151. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #96205 by padster1976 on December 10, 2007 at 6:51 am

Now now everybody. Remember that this is a novel for young adults. It's not going to be Shakespeare is it? It's all down to taste.

On the broader picture, I found Pullmans style to be good. Hence, it may be obvious but I absolutely devoured the book. Also, for those who like this stuff, I recommend Garth Nix's Sabriel series. Top notch Stuff.

It maybe something to be said about taste. I love P K Dick, but not Heinlein. Asimov is amazing, but I never got into A C Clarke.

Tolkein rocked my world when I was small with The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Only I remember that I was disappointed that it was Frodo in the LOR and not my favourite character - Bilbo.

Jonathan Stroud has a fantastic trilogy out called the Bartimeus Trilogy. Highly recommended.

However, Northern Bright may be bristling with the thought of more like Pullman. There's always Peter F Hamilton who invokes that rare feeling in me whenever I read them - jealousy. In that he writes what I would love to write. At least I can read them. North B - try the Reality Dysfunction. It's a little rude in someplaces but is sublime.

For those that dislike any fantasy? How about Jasper Fforde? Simply astounding! Or someone a little older (and dead!) Italo Calvino? His Cosmicomics is a wonderful read.

For full on fantasy, there's George R R Martin's excellent series. The fact that it's fantasy is almost a subplot with some of the best characterisation I've ever read!

It is interesting to note here about Pratchett. Some people love and woe betide any would criticise him in their presence. Ignoring the obvious similarity of books, it's interesting to note the degree of loyalty and defensiveness people give the author. Sane people don't live their lives in accordance with the Discworld series yet the severity of their feeling towards the author is astounding. I used to work in a bookshop and the feelings towards the series were either - not my type or absolute devotion. No-one ever seemed to think 'so-so'.

I love books me. 8)

152. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says

Comment #93226 by padster1976 on December 2, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Beth,

just posted this on the ini's website -

'I have read today that you have forced the resignation of your Science Curriculum Director for being 'biased' against 'Intelligent Design' or as its known colloquially - 'Utter Rubbish'.

Chris Comer is merely doing her job. Promoting Science. Which you should be proud. However, as ID is not science - Dover Vs Pennsilvannia - a) as Science Director, she would know abd b) how can she biased? Its simply not Science.

Your actions speaks volumes. BE please that you are not in the UK - we would eat you alive.

I thought that the rumour that americans are generally thick on average, but hey - more like you and it won't be a rumour!'

Thought the thick bit would generate some response.

153. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93216 by padster1976 on December 2, 2007 at 12:41 pm

'the other driven by a visceral contempt for the personal faith of others.'

- Nah. Other faithiests do that!

'Visceral contempt' - read 'presentation of facts and reality'.

Its just another example of what Dawkins described as the self imposed degree of importance and 'untouchability' of a religious belief.

C'mon! Since when should ignorance be protected!?

154. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92391 by padster1976 on November 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

I've just found the encyclical on the vaticans website - i found this...

'2. Before turning our attention to these timely questions, we must listen a little more closely to the Bible's testimony on hope. "Hope", in fact, is a key word in Biblical faith—so much so that in several passages the words "faith" and "hope" seem interchangeable.'

I would say, most words terms in the bible are interchangeable - mostly there definition.

So much horse shit!

155. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92387 by padster1976 on November 30, 2007 at 12:05 pm

just put this in the debate box under 'Stalin was an atheist' - 'atheism has killed more people than religion'.

That comment about the 'wealth' - how much money has the RC got?

This quote got my attention...

'Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God."'

Er, the Pope did nothing to counter this. As the world is shit, the pope must be saying there is no god.

judging what the RC did with Galileo, I'm not about to except any direction on how we should use technology.

And why isn't he questioned about where he feels his authority to tell us this? Self appointed authority? From 'on high'?

Nice comment on the mentioning of marxism only.

156. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91853 by padster1976 on November 29, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Hmm, interesting article.

It has made me think. One gets 'swinger' parties after all. Perhaps they are the evolved ones? Clearly, they do not have the green eyed monster!

The sexual act is how the species propagate itself so I can see how this aspect of our behaviour may present itself as different. But is it an environmental pressure change? I'e of natural selection. Certainly, if the genes aim is to copy itself as many times, shagging loads is fair way of achieving that! Or perhaps its society pressure? Anti or a counter culture, subversive reaction or revolt against the perceived 'norm' of '1 on 1'.

