Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by phil rimmer


101. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195407 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 7:15 am

I think we want a whole new word conjoining a word pair like

assembled and
functional

Where's a Greek scholar when you need one?

102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195405 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 7:09 am

Philip

I need it.

But I think I would prefer the tasteful insanity of Goddidit than to talk about the enmechanization of stuff.
*shudders*

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195396 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 6:57 am

Maybe mechanizes? Or a neologism based on it?

EDIT enmechanize... (An American sort of term...like burglarize.) Not serious.

104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195321 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 4:16 am

hungarianelephant

Completely agree. I think I was just seeking to further endorse the effectiveness of the strategy of getting RtG to argue the Paley position from a MODERN perspective.

105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195312 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 3:53 am

hungarianelephant

If you take Darwin out of the equation, you're back to pre-Darwinian times.


But for RtG really you're not. You have all the evidence of geological time, continental drift, the growing smoothness of the continuum of the fossil record.

Back in Paley's time you had not long had the Principia and the Micrographia from Newton and Hooke. These first few glimmerings of "mechanism" did not disturb greatly the only conceivable answer to the mystery of life, the universe etc. that Goddidit. Indeed it was moderately reasonable (if not so logical given Hume, and hungarian elephant's arguments) to assume it was HIS mechanism.
Even less reasonable to make Paley's argument now. Why did God make stuff that died out? Why did he make near replacements that died out? Why isn't he making stuff now? etc. etc.

EDITED to better reflect hungarian's excellent points.

106. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195242 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 1:09 am

Clearthinker

Rejoice in your small victories


Actually, I was rather more celebrating the previously debated fact that Hitch didn't necessarily put people off. You will also notice that I earlier defended McGrath from the criticism of doing a poor job.

On another book issue I once asked you for your opinion on the best "flea" book. You suggested Francis Collins The Languge of God. I followed your advice. Badly re-packaged C.S.Lewis and zilch of his own of any merit. I have never been so angry with a book.

I think you badly underestimate our genuine interest in evidence here. Your personal failure to deliver any is now legend. You have entirely squandered your opportunity with us. You should be ashamed.

107. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195233 by phil rimmer on June 18, 2008 at 12:52 am

Loke,

Thanks so much for the great story and a warm welcome to you.

I'm sure most of us don't see it as a simple battle being waged for ownership of your brain by Hitchens and McGrath. Its just that in a recent thread Hitchens received quite a lot of negative comments for his "abrasive" style and that it would tend to put people off rather than encourage them to change their minds. I think the consensus view at the end was that he would be most effective with more intelligent readers.....

It sounds like this was a transition you were going to make at some point anyway so the kudos can only be yours. Yes, please consider submitting this story to Converts Corner. This is one to cut-out-and-keep. Cheers!

108. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195058 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 4:05 pm

I think you're all being very unkind to McGrath. I think he wrote the very best book he could. Sadly, he just had lousy material to work with, religion.

Hitch 1 McGrath 0

Yay!!

109. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195035 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Corylus, I think there were a variety of stratagems in play-

Comment #194539 by Brian English on June 16, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I'll leave questions as to the origin of a designer of the universe and life to a later time. At this point I'm hoping RtG can provide a case that there is a designer...

110. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195011 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Well, I thought it was f*cking brilliant.

This will be more effective in kicking ID in the nuts than most of the stuff here.

*ducks*

If only because it was high profile, fun, patriotic, trashing of know-nothing dunces by a couple of guys who were "Catholics". The guy who was licensed to say it, said the bible is not science. The effect on kids will be tremendous.

I've been disappointed with Colbert in his own show. He seemed on form tonight, however, giving exactly the right nutty feeds for Miller, without knocking him off course.

Ace

111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194865 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 10:44 am

Oops Karda

Sorry, mate, trolled you by mistake!

I was having such fun and I got carried away.

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194848 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 10:30 am

Oh Bum! The Git Deceived! Trolled.

Sorry about that, Jethro. Its what's expected of us and we hate to disappoint. I hope you find a few more answers here. And if not, well thanks for popping by anyway.

113. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194790 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #194773 by Frankus1122

Some Christians manage to get over this logical hurdle (in slightly different forms of the argument). Where it leads often is to the static, totally, inhuman vision of heaven that they usually have. I was curious to see if ketch had progressed that far in his thinking and whether he relished the prospect of getting there.

114. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194765 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 8:46 am

ketch

If everything were joy, joy, joy, we would have nothing to compare joy to

But we must also remember that God doesn't cause massive death or injustice, man does,


I am puzzled by the logic of what you have said. Suffering makes joy sweeter is a commonplace and familiar to all. Now you say we suffer because we have fallen and are sinful (I guess). Massive tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, and diseases result. God "allows" these to happen and the upside is we learn the sweetness of joy. Right so far?

So if we had actually passed HIS test and been a good little adam'n'eve, we'd be free of arbitrary nastiness and therefore ignorant of the sweetness of joy.

Correct?

115. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #194658 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 6:28 am

There are no emotional monopoles.


Gem.

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194643 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 6:02 am

Brian.

Elegant.

Masterful.

117. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194599 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 3:29 am

irate

'Private beliefs' can result in 'public actions'.


True, but changing peoples public actions can change their beliefs. If beliefs are dissociated from actions, through education in what is acceptable public behaviour, one of the great underpinnings and justifications of belief is removed.

118. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194596 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 3:21 am

epeeist

Ah! Good old "Up and Atem". Surely the fantasy of a fevered adolescent imagination.....

119. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194589 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 3:05 am

Comment #194580 by davelynch

Most Muslims are Creationists.

Creationism is generally about Dogma rather than personal belief. A belief in a Creator and the Dogma that generally surrounds HIM usually precedes a position of Creationism, certainly for most Christians and Muslims who profess to be such.

There are possibly quite a few pantheistic or non-specific spiritual types who might also be considered in some sense Creationists, because they "see" a designed or at least purposeful world. These people are of no concern to me, because they have little or no dogma and are inclined to leave me alone.

"Other such interventionists" are in this specific case "Intelligent Designers", who seek to deny that they have a Creator in mind and try to portray themselves as Dogma free and "just like real scientists." This has been proved to be dishonest on so many occasions that I worry about this category very much indeed. These people have a very active and cynical political agenda. It almost appears as if they are Designers themselves, seeking to create a more subdued, subservient and "moral" society, or at the very least, stop the rot of the disassembling of theistic certainties by science.

You don't have to be Christian to be in a moral panic about the "cold and callous" march of science. Ben Stein is Jewish. His statements about the innate evilness of science make his position very clear.

The issue about engagement in this specific instance is about the absence Science from the debate. Creationists and IDers have brought no viable (falsifiable) hypotheses, no viable process, no corroborated evidence, no viable scientific papers, nothing looking in the least like science. What they seek to gain out of a debate is credibility. Even if they can get a MAYBE out of it they can keep hope alive for their political agenda.

Debating morals- great.
The nature of God- no problem.
Creationism- bring some science first.

120. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194561 by phil rimmer on June 17, 2008 at 12:46 am

davelynch

But the issue here is not about Christianity. It is about Creationism and its validity in the science classroom and the laboratories. Frankly, who gives a stuff about PERSONAL beliefs when its is un-evidenced intrusions into public life that are the real outrage.

(Belief in God is the evidence some Christians give for being meddlesome in my life. Serious doubt about God's existence is just ONE of the bits of "evidence" I/we sometimes offer to reject such meddlesome behaviour.)

121. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194350 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Goldy

You are a sinner.


Quick! Get sinning, man. Apparently you're doomed already. Get some sinning in while you still can.

'K. Bored now. One last press of the Troll button. Where's that leash and the Telegraph? I feel quite frisky now...Pity about that keg of beer...

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194334 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I wonder what other fundamentalist buttons I press?


Filthy hat wearer!

My mum told me, when I was being dragged into church, that God hated hats, school caps and the like.

EDIT Oops need to change my avatar.

123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194314 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 3:37 pm

I call Troll now. There hasn't been the slightest hint of dialogue and nobody's brought any drinks to the party....

124. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194296 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 pm

MPhil. I've had a quick look and there's nothing at all useful. I'm all for stealing Goldy's (and Raphael's) Hypatia as a foreground figure with the new Bibliotheca Alexandrina very graphic in the background. After all we want good news as well as a reminder of the bad. Might work it up...



EDIT....Still twitching...

125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194267 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Goldy, She sounds perfect and the Raphael is iconic.

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194257 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 2:54 pm

MPhil, I think your Library of Alexandria would make a brilliant anti-theist logo. Are there any existing graphics you think it would be good to reference?

127. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194242 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I wonder when it'll stop twitching?

128. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194142 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Comment #194123 by mixmastergaz

I refuse to accept that there can be no diplomatic relations with Christians.


I am very much in favour of diplomatic relations with Christians. It is active Creationists and other such interventionists who seek to subvert MY way of life and corrupt MY children's education with bogus science who should be denied the credibility of engagement.

129. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194129 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Comment #193482 by Steve Zara

I think you have struck a perfect balance here. Very clear and wonderfully telling conclusion.

I'd love it to be used as suggested. If no-one else does I shall certainly use it, if I may?

EDIT Sorry, thought I'd posted this already, but clearly I hadn't.

130. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194114 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 12:42 pm

RTG

Just think how great it would be if we could all grow wings and fly.


Ah! Dreaming of the here-after I see. Good Luck.

131. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194090 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Steve, I truly think the afflicted/exploiter divide is the moral decider.

EDIT However, sometimes the extent of the affliction puts them beyond help....Resources are limited.

132. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194087 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I think it is sometimes very educational to let people know how utterly unrespect-worthy their tedious "testament of faith" is.

133. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #194083 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Wow the potholer stuff is astonishingly good. How have I missed it?

134. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194072 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 11:43 am

It is precisely because this is Richard Dawkins site that this place should remain at base a place of education and helpful argument. There can be no other reason for its existence.

It is essential, to marshal (y)our resources effectively, to distinguish someone afflicted with religion from someone seeking to exploit it for their own gains and at a cost to others. The former deserve our fullest attention the latter our utmost contempt.

EDIT Wot eepeist said. Just spotted

135. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193838 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 5:53 am

Roland F

Not complete. Say, he hides when you look.

136. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193834 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 5:50 am

Steve,
Are there any theories working from the basis of the appearance of information, perhaps in relation to the necessary energy transfer involved?

137. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193831 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 5:42 am

Quetz.

if God is not outside the Universe, but in one of the higher dimensions, then the same applies- the interactions should be testable still.


What if he is actively hiding?

138. Only a Theory

Comment #193736 by phil rimmer on June 16, 2008 at 1:21 am

nova

my point is that we need THE END OF FAITH


Yes, but I'm not prepared to wait. I want a lot of changes to the public bahaviour of religites NOW. I wish to stop un-evidenced intrusions into the public space, such as Creationism. I don't have to disprove the existence of a non-existent entity BEFORE I can proceed.

I actually believe direct assaults on faith using reason are misguided, given that faith per se is unreasonable. Break the habit of acting on faith though (and replace it with the habit of acting on evidence so that full cooperation within society is possible) and its importance in the mind will wither...

beeline

But within the scientific community there is NO controversy! Not one decent scientific paper. Not one falsifiable hypothesis. Nothing.

139. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #193709 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Nicola

Thanks for your clarification. Posting evidence on the site will help tremendously, though I am in no doubt that harm IS being done to children in this way

I think you need detailed legal advice on the possible wording of an actual amendment to the law to allow its most general use (e.g in relation to witchcraft, curses etc.) Its reverse use against the "horror" of a "meaningless" atheists' world view, must also be guarded against and not just in the wording. We need a proper formulation of argument that closes this exposed flank.

Finally, any chance of a petition seeking to ensure that hellfire and damnation are dealt with properly in school education?

MPHIL Thanks for the contribution. I'll be sure to check it out.

140. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193480 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I now have gone back to preferring my version (perhaps if worded better).


Then, please, go for it!

141. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193477 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 4:47 pm

That is where philosophy comes in. We need to discuss the nature of knowledge, of evidence and so on.


Exactly. And thats why I tried to formulate a simple argument for the futility of their approach, but without shutting them out entirely....but not, alas, successfully.

EDIT Curses! Have to get up in a few hours. Must away..

142. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193468 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 4:33 pm

That was why I emphasised lack of ability to communicate as against any particular intention.


Gottit. The impossibility of dialogue seems a good approach. We've got out of their silly game but does it fully deny them the use of our (science's) ball? We've got out of the debate, but we still want to stick it to them that they (however well intentioned) have nothing, don't we?

Yes, Fizhburn, rejected is simple and clear.

143. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193455 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Corylus

This is excellent stuff. I like the honourable nobility of the quest at the outset. And you use really accessible language. Can you formulate a version of this to deal with IDers who may not assume (or at least assert) that scientific knowledge can be ignored?

Should we not (however falsely) assume that all parties are well intentioned? So perhaps "ignored and demeaned" might perhaps be more neutrally rendered as say "set aside"?

Really like the lop-sidedness of the debate conclusion.

Any more takers?

144. Only a Theory

Comment #193420 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm

fizhburn

I normally would but usefully I lost some of my sense of smell recently to a viral infection. I seem to have lost only the nasty stuff. (I'm saving a fortune on deodorants!)

But I see the fear in their eyes. To a man and a woman they are all pessimists about the world. Despite statistics they see only a corrosive decline. They've all got their fingers crossed for something better on the other side.

145. Only a Theory

Comment #193414 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I've found Ken Miller very useful indeed. I see it as all part of Sam Harris's "going under the radar" strategy. We need to do it more. I often concede a deist God, for instance, just to get in close.

146. Only a Theory

Comment #193413 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:38 pm

9 A.M.......Jesus walks on water.


11 A.M......Looking for Jesus.


HAAAA! Coffee, screen, damn!

147. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193406 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:16 pm

You're absolutely right it is not proof of intervention at all, BUT

1) We'll never get there, so it doesn't matter here. (There will always be theories to test)

2) If science truly lay exhausted and not one person could conceive a theory of something un-explained then maybe we DESERVE an interventionist proposal. By that time so many gaps will have been closed that the spurious bronze-age anthropic tyrant will have been left well behind and some ghost of a deist ghost will be all thats possibly left.

EDIT PS I completely take your argument that no dialogue is possible, its just that it doesn't seek to dissuade them in any way....which I guess is a forlorn hope.

EDIT They will only find the nuggets to work with once the other stuff is "panned" away. They will still have work to do, though WTF that may be is their problem. I should have excluded the word "reliable" in front of "test".

148. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193389 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Good stuff, Steve.

I had in mind something like-

"There is no discoverable scientific truth that may not be revealed by using the scientific method. Acts of miraculous or supernatural intervention in the formation of the universe and its life-forms may only be revealed when science lies exhausted of all attempted explanations and is still found wanting. Creation "Science" (in inverted commas) seeks to demonstrate the interventionist answer (e.g. God did it) , in a speedy fashion by anticipating that very answer. Sadly no reliable test of Intervention, other than the exclusion of all other possible explanations, has been formulated that may give confirmation of such a result. Those desiring an Interventionist answer would serve their own interests best if they spent their efforts on formulating and excluding alternative explanations, in other words, joining forces with the thorough and disinterested efforts of scientists everywhere."

Sadly it isn't thorough (one point only) or rigorous. (It needs better brains applied to it.) But, it doesn't invoke the authority of the majority, it doesn't imply exclusion from a process and it doesn't have the word epistemological in it.

Not it perhaps, but something absolute yet engaging?

149. Stephen Hawking: ministers' £80m error puts science at risk

Comment #193363 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 1:06 pm

scientists will make a more valuable contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the world if their research is closely directed by politicians


Fine if they knew what they were doing but, when, in the UK, was the last time we had a scientist or former scientist in the cabinet?

Margret Thatcher! A chemist whose main contribution to the world of knowledge was how to get more air (and less cream) into ice cream.

(The Blessed Maggie, generally had a poor record with dairy products, later going on to steal milk off school kids.....Blessed are the Cheese-makers, indeed!)

150. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193349 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Paula,

I thoroughly endorse your principled stand here in not engaging in an ill-conceived debate. (Bravo, other non-engagers.)

I think this approach deserves much wider application. We should not engage in any such events in future, where a science V. Creationism format exists.

The simple impossibility of "Creation Science" being science in any way is the universal point at issue. (There is no rational process. There is no rational conclusion to a process, etc.)

May I suggest, however, that whilst not engaging in such debates, a very short statement may be formulated stating simply the reasons for the impossibility of any rational dialogue. This would be offered as our single contribution to any event staged, that sought to address this imagined "conflict" of ideas. It would, in effect, be an apology for absence, on the grounds that there is no apparent work to be done...(or some such) and we would ask that it be read out near the start of the event.

The pithier the statement is, the better will be the effect. I imagine no more than five to ten short sentences, written in plain English.

Any merit?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | Next