1901. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53578 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 5:23 am

Shild:

Now all you need to do is demonstrate that a mutation beyond Behe's "Edge" has in fact occurred and the ID folks, while not shutting up, will at least give ground by extending their "Edge" further and further until they're back to "First Cause."

Evolution doesn't require big changes, only little ones added up. No one will look for big mutations beyond the "edge" of evolution.

There's something Zeno-esque in the argument that evolution can take us a certain distance, but not the required distance.

Once we've catalogued the genomes of enough species, we'll see the continuum of life more clearly and this debate must go away.

Or perhaps not.

I knew of a patient once who insisted he had a radio transmitter in his head. A medical student thought he'd prove this wasn't the case. He got an X-ray of the man's head, put it up on the lightbox and said, "See? No radio."

The patient replied, "Oh, I see it clearly. Look, here are the wires..." and he traced out suture lines and other skull irregularities with his finger.

1902. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53566 by Dr Benway on July 2, 2007 at 4:32 am

Dianelos:

So, if naturalism allows for non-mechanical explanations then maybe I am wrong about the limitations of naturalism.

You may be confusing scientific naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

1903. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53511 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 8:23 pm

mjwemdee:

The Bish is off his trolley

Two bricks short of a load.
One beer short of a sixpack
Not playing with all 52 cards
Not running on all 8 cylinders

1904. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53508 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Dianelos:

Naturalism asserts that reality is fundamentally mechanical which implies that at bottom all explanations must be mechanical too.

Scientific naturalism is concerned with objective facts that can be corroborated. Naturalism doesn't require belief in a mechanical, tiny billard ball notion of ultimate reality. A scientist can talk about wind moving ships across the sea, and can also talk about the face that once launched a thousand ships.

J:

That's right. You know the play too, then?

No, my love. But I shall atone for my lack by composing a play forthwith, dedicated to you. I name it, "Taking the Piss."

Act I, Scene I:

Dianelos (kneeling in prayer): O Lord, You are more beautiful than the dawn...

God (reading a newspaper): Hmm mmm.

Dianelos: O Lord, I pray You guide me each day, so I may act rightly in Your sight...

God (still reading): Hmm mmm.

Dianelos: O Lord -

God (drops paper, annoyed): You still here?

Dianelos: Yes, Lord. I am your child...

God: You're 45 fucking years old! Stop asking me to tell you what you ought to be doing. Make some friends, eat a pizza, paint a house, whatever you want.

Dianelos: Well, Lord... I want for all mankind to know You as I know You.

God (sighs): What would be the point?

Dianelos: Lord, there is so much fighting and suffering on Earth. People don't agree about moral absolutes. If only everyone realized that we all have a loving creator...

God: Listen, if I wanted everyone to know that, I'd have made it obvious. But I didn't, did I.

Dianelos: Yet it's obvious to me.

God: Cut the shit. No it's not.

Dianelos: But You're talking to me now.

God: Hallucinations don't last. Trust me, our little chit chat won't seem nearly so vivid tomorrow.

Dianelos: I'm confused, Lord.

God: It's simple: I don't take sides in human affairs. Ever. So don't look to me for any rules. And don't try to bribe me with your prayers or offerings. I'm not your dictator. And I'm not your imaginary friend. Stop using me as a distraction from the real problems you've got to face in the real relationships with other people in your life.

Sudden poof of smoke; God's chair now empty. Dianelos looks dazed. Curtain falls.

1905. Nato accuses Taliban of using children in suicide missions

Comment #53466 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 3:00 pm

It's not about the virgins for the six year-old martyrs. The kids get a Playstation III and 72 new games.

1906. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53460 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm

whatever the f%£K it is that this bishop is holding

It's to round up the sheep for fleecing.

1907. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53458 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 2:19 pm

If bad weather means God is pissed at you, does nice weather mean He's pleased?

Is it all about me? Me?

Maybe my little joke to weeflea 'bout my enormous cock made God laugh. Blue skies and light breezes all weekend.

Must say: God's a moody bugger.

1908. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53452 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 1:59 pm

J:

Septimus: When we have found all the mysteries and lost all the meaning, we will be alone, on an empty shore.

Thomasina: Then we will dance.

Like this? LINK

1909. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53437 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Dianelos:

So the problem is that they used a permanent link, and not so much that they erred.

Yes. I assume we're all wrong about many things, just as our ancestors were wrong about many things. No shame in being wrong. In fact, I love it when I'm wrong. That's when life gets interesting.

