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 phasmagigas


351. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #122096 by phasmagigas on February 4, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Oh, and when can a man of the ID cloth put forward their theory and evidence without ever mentioning the words 'Darwin' and 'evolution'? Because they cannot.


a good point!!!! in fact simmons said barely anything atall that had any relevant meaning, pure hogwash. it was one of the weakest 'performances' ive heard from an ID advocate, then again they have nothing to put forward at best and likely never will.

352. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121786 by phasmagigas on February 4, 2008 at 6:52 am

'At the First Baptist Church in Summerfield, N.C., the Rev. Richard Odom canceled plans to host 500 people. "God didn't command us to watch the Super Bowl," he says.'

thats funny, i actually agree with this guy!!

353. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121785 by phasmagigas on February 4, 2008 at 6:49 am

Let's not forget the fact that this guy Simmons is a medical doctor! I would be horrified to find out my medico didn't believe in evolution.

In fact this is a question I've asked (in a round anout way)that started a fascinating conversation. Luckily she isn't insane and, as it turns out, is a Dawkins fan. Phew... I hope Simmons isn't still practising


thats the scary thing, you had to ask in a roundabout way. the last time i went to my doctor here in the USA i remember realising it was just possible (call me paranoid) that if this guy is a raving fundie and i at any point in the future mention evolution (eg, imagine you were discussing diet and i said something like 'i suppose the optimal diet is that which mirrors that which weve eaten over the last few 1000 years of our evolution') and he suddenly thinks 'oh dear an evil evolutionist, his welfare is a bit lower on my list of priorities now'. its sad that i feel I have to keep my rationalism to myself. luckily i have a doc friend in the UK who is a a raving fundy rationalist who i can ask for second opinions!!

354. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120820 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm

ok. i now see that antievolution.org is a pro evo site that questions antievolution.

see, tahts the thing, i read a thread about noahs ark and how to get rid of animal excrement which led to talk on diapers and of course its hard to distinguish critical/facetious/comedic questions from an evolution supporter over a creationists ignorance. I actually thought that some creationist was talking about animal diapers, and would anybody laugh at me for thinking that could be a possibility??

thats the point, its hard to tell creationist nonsense from real nonsense.

355. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120814 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 3:43 pm

You'd think that physicians, knowing very well how vulnerable the human body is to environmental insults, would be rather inclined to think that we could not possibly be the product of an omniscient designer.

The wards are full of evidence that either "it" does not exist or "it" couldn't care less. Someone else commented on another thread that "physicians tend to play god because someone has to". Sad but ture.


yes. last week i was bit by a dog and it very easily left some nice puncture wounds and ragged flesh on my hand, seconds after the attack i realised that in times gone by my body could have been so easily shredded and swallowed by some predator (or even present times, car, bomb!), not the slightest hint of being special atall. thats what i cannot bear about the creationist mind is our being 'special' it reeks to much of an oprah show. In some ways truly recognising our non special position is actually adaptive, as a result i am perhaps more cautious/careful than the average person (who would be a believer).

356. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120775 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm

in looking briefly at antievolution.org because of gbiles post i quickly began to wonder if this was a parody site, and im still not quite sure. I dont expect great things from anti evo sites but i didnt expect what sounds like a group of 3 year olds discussing what noah must have done with all the excrement, well somebody did ask a good question!!! its is all more pathetic than i could have ever believed.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47a4de69573a8e13;act=ST;f=2;t=5008

no, it is a parody site yes?? am i so stupid to think for one moment its not?? they are talking about animal diapers.

357. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120766 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 1:06 pm



Mr Myers, I came across this comment at antievolution.org about the debate:

DLH: I understood PZ to say that the details evolution of the brain were well known.

Myers is lying, of course. He can get away with lying in a public debate because he comes off as being knowledgeable. The fact is that evolution cannot explain why the hemispheres are crisscrossed. This is an extremely over-complicated architecture with no survival value. Besides, there are no missing links with a non-crisscrossed architecture. Heck, evolution cannot explain why animals need two hemispheres in the first place let alone why they are organized in such a weird manner. After all, roboticists do not design double neural networks in the brains of their robots. Finally, evolution does not explain why humans �quot;evolved” their inordinate infatuation with music and the arts. There are so many aspects of the brain that defy an evolutionary explanation that it’s hard to fathom how anybody with a modicum of honesty would fall for this nonsense.

