatever religious or non-religious path I chose in life, would be fine with him. So, I've never had a god and never felt the need for one. If this situation was the case for all children, religion – far from being a fixture – would be gone in a few generations.

Mystics and religious fanatics held back human development for almost 1500 years, imagine where we might be now if the ancient tradition and reverence for knowledge had not been destroyed, perhaps many major causes of current human misery would have been eradicated long ago. Unfortunately, last time round the mystics won, they burned the written work and murdered the scientists; we can't let that happen again, and it's entirely possible that it could.

In a recent article AC Grayling remarked that educational standards in the UK have fallen, I agree with him; returning home after ten years in the USA, I noticed that worship of dumb-assed celebrities and various forms of so-called New Age nonsense had reached insane levels, crappy subjects like Media Studies and Theology are favourite educational pursuits of young people. The UK is becoming like the USA but we seem to take only bad Americanisms, not good ones. This pathetic situation must cause religite leaders to wring their hands in glee.

Of all the nutty religious sects around (including the major league), the Amish are the only group I have a teeny measure of respect for. They fail, but at least try to live "the old way" without benefit of modern technology; can you imagine Falwell or Robertson clip-clopping their way to the bank with the proceeds of another successful fleecing of their flock?

We need to do two things: prevent the religious indoctrination of children and raise public consciousness with regard to the virtues of science. Far too many people use the products of science but decry its method, these mega-hypocrites must be made aware that science, not religion, is the reason they're not living in caves and grubbing in the dirt for their next meal.

1050. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7197 by Yorker on November 17, 2006 at 3:44 pm

I agree with Lauren about one thing; intelligence is sexy. I've always had a thing for intelligent women, the older I get the hornier they make me! Well...at least in my mind they do.