I thought while reading the article that threesomes don't get bad press. Quite the opposite in fact. A fair feature of erotica. (No shame in knowing that!) ;-P

Those that would start bleating on about STD's etc, well, these are consenting adults and if they wish to do 'it' without any form of protection, then we can disagree, but should not condemn them for it. It is their decision and they have to live with the consequences.

I liked Dawkins questions on the Darwinian perspective. Swans are mates for life however most species i think do not keep monogamous relationships. Indeed, most people will have sex with more than one person. So I suppose in that respect, so longs as its one at a time, is is more acceptable?

I think I can guess some of the criticisms Dawkins will face - promoting promiscuity and being (shudder) unfaithful to the persons partner.

One way of looking at it is that if 'playing away from home' is part of Tarrant's person, then his wife should accept it or look at herself. If my other half went with someone else, yes i'd be hurt but I'd want to know why. There is always the case that they just wanted something different. There's another criticism the article may face - 'relationships are no more important that shoes' - merely change them when you want another pair'. Obviously this over simplifies the nuances of Dawkins argument. Lets face, that's not exactly never happed before. However, the article has provide interesting ways to look at human behaviour. It has certainly made me think - why do we automatically assume the word cheating? what do we mean by that?

Thought provoking and refreshingly different article.

157. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #91485 by padster1976 on November 28, 2007 at 12:41 pm

I have often wondered where Sir D lies on such things. I am glad to find that he is doesn't do a 'francis Collins' or any other scientist with faith.

Sir D's views were so straightforward - how can there be suffering in a world of a 'loving god'? I would like to have Dinesh D'Souza in the same room or at least put these questions to him -

Does God create cancer in Children? Or why do anti-abortionists and Pro-lifers (or is that selective life?) like Bush who do nothing to alleviate 500,000 deaths of children in iraq from over 12 years of sanction? But by omission of an action, worsen the condition?

I won't start a tirade, these 2 points will suffice.

Patrick.

158. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #91107 by padster1976 on November 27, 2007 at 8:44 am

I think I get what Davies is on about...

He implies that the universe is built on certain laws, the 6 numbers that control everything - the weak nuclear force for example.

His main point is that this part of cosmology or whatever 'ology' its comes under is analogous to the 10 commandments - never to be questioned.

If this were true, I'd agree with him. But I don't think he is, so I won't!

I have read that at the moment of the big bang, physics, as we understand them were completely different. It is plausible that the main 'numbers' we know came about in the initial chaos as they 'settled' together. I think it is also plausible, looking at evolution as a analogy, that there were many universes and the most 'fit', or those whose 6 numbers were most suited to each other, allowed the universe to grow. Some may be a little off and therefore sterile or containing different forms of life altogether. However, it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a universe that supports life - otherwise we would not be here to look!

Davies is quite careful NOT to assign a supernatural reason for the reason the universe is the way it is. I would have felt more comfortable if Davies had made the important difference between the contexts and definitions of faith.

The religious side of it, the faith flies in the face of evidence.

However, it must be obvious that if there were some irrefutable evidence that was able to show that the basic laws were somehow different, even at a local level, then scientists would alter their view accordingly.

So, ultimately I think Davies argument is flawed as I feel he views the science/ religious 'faith' in the same context and definition when they are not.

159. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90641 by padster1976 on November 26, 2007 at 1:30 am

'He continued: "To do the prime minister's job properly you need to be able to separate yourself from the magnitude of the consequences of the decisions you are taking the whole time. Which doesn't mean to say … that you're insensitive to the magnitude of those consequences or that you don't feel them deeply.'

So he messed up Iraq and doesn't care?

'I mean … you may go off and sit in the corner and … COMMUNE WITH THE MAN UPSTAIRS and then come back and say 'right, I've been told the answer and that's it'."'

'"You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter.'

Well yes! Quite rightly so.

'The Archbishop of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said: "Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."'

I'd say, my understanding of faith would be that it should not shape out country at all. If Iraq was influenced by Blairs 'faith', hardly a shining example eh?

Mind you, the archbishop doesn't stipulate if the influence is positive or not - just that it has an 'influence'. Can't fault him there. Its another example of the sophisty within the mainstream, organised religion.

If Blair reacted rationally to Iraq, could it have different? I think so.

We need less faith with Iran and some proper dialogue. American exceptionalism needs to be stopped.