I have a question: Do you think that the fact that a worldview about reality works better than another does not count as evidence, or do you think it does but that the worldview of naturalism works at least as well as my theistic worldview?

Theism doesn't work better than naturalism.

Theism's big problem: who speaks for God? Many people claim to speak for God, including you. But the claims are contradictory. So how do we separate the accurate theists from the inaccurate theists?

1910. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53367 by Dr Benway on July 1, 2007 at 4:42 am

Dianelos:

But I am not giving them that reason, am I? After all the God I believe in is very different from theirs, and I think it's better not to believe in God than to believe in God with all the wrong properties. God with the right properties is an explanation, God with the wrong properties is, hmm, a demon – and belief in demons represents I suppose the very worse kind of superstition.

When you defend your God you defend the God of the fundamentalists as well, unless you have an argument explaining why the basis for your belief is valid and theirs is not. So far, you've only offered personal preference as a basis. That doesn't help, obviously.

I assume you mean I might die in some terrorist attack by zealots.

I was thinking more broadly, including things like the spread of HIV due to religious teaching against condoms, the secondary and tertiary deaths as a result of an era of perpetual war, an imagined theocratic US unleashed upon the world, an Iranian nuke landing on Israel, etc., etc.

1911. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53342 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 9:46 pm

bouwe:

Does Scientology also have tax-free status in the USA? You guys are SCREWED.

Yes. Yes.

1912. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53341 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Spinoza:

...showing that the so-called "God" of believers is not great at all."

Exactly. Until God visits us in person and speaks for Himself, what we've got are a lot of people presuming to speak for God.

Not so great.

1913. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53264 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 12:31 pm

PaulEmecz:

"If morality means 'You should do one thing and you should not do another' then there is no such thing as morality".

Until God appears before us to speak for Himself, the theist has no advantage over the atheist with respect to "absolute morality."

1914. Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift

Comment #53262 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Paradigm, shmeradigm. Are those leeches gonna dissect themselves?

Lunch break over. Back to work!

1915. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #53256 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 12:04 pm

PaulEmecz:

Why don't scientists just admit it and say 'We don't know' rather than saying it was chance?

If the frequency of certain events can be described by probabilistic laws, chance seems a reasonable description.

1916. Scientists Link Housecats to Wildcat Subspecies

Comment #53252 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 11:18 am

Hmmph!

1917. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53249 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 10:26 am

If Behe were to admit the flaws in his argument, what would happen to him?

Perhaps he ought to wait until a sufficient number of fundies have bought his book before he says, "oops!"

1918. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53242 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 9:08 am

PaulEmecz:

It's merely that without God, you are not in a position to say "Someone raped a child - they shouldn't have done that!"

Please, everyone: don't try to talk our friend Paul here out of his belief in God.

Paul, isn't there some other web site you'd like to visit?

1919. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53234 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 8:01 am

Dianelos:

Which I do in believing in God, and which explains why I experience theism as ethically empowering.

The people who planted the car bombs in downtown London today say the exact same thing.

Smart people who defend theisim frighten me. I don't see the intellectual theists offering a legal argument against the fundamentalists. People like McGrath direct their brain power against atheists. They offer mere emotional condemnations of the zealots.

If you don't fight with appeals to reason or law, you fight with force. Force confirms the zealot's sense of righteousness. The zealot requires an appeal to reason, strange as that sounds. Reason combined with overwhelming communal reinforcement.

I want all religionists to say, "FAITH, OR BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IS NOT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR HURTING PEOPLE." The basis for such a statement is simple: we see through a glass darkly.

Dianelos, you won't make the world a better place by persuading the nice folks here that theism is a good thing.

Go persuade the true believer to doubt. The life you save may be your own.

1920. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53230 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 7:37 am

Dianelos:

I suppose their sense of ethics and common decency caught up with their dogmatism and self-interest.

Do you see how you, yourself, judge the theism of others? Some theistic notions are preferable to others. What standard to you use to make these judgments?

If you maintain that you're working this out as best you can along with the rest of us, I've no problem with you.

If you maintain that you know, absolutely, what is right and what is wrong by virtue of your personal divine intuition, well...

1921. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53225 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 7:25 am

Dianelos:

Harris, in that interview, was careful enough to explain that he was not claiming that consciousness could not somehow survive death, but was quite explicit that personality does not survive death...