Go Chavez!

160. Onward Christian teachers?

Comment #88194 by padster1976 on November 15, 2007 at 7:07 am

Check out -The War for Children's Minds by Stephen Law.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Childrens-Minds-Stephen-Law/dp/0415427681/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195138978&sr=8-5

161. Jesus Camp: A scary movie that should frighten us all

Comment #85320 by padster1976 on November 5, 2007 at 1:36 pm

I always laugh when I see people trying to rationalise their insanity by saying 'at least its not islam/christianity/ judiasm (delete as applicable).

When you see people proudly state that they belive something that cannot be proven, there is that look in their eye. Scary. You cannot have a decent conversation with them. Then they condescend you. Classic.

I had a woman at the door who had a 12 yr old (or thereabouts) last week who asked me if I thought that god was responsible for natural disasters. It was the childs presence that held my tongue.

162. Jesus Camp: A scary movie that should frighten us all

Comment #85319 by padster1976 on November 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm

I imagine this one in a red neck style- like the hillbillies in the simpsons...

AS NUTTY AS THE FUNDIES OF CHRIST ARE
WE WILL NEED THEM TO FIGHT EVEN A NUTTIER BELIEVE ISLAM. MABYE THE MAY TURN ON EACH OTHER. BUT IF THEY RUN TO FORM BOTH WILL TURN ON THE JEWS AS USUAL AS HISTORY SHOWS.
Posted by max bernstein on November 5, 2007 7:57 PM

163. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78562 by padster1976 on October 13, 2007 at 3:52 pm

"There are specific areas of mismatch between what Richard Dawkins may write about and what religious people think they are doing," Williams said

There's an understatement - 'what they think they are doing' - ties nicely with 'Christians would not recognize their religion as it is described by such critics'.

I'm reminded of Hitchins saying then that the 'believer' is not adhering correctly to their faith. He was talking about so-called fanaticism and was attacking 'moderates'.


So I think the jist was that 'god' is entirely personal. So how can they deem to 'know him' and then say he is unknowable and then deem to interpret his wishes into rules on behaviour. Rules that, oh! support certain interests in positions of authority.

164. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62889 by padster1976 on August 12, 2007 at 7:58 am

and another thing...

Moreover, since science essentially takes us wherever the evidence leads, the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research - which have revealed the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life - have thrown into doubt the theory that life emerged spontaneously in a random universe.

REALLY??

Anyone any ideas WHAT she is on about?

165. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62887 by padster1976 on August 12, 2007 at 7:55 am

We are living in a scientific, largely post-religious age in which faith is presented as unscientific superstition

Er, which one?

But where Dawkins goes wrong is to assume this is all as irrational as believing in God.

Slightly missing the point because er, that's exactly what it is.

Chesterton didn't have much useful to say - as for the belief quip above, if you know that he was also an anti-semite, it does through that into a different light. And he preferred something called distributism (check out wikipedia) over capatilism.

Oh yeah, he's a great figure to quote!

The heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is "true for me".

Right, so her is her crux, the danger is 'moral relitavism'. 'I think killing you is ok so I will' nonsense.

This worked for how many in the old testament? The only difference seems to be that the excuse for the act, be it harmful, selfish or good is ok if attributed to god and terrible if done for oneself. This completely ignores the fact the general sense of right/ wrong has improved over time. For example, the aristocrats who used to burn cats alive, in france i think in the 17th/18th century, for entertainment. These days, like this morning for example, there are arguements to halt all blood sports. Well, they have a point. It ain't exactly sport to shot a caged animal is it? (as in pheasents).

why on earth do these ridiculous arguments keep coming round?

This bit beggers belief...

'The most conspicuous example of this is provided by Dawkins himself, who breaks the rules of scientific evidence by seeking to claim that Darwin's theory of evolution - which sought to explain how complex organisms evolved through random natural selection - also accounts for the origin of life itself.

There is no evidence for this whatever and no logic to it. After all, if people say God could not have created the universe because this gives rise to the question "Who created God?", it follows that if scientists say the universe started with a big bang, this prompts the further question "What created the bang?"


She ain't too quick in the old news there is she.

Soooo, her's her argument-

'Bigbang? Noidea! So... gods real yeah?'

Beleive it or not, the author actually has a fairly high opinion of herself.

Hmmm, god, delusion....

166. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55802 by padster1976 on July 12, 2007 at 11:17 am

I got to particular spot that I felt summed up the 2 sides quire well.