Seems reasonable, as personality often doesn't survive a bad car accident intact.

1922. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53217 by Dr Benway on June 30, 2007 at 6:50 am

Dianelos:

Observe that what matters here is not whether a person of unconditional love and protection objectively exists, but only that one believes such a person exists. Which I do in believing in God, and which explains why I experience theism as ethically empowering.

God as porn for masturbation love. Sex with an actual partner is usually better than a date with Rosie Palm and her five sisters. But hey, sometimes you are alone.

1923. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53164 by Dr Benway on June 29, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Egg quality worsens exponentially in the mid 30s. Only a small percentage of women have babies in their 40s, although menopause hits in the early 50s.

click here

1924. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53161 by Dr Benway on June 29, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Brilliant. Thanks.

I'd like to hear a similar talk about how natural selection might explain senescence, or the absolute life span of various species. For humans, that absolute is around 110-120 years. Note this is not the same thing as life expectancy, which varies greatly depending upon a number of environmental and behavioral factors.

As a student many years ago, I remember one explanation for why certain insects have brief lives and others hang around longer: deliciousness. Mayflies are apparenty quite tasty. If too many adult mayflies who have already reproduced are flying around, more birds will eat them, and so more birds will learn how good that brand of bug tastes. Hence the short lifespan for mayflies.

Monarch butterflies taste awful apparently. Adult monarchs who have already reproduced can help their offspring by serving as negative advertising to would-be predators. Monarchs live several months, in comparison to the several hours of the mayfly.

Given that female humans stop being fertile in their 30s, why such a long life span? How does natural selection account for the presence of so many old timers among us? Are grandparents somehow necessary for the species?

1925. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #53131 by Dr Benway on June 29, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Nefrubyr:

Have you never been staggeringly drunk? Or even half awake? I know I've been in states I wouldn't describe as fully conscious, when I couldn't string two thoughts together. I imagine being a dog or a chimp must be something like that - able to experience feelings and needs, but not so intelligent as to make much sense of them.

Much of the neocortex is inhibitory. Specific head injuries sometimes result in savant-like skills and heightened sensory sensitivities. In many ways, we may be less aware, less conscious of our environment than some lower animals.

I recommend "Animals in Transation" by Temple Grandin.

1926. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53125 by Dr Benway on June 29, 2007 at 2:48 pm

PaulEmecz:

If there was a higher good, a summum bonum, then there could be morality. There is no higher good in this life. There could be with God in the next life...

Great! Let's ring God and ask how He'd like us to behave. Email me His number and I'll make the call.

1927. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53113 by Dr Benway on June 29, 2007 at 1:04 pm

I'm largely staying out of the ontological chat, which isn't as interesting to me as the ethical implications of Dianelos' worldview. But I'll visit briefly.

Listening to Dianelos reminded me of the flatlanders parable. I googled "flatlander" for a concise presentation, and got hits for "templetonpress.org" and "spiritualpaths.org." Bah.

So my own version: Imagine a 2D world inhabited by 2D creatures. Imagine this world intersecting with a 3D world. When some 3D object passes through the flatland, the creatures there experience a sequence of 2D slices of the object. They try to model and predict what's happening. Finally they stumble on a way to represent an extra dimension they never experience, and they get pretty good at predicting how the slices will change over time. But sometimes the 3D objects move in funny ways - part way in, then out, changing speeds, and the flatlanders can't explain what's happening.

Maybe we're flatlanders in a 4D world nested in a reality of greater dimensions. Maybe this "I" is but one slice of a greater "I", which is something like a repeated signal averaged over time. Maybe you average all these "I"s and you get God.

Thought experiments are cool.

Trouble is, some people take a thought experiment like the flatlanders, or the brain-in-a-vat, and conclude concretely, "therefore God exits."

More troubling, with respect to social pragmatics: God is a sock puppet, as I proved convincingly in a prior post.

God means not having to take seriously the feelings, wishes, and opinions of people who disagree with you or who are impacted by your behavior. If such things were important, God as a concept or reference point would be unnecessary.

1928. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53079 by Dr Benway on June 29, 2007 at 8:42 am

Dianelos:

That according to naturalism objective ethics is always meaningless, whereas I find that some objective ethical precepts are clearly meaningful, accounts for just one of these reasons.

Ethical principles are meaningful, if by "meaningful" you mean worthy of our attention. The problem is that damn word "objective." I don't see how it adds anything other than confusion.