Hitchen's of whom i admire on not all areas I may add, it very lucid and puts his argumement across well. For example...

'...Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral. I would principally wish to cite the concept of vicarious redemption, whereby one's own responsibilities can be flung onto a scapegoat and thereby taken away...'

...This exorbitant fantasy of "forgiveness" is unfortunately matched by an equally extreme admonition—which is that the refusal to accept such a sublime offer may be punishable by eternal damnation...'

and...

'...the Old Testament, which speaks hotly in recommending genocide, slavery, genital mutilation, and other horrors, stoops to mention the torture of the dead. Those who tell this evil story to small children are not damned by me, but have been damned by history...'


Here we have the statement followed by an example. There's some 'opinion' in there but once again it is backed up evidence or, as one who is familar with the relevant sections of the 'good book' know he's correct.

However, compare this 'rebuttal'.

'You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are "incredibly immoral." In your book, you make the same point about other religions. Apparently, basic morality is not all that self-evident.'

There you have it in all its penetrating veracity! Here's the short version...

CH - 'christianity is immoral because morality preceeded the 'events' in the old testement by the application of common sense and evidence of history.

DW- 'No it doesn't. Er, that's it.'

167. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #51361 by padster1976 on June 22, 2007 at 1:27 pm

How can we say that killing a child in some cases is good and in other cases it is evil?"

Hypocritical bastard.

How about when its 'one of us'?

How else do you explain the silence on the hundreds of thousands dead iraqi children due to sanctions imposed by britain and the us?

And the greater silence on the deaths of children now? Oh but the outcry over a few cells in the womb!

Shit this stuff makes my blood boil.

168. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48885 by padster1976 on June 9, 2007 at 10:36 am

A few points that I noticed…

'For example there is surely something religious in the communal ecstasy of a rave, or a pop concert, or a play, or a sporting event, or a political rally.'

Is that really an example – i.e. something SPECIFIC?

He might as well have written…

For example, there is surely something religious in er, something else surely.

'Atheism is the belief that the demise of religion, and the rise of "rationality", will make the world a better place. Atheism therefore entails an account of history - a story of liberation from a harmful error called "religion". This narrative is jaw-droppingly naive.'

Dictionary definition of Atheism… (Dictionary.com)

1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Hmm, nothing about 'rationality' there.

Er, nothing about history either.

Oh, I see, this isn't actually an argument. Has anyone thought of the clarity of Harris' writings compared this drivel?

'In reality, "religion" is far wider than a belief in a supernatural power'

Apart from the irony, there is no subtle response for this, er, that's exactly what it is.

'Never mind that plenty of manifestations of religion are simply not guilty of these charges. Evidence that doesn't fit the system is inadmissible'

Such as? Name 10!

'Never mind that only a tiny proportion of British Christians are creationists; there is no room for such awkward facts in the atheist system. And as for the evil of "sexual repression", well, maybe some day all men will be as liberated as Hitch.'

What a great point well made! Does anybody know what he's on about?

'I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice. The intellectual coward is one who chooses simplicity over complexity and difficulty.'

Now come on! Is this guy serious? No really, we need serious discussion here. Stones and glass houses mate. Geddit?

The simplicity and narrow view of the bible is quite astonishing. Perhaps there is a link there with the kind mind that would find something like that appealing. How else can someone ignore the immensity of the universe, the size of a galaxy to the intimate workings of a particle and praise a burning bush and blandly claim for everything that 'god did it'. This is ultimately a statement of the limit of their comprehension. And they want respect for it?

And then there's the charge of wish fulfillment. Yes we die. So does everything else. Including stars. Make the most of what you have and except that the world around us is indifferent to us. That is nature. Does that stop me from admiring landscapes? Mozart? Ugly Betty? No of course not. As I feel that I'm 'here' on a single ticket as it were, I appreciate that it's all I'm going to get. So there's no comforting place for me to go to. And afterwards, when I'm buried and eventually as the sun expands and swallows the earth, my atoms will be dispersed into space along with everything else. Humanity needs to grow up.

Here's the clincher from the Guardian website from someone called 'Acts'

Atheism is a religion like any other. It's an unprovable belief system - after all, you can't prove that there's no God, can you?
And evolution is a religion as well. Despite what everyone seems to think, the theory of evolution is just that: a theory, rather than fact. Which means it's not necessarily true. And it's also unprovable. So it's just another religion - but one that most people believe in by default, because it's widely presented as fact, despite its lowly status as theory.