Anthropologists study social mores. They make statements about what people believe, like "The X tribe believes one shouldn't marry a first cousin." It's easy to prove a statement like this as objectively true or false by confirmation or contradiction of the observation by other anthropologists.

But this is not what you mean by "objective."

Imagine we're all starting from scratch with our ethical and legal systems. No history, no holy books. What is our foundation for behavioral rules? What purpose do these rules serve?

Rational ethical systems remind me of Euclidean geometry, in that from a few axiomatic values, one can derive other values. For example, if you accept the golden rule, it follows that you ought not steal or murder. But smart people can always imagine situations where strict application of some rule seems like a bad idea. Some decisions have to be judged with respect to particular contexts. Ergo, juries.

When you speak of "objective ethical precepts" you seem to mean that we all have an intuition regarding how we ought to behave, and that intuition is based upon an inward, direct perception of God. It's like the experience of the color red. It's internal, but it's based upon something external to ourselves. That's why you introduce the word "objective." You support your belief by citing the consensus that exists in support of certain behavioral rules, such as a rule against the gratuitous torture of children.

But there is a more parsimonious way to explain the consensus: humans are more alike than different, and humans require relationships with each other.

No God required.

1929. God Hates the World

Comment #53071 by Dr Benway on June 29, 2007 at 7:52 am

Hi frannk, glad you're here.

I think you'll find a variety of perspectives from the atheists here. People disagree politically. They disagree regarding debate tactics. They disagree regarding language use. What else would you expect from a bunch of "free thinkers"? Vive la difference!

Personally, I'm not bothered by most religious references in casual English. I think from context people know what I mean if I say, "oh God.." or something like that.

If I bark my shins on the coffee table and shout "fuck!" people know I'm not talking about intercourse.

My poetic side wants to anthropomorphize nature from time to time, and I need God to stand in for that purpose. But I've no more belief in a personal God than in a personal Hamlet.

1930. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52974 by Dr Benway on June 28, 2007 at 8:50 pm

USA_Limey:

Sigh....

You went out for popcorn and now you've lost the plot. Allow me to catch you up.

Dianelos:

These go to eleven. It's one louder. (click here)

1931. God Hates the World

Comment #52936 by Dr Benway on June 28, 2007 at 2:53 pm

King Solomon:

To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven...
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Lots of chatter in this thread implying hate is a sin. But hate is a perfectly good emotion, as are all the others.

Hate phobia suggests the thoughtpolice have been by and doublethink is on and fully operational. Check yer brains, mates.

When you say, "I hate..." you also imply, "I love..."
When you say, "I love..." you also imply, "I hate..."

Two sides of a coin.

1932. God Hates the World

Comment #52932 by Dr Benway on June 28, 2007 at 2:42 pm

bluebird:

Dr. Benway, I KNEW your avatar was a tufted tit-mouse (yes, that's its name). I could never catch you to ask.

Hi ho bluebird, glad to see the cats haven't got you. Fuckers, the lot of 'em.

1933. God Hates the World

Comment #52926 by Dr Benway on June 28, 2007 at 2:29 pm

weeflea:

wee titmouse:

I define faith in this context as "belief without evidence." The word "evidence" may require clarification. I mean the sort of evidence you can bring to court.

I find this a bizarre post. First of all you once again define faith in terms which no religion would accept.

Faith, like love, is a word with several meanings and connotations. Sometimes it means optimism. Sometimes it means trust in a person's good will. Sometimes it means "belief without evidence." That is my meaning here.

Secondly you seem to be implying that belief with evidence would justify hurting people.

People hurt others all the time for many reasons. Example: parents deny children unlimited access to ice cream, and many tears are shed as a result. If we ask why this is done, I doubt most parents would offer an appeal to faith.

But I'm not interested in the many reasons people give to justify hurting others. I'm focused upon one reason: faith. I don't believe that's a valid reason for hurting others. Do you agree?

In my view – no belief system with or without evidence, justifies humans torturing other humans.

No one said anything about torture.

Remember, straw men make the baby Jesus cry.

1934. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52890 by Dr Benway on June 28, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Dianelos:

Many bad actions are motivated by greed, i.e. by our desire to acquire more things, but I figure: what's the point? This is only the beginning, and, being a child of God destined to be united with God some time in the very far future, it feels kind of unseemly not to say stupid to spend too much energy trying to acquire things in this life. So I am less greedy than I otherwise would be. Which leaves me more time to discuss with friends :-)

"Can't buy me love..." the song goes.