Despite the chance of sounding pretentious, point this person to a library. (philosophy and science section)

169. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #48767 by padster1976 on June 9, 2007 at 2:44 am

it would be hilarious if not a tragedy in the way they sound like weathermen!

Its going to be dry with rain.

Sunny with clouds.

Hot with cold spots.

I love god but don't think it should play any part in the country.

By keeping this line, I will appeal to most voters.

Pathetic.

170. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48757 by padster1976 on June 9, 2007 at 2:08 am

So her beliefs are ahead of a childs development?

Her colleague was right - she is an extremist. Is she feels strongly enough that witchcraft is an abomination, then she will probably agree that those practising is should be put to death.

And she has access to children?

So does she object to RE lessons when Sikhism, Buddhism and Islam et al are discussed?

171. Lightning damages Jesus statue

Comment #44380 by padster1976 on May 24, 2007 at 1:04 pm

i really hate this type of hypocritcal shit

'Don't look for any religious symbolism here - it was only a freak act of Mother Nature, says Sister Ilaria.'

According to tellybigots like Pat Robertson who tributes Katrina as gods way punishing america for abortion and homosexuality!

Is that any different. This is exactly the sort of evasive apologistic stance that should exclude anyone of a religious persuasion from any serious debate.

Intolerant? As I would anyone with this miniscule amount of sense.

Like Asimov said, the lightning conductor on churches is science's biggest victory.

172. A galactic fossil - Star is found to be 13.2 billion years old

Comment #44277 by padster1976 on May 24, 2007 at 3:16 am

As far as I am aware, early stellar evolution theorises that the first stars were super massive. Egg plant is slightly incorrect in saying that the more massive the star the shorter the life cycle. One does not automatically follow from the other.

The earth is around 4.5 billion years old with the sun a little older than that. That would put the expected lifetime of the sun to be 9 - 10 billion years old. But you have to remember, its only 5 billion now. This star is over twice the age.

What I would be more interested in is the position of this star in relation to the galactic plane and centre. This would tell alot with regards to galaxy formation. I would surmise that this star had siblings that went on to explode and provide the material for star formation that we now call the milky way.

One thing that confuses me though - we look further away to see further back in time. Therefore, if the 'past' is distant, how can this 'fossil' be so near?

Its probably just lis application of logic but do you see what I mean?

Thinking about it now, I know there's something there about the time light travels but I can't shake the feeling that something that old, cannot be that near. I didn't think our galaxy was that old. Expansion of the universe, galaxy formations.

Hmm, still confused.

173. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44071 by padster1976 on May 23, 2007 at 8:52 am

'"Healing teeth is funny, but turning water into wine is funny, spitting on the ground and putting it in a man's eyes is funny," Jones said.'

Mad as a plate of frogs.

174. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44070 by padster1976 on May 23, 2007 at 8:50 am

'Jones' claims have led to him being dubbed the "spiritual tooth fairy"'

No shit.

175. Some US Muslims say suicide attacks OK

Comment #44060 by padster1976 on May 23, 2007 at 8:38 am

kevolved.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the 'nitwits' comments.

I see the right wing comments on TV using the term terror with regards to suicide bombings and remember how they will twist and spin anything to gainthe sympathy vote. Just look at the biased coverage at the illegal occupation of the west bank and gaza strip. These are the same people (well, mainly fox news to be honest) who will go to greats lengths to defend 'their own'- Hannity with C Hitchens for a recent example.

It would appear that their 'opinion', dressed as fact so permeats our psyche, that we sometime forget that there are real people of whom we know nothing about, blowing themselves up. That's a very extreme thing to do.

I often wonder what motivated these people. Sure, religion will play a big major part. But EVERY SINGLE ONE? You have to ask yourselves, some of these people are woman - remembering that islam is a male dominated culture. Were they co-oerced, blackmailed? Who knows!? And thats the point. We just don't know.

Also, you have to admit, it takes a desperate person to do that to themselves. And we certaintly won't get the 'otherside' in our western war cheerleading media.

176. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #44041 by padster1976 on May 23, 2007 at 8:09 am

Where's all the reactionary scare mongerers shrieking 'fundamentalist terrorist'!

Oh, that's right. This is different. Its one of their own.

177. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens

Comment #43435 by padster1976 on May 21, 2007 at 11:45 am

'Leaving aside Falwell's regrettable comment about 9/11, for which he repeatedly apologized, one wonders what beliefs Hitchens is referring to as superstition'

Problem number 1 -

Hitchens rightly critisied Falwells sincerety when it came to the apology. You would not say something so profoundly ridiculous if you didn't believe it. If he was joking then it is in quite poor taste. Bear this in mind, would someone whom has proved their business acumen so well, would have such a poor judgement elsewhere? no.

Problem number 2 -

is this guy serious? He's asking where is the superstition?

Er, walking on water, alchemy, ghosts, holy or otherwise, virgin births, a 'god' in the impossible terms of being omniscient and omnipresent, a burning buh - resurrection. For crying out loud. What a load of misinforming, ill-informed tosh.

It really gets my goat that these people cannot see that there own views are fundamentalist - any of the above is rightly considered extreme. All this talk about only 'they' can be extremists just muddy's the waters further.

Three cheers that the holy prime minister is on the way out!

Tens of thousands dead but its alright, he thought it was good at the time.

Bollocks to the lot of 'em. I'm not in a good mood after reading that. It wasn't even interesting.

178. Hitchens on Falwell

Comment #42756 by padster1976 on May 19, 2007 at 11:20 am

GO CHRIS!!

179. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #41784 by padster1976 on May 17, 2007 at 2:01 am

I just spotted this bit...

'
Marxism still influences some grassroots Catholic activists in Latin America, remnants of the liberation theology movement Benedict worked to crush when he was cardinal. Liberation theology holds that the Christian faith should be reinterpreted specifically to deliver oppressed people from injustice. '

So old Benny 'crushed' a version of the christian faith that should 'deliver oppressed people from injustice'.

Nice. More examples of the 'love' and 'tolerance' that we keep hearing about.

180. Pope Warns of Globalization, Marxism

Comment #41781 by padster1976 on May 17, 2007 at 1:21 am

Pope warns ...

' of unfettered capitalism and globalization.
Before boarding a plane for Rome later Sunday, '

The irony!

he said the two could give ``rise to a worrying degradation of personal dignity through drugs, alcohol and deceptive illusions of happiness.'

'deceptive illusions of happiness'

Whta's stuff like 'god loves me' then?

Is he talking about religion?

181. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40339 by padster1976 on May 14, 2007 at 6:34 am

Who wants to have a laugh?

Take the 'atheist test'.

Classic!

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=231&Category_Code=WOTM-TRACT

182. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37932 by padster1976 on May 6, 2007 at 10:28 am

Right. So there's 'evidence'.

Here we have a chance to have a scientific debate. I'm not a scientist, quite the layman so what he was writing on the board could have been greek. What we need is some other scientists to look at his data and respond.

If its in a book ,then I doubt that his paper has been peer reviewed. Somewhat missing a useful aspect of the scietific method.

Please please please someone clever enough look at what he is saying and give a response.

It could be that what he wrote is nonsense. But we would be doing a disservice to debate if simply shrugging it off. I'm no-way qualified to do so - quite what qualifications that diocese chap has that allows him to say it was 'interesting' remains to be seen.

Be skeptical, but remain open.

Quite how the mathematical language can give an answer to any formula in english is a little suspect.

Whats the response?

183. When Seeing Is Disbelieving

Comment #37347 by padster1976 on May 4, 2007 at 6:39 am

It figures when blair is concerned!

he lied to the UK - 45 minutes, WMD's anyone? And clearly thinks he has done no worng!

That and constantly looking for a 'legacy'.

Presumably other than 1000's dead in the middle east and iraq, crippled health care and welfare system.

My bet is he'll get a present from Bush when he finally goes - a pink collar with the words 'lapdog' printed on it!

184. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36972 by padster1976 on May 3, 2007 at 1:28 am

The only real problem I can see is if someone of non-muslim background is accused of something and the accuser wants a hearing a sharia law court.

Surely then the true 'two tier' system will be put to the test.

As for the Express - yes indeed they are paranoid homo/xeno phobes and is indeed quite, quite a poor quality rag.

However, one must not ignore this. If there is indeed a sharia law in this country, then it must be challanged. Along with the Jewish courts and any other quango court out there.

If the Jewish ones have been here for 'ages' then the undermining of the rule of law has been here for 'ages'.

185. The God Delusion

Comment #36379 by padster1976 on May 1, 2007 at 2:42 am

'it nonetheless finds itself troubled by questions of ethics and by how humanity fits into the vastness of the universe'

That's what philosophy is for - AC Grayling anyone?

One thing that should be stated - and that is where you WON'T find answers to those 'questions' namely self contradicting nonsense 'holy' books.

Other than that, the article I thought was rather good. No name calling which is a nice change.

Don't you just love Bill O'Really. I still laugh at his 'tides in, tides out. Sun goes up, sun goes down'. Classic.

186. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #35398 by padster1976 on April 27, 2007 at 4:00 am

'Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development.'

I stopped reading after that. Well adjusted?

Watch the jesus camp clips on youtube and try and say that again!

187. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #35395 by padster1976 on April 27, 2007 at 3:58 am

I love Hitchins' writings!

As for the war stance, wellll, thats a different matter. No-one is right all the time.

That's one of the benefits of having an open mind and the fuction of dialogue.

I'm sure Chris has his reasons. I haven't a clue what they are but in terms of his opinion I'd like to hear it as I have great respect for him.

Doesn't mean I have to agree though. Provided my objections are valid!

188. In the beginning

Comment #34405 by padster1976 on April 24, 2007 at 1:38 am

I like the way the pope will state that 'evolution cannot be conclusively proved'.

If only he'd look at his own beliefs with the same degree of scrutiny!

189. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33379 by padster1976 on April 20, 2007 at 1:20 am

The Bush's administration often has a singular viewpoint on how to interpret human rights. Yet there must be some way to protect the families of those killed!

As America is a democrasy/ plutocracy, there is still a secular way to deal with these people.

Obviously, simply shouting them down would only add fire to their rhetoric however, as in the Dover trial of '06, let them have their day in court to fully voice their opinion and let them have due process.

Its a safe bet that the damning that ID got from Dover, will be meted out for them as well.

These people has something to say, let them have and see if they're humiliated or not.

We had a program here on the BBC in the UK where the reporter spent some time with the family.

90% of the time they were a normal family yet theres the 1 facet of their lives that was just pure hate. It all comes from the grand-daddy. Get him in court and we'll see what he has to say.

Guaranteed laughs!

190. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #33107 by padster1976 on April 19, 2007 at 7:57 am

Chamber,

'All right. In my room , there is a wooden dining table. Now I say this wooden table was made by a carpenter but you say this table was made by chances out of a tree. Tree mutated again and again and finally evolved into a table(!)'

WTF!?

When I stopped laughing, I decided that you probably can't tell the difference between your arse and your elbow.

Our discussion is over.

191. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32727 by padster1976 on April 18, 2007 at 5:49 am

Chamber,

Clearly, you've never had an independant thought in your life. However, as with 'swearing', so what? That's just a class perspective - 'erotica' was the taste of the elite until the bewildered herd got hold it. Then it was horrible 'porn'. So what is swearing?

As for what your saying - Horseshit, crap, nonsense, tosh, twaddle, bollocks. Many, many words, all convey a similiar meaning in the context of being used as decriptive term for your opinion.

And of course, its fine to have an opinion and its great that a forum like this exists where one can air their opinion.

However, you do appear to taking the piss out everything here. I can't see where you have actually stated your beliefs, if they are indeed embedded in the supernatural. Are they?

You describe evolutions 'funny stories' - such as...? Please tell us.

Your blogs appear to have a rather arrogant and dismissive aloofness about them. I wonder how sincere you truly feel about what you say

Please, respond.

192. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32513 by padster1976 on April 17, 2007 at 8:40 am

Chambers,

I don't normally get irritated by ignorance but as you're resisting our attempts to broaden your mind...

The website you posted... yeah, real slick and professional. When was it first put up, 1997?

It's just another variation on god of the gaps. Science hasn't explained it fully YET, so insert generic deity.

I liked this bit...

'Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator.'

Horseshit mate. Sorry. Actually, I'm not sorry.

Check these out. Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primeval_soup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genes

Wikipedia also comes in many languages. How helpful!

193. New Primate Species Found In 42 Million-year-old Texas Fossils

Comment #32223 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 8:29 am

To Laurence Winch-Furness,

I thought the same thing when I read just the title - and the irony...

A major scientific find in texas.

Why, I do think it qualifies as an oxymoron!

194. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32216 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 8:04 am

Chamber,

You didn't come from a worm Well done. However, Humans and worms share a common ancestor. Understand?