On a warm summer day, you and a friend stop somewhere for ice cream. It's really good. Unbelievably good. You recall times you stopped for ice cream by yourself, and you notice how much better it tastes when you've a friend along to share it with.

Aren't these kinds of experiences fairly common? Humans are creatures of relationship. Love trumps mere things, at least for most people. No God required to appreciate this.

Addendum: The map of reality I carry around in my head has large sections labeled, "I dunno." In some cases, I could fill in the details with a little study. In other cases, I've got to wait for others to chart their way further into the unknown.

I could change the "I dunno" to "God handles this." But why? Why prematurely assert certainty where none exists?

If evidence comes my way indicating God is there, I stick Him/Her/It on the map. If evidence favors another explanation, that goes on the map. I can't lose either way.

But look at all the theists who wrongly put God on their maps as the explanation for plagues, sickness, the appearance of humans on the planet. Not a big problem if the map makers wrote "God" in pencil. But most used a permanent ink pen, and boy were they screwed.

Dianelos, you connect all the dots you see, and find yourself looking at the face of a friendly God. But maybe there are a bunch of dots still out there. Maybe if all those dots are connected into your "worldview," you end up with a very different pic.

Human super-duper-meta-theories about everything have been more wrong than right over the centuries. Things aren't likely to change soon.

1935. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52834 by Dr Benway on June 28, 2007 at 7:04 am

J:

It seems to me that people's gods are capable of backing up or contradicting pretty much any prejudice or moral concern that they might already have.

Exactly. God is a sockpuppet.

Either God speaks for Himself, or He's got a spokesman. As God hasn't yet appeared before us directly, there's always someone claiming to speak for Him. Conveniently, God tends to want the same things the speaker seems to want.

Kinda makes you go, hmm...

1936. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52646 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Many people must remember the delight of meeting some animal in early childhood. The animal warily looks at you; you at it. If all goes well, a friendship happens.

Doesn't it seem strange that our species has so long asserted consciousness is ours alone?

1937. God Hates the World

Comment #52530 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 7:52 am

weeflea:

the level of rudeness and personal vitriol is quite astonishing for a site in which people claim that they are part of an oasis of clear and rational thinking. It is juvenile, abusive and certainly does the atheist cause no credit.

Look, has anyone here made you into a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite?

If you keep up these womanish protestations over language and a bit of ribbing in good fun, your testicles will retreat up into your belly out of shame.

Think of the boys at the Battle of Britain. Go rent Braveheart or something.

1938. God Hates the World

Comment #52516 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 7:14 am

Philip1978:

My life is not guided by my lack of belief in a god...

Like planning your day by what you didn't eat for breakfast, innit?

1939. God Hates the World

Comment #52514 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 7:02 am

weeflea, I don't have a relationship with Dawkins, and don't expect I ever will. We live thousands of miles apart. He appears to have quite a full life. I doubt he reads the posts here with any regularity.

I enjoy the public Dawkins that I see. If he were in town, I'd be happy to take him out for a coffee and a couple of laughs. But the chances of that are slim to none, as the better half and I live in a tiny nest in the woods near Nowhere USA.

Call me a "follower" of Dawkins if you like. But the good professor might be my follower, for all you know. Not everyone gets named People Magazine's "Sexiest Titmouse Ever."

1940. God Hates the World

Comment #52503 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 6:30 am

weeflea:

Dr Benway - Have a look at post 34 " No Faith (or lack of it) is a justification for hurting people.

The word "no" confuses me. Perhaps because I'm a native speaker of American rather than British English. Can we leave that out and say "faith is not sufficient justification for hurting people?" I think that's what you mean.

I define faith in this context as "belief without evidence." The word "evidence" may require clarification. I mean the sort of evidence you can bring to court.

And no hatred of religion is a justification for posting comments, videos etc which hurt, defame and insult people. Agreed?"

Well, people may have some valid reason for hating religion. Imagine those few young women who escaped from the Phelps group. Imagine apostate Muslims under threat of death. It would seem cruel to me to deny those people free expression of their feelings.

1941. God Hates the World

Comment #52484 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 5:47 am

weeflea:

What do you want us to do? Beat them up?! We have no power over them.

I want you to say, "FAITH, OR BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR HURTING PEOPLE."

If you can't say that, you're just as vile as Phelps.

1942. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52473 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 5:08 am

J:

You have a tactical advantage! Your theistic opponent is reduced to one fighting hand (assuming he doesn't presume to launch divine headbutts) and is wearing only one shoe! Strike while the iron is hot, Dr Benway, strike while the iron is hot!

Excellent plan 007, except for one thing: I'm a fucking tufted titmouse.

1943. God Hates the World

Comment #52447 by Dr Benway on June 27, 2007 at 3:53 am

Crikey mates, you've outdone yourselves!

Now I shall share with you the Three Objectively Funny Things:

1. Farts. Yours, mine, ours - it's all good.
2. An abrupt blow to the testicles. Preferably someone else's.
3. A red-faced, apoplectic Elmer Fudd reaction to "yer mum," and the like. Can be real or imagined.

Knowledge is power, my friends.

1944. God Hates the World

Comment #52345 by Dr Benway on June 26, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Everybody been good?

1945. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #52336 by Dr Benway on June 26, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Dianelos:

If survival on that island depended on solidarity and cooperation then the other person's ontological worldview matters very little anyway. In such situations it's only a question of minimum intelligence to see that the best strategy for survival is indeed solidarity and cooperation.

Survival isn't the only value. But I digress.

Take off a shoe. Take off a sock. Put the sock on your hand. Push the toe end into your palm. Move your fingers and thumb like a mouth talking. Without moving your lips too much, make the sock say, "I am the Lord thy God!"

This sock puppet is the source of all truth, the alpha and omega, the ground of your being, the basis for your theistic worldview, etc., etc. This is it. Right there on your hand. Sing His praises!

What happens on the desert isle when you, me, and God debate an issue? Seems to me I'm outnumbered. Ergo, my preference to leave God out of the affair.

1946. Trio to rock against religion

Comment #52195 by Dr Benway on June 26, 2007 at 12:59 pm

If you speak out against religion you are immediately seen as demonic.

You did name your group "Architecture Of Aggression," so you must want to frighten someone.

Still, I must say: rock on, brave lads.

1947. Germany imposes ban on Tom Cruise

Comment #52093 by Dr Benway on June 26, 2007 at 6:10 am

"He should keep his hands off my father," Mr von Stauffenberg said.

My guess is this is the reason for the fuss.

1948. God Hates the World

Comment #52070 by Dr Benway on June 26, 2007 at 5:00 am

weeflea:

"My strong point is my enormous cock, which your mother seems to enjoy." I'm afraid that this kind of comment (which others later on seem to think witty, incisive and amusing) is all too common on your website....You are feeding a hatred and sickness which is every bit as evil as that espoused by the Phelps.

It's not as funny without your initial comment to me: "obviously logic is not your strong point...." Please include that in future quotes.

I can email some smelling salts if you get the vapors again. But you really must get a grip. I'm an effin' tufted titmouse, fer Christ's sake. I was having you on about the cock.

Please take the "reasonable believer vs. dangerous nutter" challenge: If you can say: "FAITH, OR BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HURTING PEOPLE" I'll know you're not like Phelps. If you can't, well... I must warn you that I'm morally obligated to poop upon you, often and everywhere.

I wouldn't park under any trees if I were you.

With respect to humor:

There are three matters that are objectively funny. Not merely subjectively funny. Objectively funny. That means they are so fucking funny, they would be funny even if no people existed to belly laugh at them. They would be funny even if there were no universe in which they might exist. Dianelos over in the McGrath thread will back me up on this.

If everyone is very good today - objectively good, I may later reveal the three objectively funny things to y'all. But you cannot reveal any of it to Putin and his thugs or to al Qaeda. This information must never be used for evil purposes.

1949. God Hates the World

Comment #51970 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 6:23 pm

The bit I don't get: "You eat your kids." Who eats their kids?

Oh, maybe they're talking about Blue Jays. Fuckers, the lot of 'em.

More 80s sanctification:
Love dares you to care for the people on the edge of the night

1950. God Hates the World

Comment #51963 by Dr Benway on June 25, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Shuggy:

Does anyone know how they reconcile this with John 3:16 - "He used to love the world but we did too much fag-enabling and now He's given up on us"?

Hmm. You must be using a different version. The King James says this:

"For God so hated the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever did not believeth in him should not perish, but might be tortured and burned most horribly in the fires of Hell for all eternity."