Imagine a tree. Each branch represents a specie. Here we can see that 'close relatives' would be near each other and the gentically further away another specie is, the further away the branch. Also, the technical term 'speciation' would be represented by a 'new' branch coming off an existing branch.

All you have to do is find the 'human branch' and 'worm branch' and 'see' how far you have to go back until the two branches are joined to the same one. See? Common ancestry.

And as for going up in space, we can discover planets from earth and as for communication, that would be why we send up satellites.

If you think evolution is a funny story, you must really piss your pants when you read 'slaughter of the innocents'.

(note - I do not know if the identity of this common ancester is. Does anybody?)

As for teaching your 8yr old - simply because YOU do not understand it, it doesn't follow that it must be false. You are suffering from 'personal incredulity' and is not a persuasive counter argument to fossils, genetics etc. To teach, one must understand. You clearly do not.

So as Graeme says, leave it to someone who can. And let her make her own mind up.

195. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #32208 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 7:30 am

"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability," he said.

WTF does that mean?

'Rational', 'choosing'? I am aghast that he is implying that the process of evolution has some degree of awareness and thinks about what mutations to produce. I haven't a clue about the 'low probabilty' bit. Utter crap and nonsense.

"This ... inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science ... where did this rationality come from?" he asked. Answering his own question, he said it came from the "creative reason" of God.

Came from the pontiff's arse is more likely. That statement didn't mean or convey a single iota of information.

one word...

shit.

196. The Age of Darwin

Comment #32203 by padster1976 on April 16, 2007 at 7:07 am

He still used the 'g' word.

He seems to take advantage of an ambiguous definition of god. He 'may' have existed and he 'may' have started it. Brooks would've look a complete twat if he then said anything else other than 'he's not active' because it would clearly have contradicted the general jist of the piece. That the way the world works, a 'supreme being' isn't necessary.

Or maybe he's genuine and thinks there is a weakness in the Theocratic rule of the Bush Taliban.

197. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32025 by padster1976 on April 15, 2007 at 9:23 am

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about."

What a piss-take!

198. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32023 by padster1976 on April 15, 2007 at 9:16 am

Vile and disgusting.

No wonder I keep 'forgetting' that islam is a religion of 'peace'.

199. How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang? In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive

Comment #31737 by padster1976 on April 14, 2007 at 3:49 am

'The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago created equal amounts of matter and antimatter'

In Martin Rees' book 'Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe', he talks about the ratio of anti-matter and matter at the start of the universe.

He concluded that more matter was created than its counter-part with all the anti matter being annihilated. The consequence being that there was surplas material left over to develop into what we know of the universe.

This is why there is matter in the universe and the only antimatter is that created in labs. Which are unstable and therefore decay very quickly.

200. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #31167 by padster1976 on April 11, 2007 at 8:47 am

I have written this to Mr Anderson.

From: "PATRICK WALSH"

Subject: Re: Bruce Anderson's article published 09.04.07 - Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

To: newseditor@independent.co.uk

Dear whomever this may concern,

Simply put, Mr Anderson's article is a load of rubbish.

I mean, lets cut the crap here. 'Belief' in the sense he extolls, ie you accept for truth that which cannot be empircally proved, makes no more intellectual impact nor is more persuasive than the belief in fairies.

To claim that your life is or should be run by these set of 'beliefs' and that they somehow provide a moral framework is incredible.

This bit deserves derision -

'atheists have an easier task than theists. In order to deny the existence of God, it is only necessary to accept one proposition. Believers have to try to understand what they believe.'

Anderson's statement 'Believers have to try to understand what they believe.' is surely saying 'I'm putting ones hands up to how difficult and increasingly absurd it is to continue to claim 'virgin births' and 'God exists' in the face of Science.

Lets face it Mr Anderson, you hark for the days before Copernicus. Oh dear.

'Faith' is not something to be proud of and unflinching certainty in a multi faceted world is not a virtue. It makes you dangerous, dogmatic, fanatic and many more things unpleasent.

I would trust someone who wants to help me because they want to rather than someone who thinks that if they don't help, they are going to be eternally punished. In a way, its selfish and certainly not moral - working under duress is highly unethical. In that vein, its rather like slavery. Do you wish to live in slavery Mr Anderson? Slavery to your 'god'?

Not me.

Yours sincerely,

Patrick J Walsh