Like I said previously, we are not going to win this war with honest arguments. If arguments could do it, it would have done it already. The enemy is fighting a political war, not a scientific one. They will lie as often as they have to. They are well equipped for it. Myers is a skilled and consummate liar, in my opinion. end of original quote.

gbile's post.....

It is difficult to estimate how many 'antievolutionists' think along these lines, but I expect that their number is large. I admire your effort to bring some light into the fog that occupies these peoples brains. I hope that you, and others will continue to do so. In the end reason will prevail ...



gbile,. thanks for pointing out this nonsense.

lets see, over comlicated architecture with no survival advantage???? asides from the fact this is an argument from personal incredulity it sounds like precisely the kind of thing youd find if evolution were true and the opposite if design were true.

the fact is even if the 2 hemisphere brain is 'over complex and inefficient' (oh my god, just how the hell is any human on this planet able to decide the brain is OVER COMPLEX, its like waking up one morning and screaming that we have too many toes, or a snake deciding its too scaley!!

the fact is if its the best version out there it will survive regardless. if only those IDiots understood evolution in the first place. so anyway what the author of the original post is saying is that god created an inefficient over complex brain, i thought god was perfect and he criticises the work!! anyway PZ maybe you can give us a quick rundown on criscrossed brain architecture, has it always been so? when did it appear? im sure there are no missing links as brains tend not to fossilise right??

358. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120651 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 8:14 am

radesq

phasmagigas: I actually agree that it is sensible that theists would not be theists if they would just be rational. It just seems to me that they must be rational about other aspects of their life or they wouldn't live very long. Teratornis (I think) is telling me that theists may have common sense but that is different. Perhaps he's right. It just seems to me like we are very close to stating the argument as - if you all don't agree with me on this it is because you are stupid. This is why I like the title of the book "The God Delusion" over alternates like "The God F*cktardity"


i totally agree that creationists can be perfectly rational atall othe rtimes, a creationist jet pilot is quite capable of flying a plane (i am not) or deciding which of two types of nut have most protein based on the nutrition infomation on the side of the packet (i can manage that) its just that when it comes to transitional fossils, genomes, biogeography, the geologic evidence they just willnot/cannot accept it. thats what i think is strange.

359. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #120624 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 6:30 am

classic:

dawkins: 'the problem is burning bushes dont suddenly appear'

christain fundamentalist: 'so why arent there any half fish half alligators?'

this is pure comedy, you could hardly make it up, its like life imitating parody.

dawkins answered well and in particular tied up the last call well with a nice summary, the creationist fortunately displayed their typical attributes for all to see: ignorance, inability to accept evidence and use of ad hominem.

the creationist inability to accept even the physical prescence of transitional fossils (and all fossils are transitional if they left descendents) makes me wonder what is happening inside their heads, it opens the possibilityu for some interesting (non exploratory!) experiments.





360. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120619 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 6:10 am

from the video it was intersting to see the moderators insistence that boteach explain what he meant by god, boteach answers with an almost d'sousaesque whining and pleading 'he who..., he who...., he who...., he who i am somethimes angry at...

hes not providing any useful answer, instead hes attempting to win over like minds by emotional pleading, this is a common tactic ive noticed with creationists/religious people, things like 'you know your grandma wasnt a monkey' they are oftren rolled up and disguised within facetious comments to waste time and entrap unsophisticated listners.

361. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120604 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 5:44 am

It's not amazing when a theist, creationist, or intelligent design advocate demonstrates breathtaking ignorance of critical thinking, the findings of science, and so on. If the irrational person understood all that stuff, he would be on the side of rationality.


makes sense.

362. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120602 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 5:34 am

i was very happy that PZ remarked that the title of the debate was a stupid question right at the outset, and said it was like asking is plumbing a faith issue. In many ways pz did the right thing at every step of the way, that along with exlaining the meaning of the word theory was so needed. the creationist false arguments involving 'theory' and 'evo as faith' need to be exposed to as wide an audience as possible. there nothing more annoying that a biblical literalist shouting that evo is merely a faith proposition when they run their lives by one.

generally, if i get into a conversation with a creationist on evo(if the subject comes up, i never initiate it) I have a rule, I NEVER ASK THEM QUESTIONS (except at the end), simply because they have nothing to tell me, i let them do the asking and trust me they will ask lots of stupid questions that you can lovingly dissect out. after each answer i keep my mouth firmly shut until they cannot bear it any longer and they ask another silly question and so on, it works quite well. if the craetionist has reamained calm i will pose them a question at the very end of the conversation, something like 'next time i see you give me a good reason why humans share more of their genome with chimps than either do with gorillas' its a next time i see you question as unless they want to try and make up an answer on the spot they may feel like they need to go away and reaserch it. note you will get a different answer each time.

the last conversation i had with one it was on selective breeding of silver foxes, we werent talking creation/evo just selective breeding. i said its amazing how quickly the changes can occur in the foxs behaviour/body after so few years, and his reply was words to the effect 'ah, yes, that shows what a lot of nonsense darwins theory was doesnt it'.

he probably expected me to agree but i said very matter of factly 'hmm, actually it demonstrates it perfectlty, you have variable animals, you select the ones to breed from, they pass on their traits via genes, the offspring population genome is now different from that of the previous population, technically thats evolution.

im not sure how the creationist mind works but when selective breeding is seen as somehow evidence against evo Im not sure what to think.

anyway that ended the conversation and he didnt mention silver foxes after that, maybe it gave him food for thought......

363. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120598 by phasmagigas on February 2, 2008 at 5:11 am

Read this and weep Dr. Simmons http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/hind_limb_bu

Note the embryo dolphin has typical tetrapod limb buds. The nostrils too are in the "normal" place , i.e. at the anterior end of the head , but they migrate towards the top of the head as the foetus develops.




wow, the photos of that dolphin embryo are incredible, the later x ray shots are very moving.

To see that exquisite creature in miniature with its hind limb bones makes one realise just how dangerous pathetic minds like those of simmons are when he didnt even know the names of transitional form whales but still felt he was in aposition to talk on the subject.

One of the tactics of the DI is to disseminate lies to as wide an audience as possible fully knowing that a high % of listerners/readers somehow do not have the mental capacity to determine bullshit from fact, its irrelevant that they know they are lying, thats why they keep in doing it, the ends justifies the means.

364. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120454 by phasmagigas on February 1, 2008 at 4:53 pm

this debate is actually a very good example of logical fallacies and lies easily noted, a great educational tool.

365. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120425 by phasmagigas on February 1, 2008 at 4:06 pm

ive commented several times over on pharyngula so wont bother here. Simmons managed to convince me of his utter ineptitude as a speaker (and thats irrelevant of course) but importantly that one of the DI's main men had absolutely ZERO to say, that whole manic, flailing, almost begging summary at the end was one of the most pathetic thigs ive ever heard anybody say about anything.

PZ wiped the floor with him and he knew it, even the follow up (now deleted!) thread on uncommon descent had creationists admitting that simmons 'lost' the debate. the ID bunch are a strange lot when even though the average 14 year old could whip them in a debate for lack of content they still keep plugging those lies, and they do a lot of that.

366. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120278 by phasmagigas on February 1, 2008 at 11:33 am

i always thought that many catholic clergy actually specialised in shattering human dignity, ah but of course im wrong as it didnt involve any possibility of natural fertilisation, boys cant get pregnant.

367. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119449 by phasmagigas on January 31, 2008 at 3:53 pm

this business about religious people being healthier than those who are not has got zero to do with god/no god of course (a side point)

the reason they are could well be the fact that they know they are part of a big happy group and not some minority who have to hide away their position most of the time. even minority persecuted religious groups may be healthier as they still form part of a cohesive group known to them most of the time, often with familial and other cultural ties. ive been in the usa for a few years now and have yet to meet an actual declared full on atheist, theres lots of people round here though who are more than happy to engage in religious conversation/functions and make no bones about making it public.

368. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119032 by phasmagigas on January 31, 2008 at 9:23 am

Don't be so obtuse. You know exactly the point I was making.


haha, i remember once asking DG if he believed in heaven anh he said something like 'first, just what do you mean by heaven', what a joker.

369. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119007 by phasmagigas on January 31, 2008 at 9:04 am

i stay well clear from the physics and philosophy, I just cant do it, evolution is a bit more down to earth, theres no ifs and buts only facts (you know, like any given genome or shape of a bone, and if somebody out there says 'but what is a fact?' well im not sure but whatever one is, i know that using 'facts' at least lets me function well in society, keep myself alive etc so i'll stick to them for now.

370. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118993 by phasmagigas on January 31, 2008 at 8:53 am

there are some very creepy people on here at the moment, what do i mean by creepy? well its that instinctive (probably) hardwired by evolution sensation that you get when you feel somebody just isnt all they are presenting to the world, kind of like that ted haggard bloke, how people could cheer in from of that guy is beyond me. The type of people that dogs shy away from. person to person its often noticed by something in the look of the eyes, they are a bit wider than normal, maybe they blink less or something, and invariably a rather nervous and manic smile, a bit like when you give a toddler something new and they arent quite sure if they want it or not.

371. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118575 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Although dualism doesn't necessarily imply theism, it opens the door to postulating metaphysical entities,


generally if there is a god then thats fine but i bet jesus, mohammed, gay sex, sundays, blasphemy, pork and circumcision are not important to it.

372. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118500 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Hi Guys, somebody issue a challenge to atheist for debate over here: http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2008/01/god-is-necessary-precondition-for.html

Dare to take the challenge?

Regards,

DawkinsSucks


i dare not as its for you to show what you assert not for me to unassert it. I personally believe that the Queen dijinn of sandy desert is a precondition for reason but it would be silly of me to ask you to show she (who must be obeyed)isnt.

373. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118401 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Skimming through the blog review Gonads gave, Vox's case seems to be that both atheists and theists are irrational, that humans are unavoidably and inescapably irrational, and therefore, I assume inadequate instruments for sussing out the whole God problem.

So...it's pretty much postmodernism in rationalist clothing.


hmm, on second thoughts maybe i'll borrow it and read a bit and see what happens, im reading the rather nice 'evolution, fossils.....by donald prothero, its recommended for the general unskeptic as it doesnt really get into the fossils for a while, it covers science and skepticism first to set the tone.

374. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118394 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Phasmigigas Quote - "i hope theres some genuine falsification of evolution in there, ive been waiting for that for ages."

Nothing to do with evolution. Like me, I think Day has no issue with evolution.


ah damn, thats the only bit i can get my teeth into. then again i was expecting an easy target, those creationists dont have a leg or flipper to stand on. anyway if its in the library i will borrow it and see what ive been missing.

375. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118360 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Scared to read it.

Your responses are laughable, but expected.

Vox Day has made mincemeat out of your illustrious leader.

Read TIA and weep. Read it and weep.


i'll get it from the library, i also have the pocket atheist on order from there, cant say im not being 'fair' as they say. i hope theres some genuine falsification of evolution in there, ive been waiting for that for ages. leader? when people accuse me of havuing a leader i tend to ignore them, remember ruht? he was one of those, atheists tend to not follow any leaders, you dont see any of that hand clapping, crying and general idiocy you see in mega churches and oprah shows, theres devotion for you.

376. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118251 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 2:07 pm

But since the Will to Power exists with distressing, Darwininan frequency among the more-charismatic males of the species, and since statistical historical evidence suggests that Atheism+Will To Power=Rampant Genocide, even of one's own subjects, to a greater order of magnitude than Theism+Will To Power ever did, it Gives One Pause.


so is their a theistic explanation for the distressing frequency at which males want power? Think of mega church leaders, maybe god grants them power??

if the regimes of stalin, pot and hitler wiped out more people combined than any other ideological systems then thats probably because they had modern weaponry at their disposal, not because they didnt believe in god.

377. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118065 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 9:33 am

It is a statement of the fact that our beliefs about right and wrong, justice and injustice, have a supernatural origin - they are the result of human beings having been created in the image of the transcndent and also personal freely-choosing Source of justice and morality.


dodger,

i am quaking in my booties.

are you still praying for those paedophile priests to try and remove their free willed urges? well thats what the pope reckons catholics at least should do but i suppose all christains should at least consider it well meaning. seems strange that if praying can remove their urges then where goes the free will??? and then why doesnt the pope tell catholics to pray to remove the urges of all bad types?? Its always seemed odd to me that god is interested in the fact (for example)that some men sleep together but isnt interested when a 5 year old kid is tied up in some basement and abused for weeks. yes, very strange to me indeed.

378. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118057 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 9:25 am

dodger.

So-called Christians who use brutality to further the aims of the Church fly in the face of Jesus' explicit command. "My kingdom is not of this world. If it was, my servants would fight". He commanded his followers to put away their swords. When they don't they are disobeying him, even if they say they are fighting in his name.


you are so entirely missing the point, its irrelevant that YOU think these people arent true christians (whatever that means, just how many 100's of versions are there and which is the true one?), THEY DO, just like every islamic beheader follows the true path unlike those wannabe muslims they so despise.

379. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118052 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 9:20 am

I am just pointing out that it is ludicrous to say that the brutality perpetrated by atheist leaders has nothing to do with their atheism.


dodger

can you give 1 verified example where any brutality was carried out for the sole reason that the brutaliser didnt believe in god?? in a nut shell has any person ever brutalised another and thought 'this is because there is no god'. I can bet through history there have been literally millions of cases where a brutalier thought 'this is for my god', 'this is because of my god', 'this if for my religion', 'you dont believe in my god'.

interestingly as a kid at school i remember a venomous spitting match between a hindu boy and a muslim girl, only the sex difference perhaps averted physical violence but even at the tender age of 13 these two were hurling insults at each other 'you believe in one god' 'you idiot, you believe in lots' , lets just say that had they both been atheist they have had nothing to be so certain of.

380. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117984 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 6:10 am

if i walk down a street in a rough neighbourhood in the USA I will be minding my own business as normal, i wouldn't deliberately attack or rob anybody, call names or intimitade anyone, if that same happens to me i wonder what the chances are of that person believing in god? Quite high methinks. On a few occasions i have been so hassled (not robbed/attacked thankfully) but i wonder if i should ask the next guy, 'do you beleive in god'?

Thats doesnt say that the belief made him do it but it does say it doesnt actually stop it.

381. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117980 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 5:54 am

I am reminded of a little known fact from the Scopes "Monkey Trial." Clarence Darrow was the progress-happy lawyer for the evolution-teaching defendant, and how much he has anticipated the new atheists! As Peter Berger dryly noted in his book A Rumor of Angels, Darrow was "an admirable man in many ways, but one dense enough sincerely to believe that a Darwinist view of man could serve as a basis for his opposition to capital punishment." Such obtuseness is shared by most liberals today, who merrily fuse opposition to capital punishment, support for abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, condemnation of racism, and a vaguely appreciative acquaintance with evolutionary theorywithout the least sense of the impossible dilemmas entailed in these contradictory positions.


im not sure what this guy is actually saying, does he actually believe that atheists (or 'liberals') decide upon all because of their 'vaguely appreciative acquaintence with evolutionary theory' and that somehow makes it impossible to on one hand oppose death (capital punishment) and on the other to support it (assisted suicide).

Is he opposed to their reasoning or their positions?? and what has evolutionary theory got to do with capital punishment or assisted suicide or abortion anyway.

oakes is a blundering fool, what hes basically saying is that if you accept evolutionary theory that means to do anything vaguely 'nice' puts you in an impossible dilemma, so your reasons are wrong so goddit!

382. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117974 by phasmagigas on January 30, 2008 at 5:33 am

so this oakes bloke thinks that atheism leads to might is right and all that.

Hmm, so does that mean i should be looking at my dogs, and seeing the physically weakest one (the smallest) as having no right to live, so i should kill it, oh but then that leaves the second smallest dog being the weakest, should i kill that one too, and my strongest dog, well compared to the neighbours rottweiler he a baby so i'll kill that too, in fact maybe I should become an atheist whirling dervish of destruction and just kill and destroy everything in my path, actually im not sure i know how to do that very efficiently, but i know of a few faithful who do, it involves strapping bombs to my body.

383. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117819 by phasmagigas on January 29, 2008 at 5:59 pm

As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we're already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it's not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.


fucking hysterical. your BS is as bad as mine, talk about talking utter shit and shooting yourself in the foot at the same time. the author is a fool.

384. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115962 by phasmagigas on January 25, 2008 at 6:21 am

ive not seen the video but the comments remind me that some people are just prone to believe shit and others arent.

As a geeky teennager I collected fantasy mental miniatures (still got most of em!), my loony aunt whos head is awash with snippets of islam, fear of homosexuals, general woo, oh and who hasnt read a book in decades (aside from bits of the quran) asked me back then 'dont these scary little figures give you weird dreams?' as a 13 year old i remember thinking 'weird dreams? from collecting metal monsters, and 'scary' huh??????' i knew from that point that some people were very easily persuaded by the most ridiculous notions and i wasnt going to be one of them.

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

Comment #115943 by phasmagigas on January 25, 2008 at 5:19 am

Also from Leviticus: apparently eating shellfish is also an abomination (Lev. 11:10). I wonder how this compares with homosexuality and wonder if we'll see the WBC faith-heads picketing the local sushi bar.


probably not, the difference being that phelps doesnt care for shellfish in the same way that he (probably) cares for gay sex.

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

Comment #115742 by phasmagigas on January 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm

interesting how people like missc77 appear now and again, my favourites are the 'how can we be from mokeys, PROVE IT! idiot athists' within a few dozen posts they realise that they have been dwelling in a tiny isolated intellectual bubble of like minded friends and family, they find their ignorant comments thoroughly dissected and swallowed, it at least might give them food for thought.

MissC77 is a classic example, he/she enters the forum feeling thay have someting worthwhile to say without knowing what fallacy even means. the sad thing is these people dont even know their intellectual level, in their defence some of them do admit they dont know all, (rev cort was a good example although rev wasnt intellectually deficient he was just a creationist poor chap), some of us hammered evolution at him and he eventually starting realising that the whole enterprise was way unknown to him and actually intellectually stimulating, he seemed to go away saying he would actually read up on it!!

its fine to have an opinion on homosexuality but what reliogious bigots just dont understand is that the people on this board are WAY past judging people on their sexual preferences, WAY past, people bashing gays now are the types who would have hung black people (or at least supported it)had they lived back when......

387. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114029 by phasmagigas on January 21, 2008 at 8:46 am

the US is a strange place. going off on a related tangent here but hear this: a young guy i know went to a probation assessment hearing and amongst the questions relating to his 'improvements' post his minor criminal activities he was asked in effect 'are you straight or homosexual?' 'do you practice safe sex'? and 'what are your religious beliefs?'

i was totally shocked, theres something very, very wrong with that. I wonder how the probation employees would have responded had the guy said im gay, i dont practice safe sex and im an atheist.

388. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says

Comment #111611 by phasmagigas on January 15, 2008 at 6:37 am

generally, I would like to ask school officials, school governers and even the present/next US president 'do you accept evolution to be true?' answer yes or no (to avoid the learned answers including words like 'fair' and 'balanced' and 'theory').

If the answer is no then i would continue with 'so you are saying that biology teachers across the USA are teaching children actual lies? answer yes or no.

If their answer is yes (which it has to be at this point) then I would ask them 'so why are you not marching en masse across the USA protesting this teaching of actual lies to children'?


if my child was being taught creationism in science i would join an en masse protest, why dont the creationists do the same? if their convictions are so strong and they are so right just how can they possibly allow the lies of evolution be taught to their children????

I think the initial question should be posed to the next US president, if he/she answered yes then a mass of biol teachers should stand up and ask 'president, when we teach kids evolution, are we telling them lies? yes or no'.

No president would have the fucking balls to say 'yes' to that, thats because they know inside how ridiculous they would look to the rest of the world.

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

Comment #100992 by phasmagigas on December 19, 2007 at 6:13 pm

the vatican is now condemning this film, youd think those old men would have something better to do.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071219/film_nm/compass_vatican_dc_1;_ylt=AvyPGwil3RKzVOI8Al3c.9eEDvII

sad old bastards, they assume that 1)god is there and that 2) without god we are lost, sad and inhumane. well speak for their shrivelled, impotent old selves, i really dont have time for nonsense like this but its worth writing it anway.

390. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100693 by phasmagigas on December 19, 2007 at 6:08 am

I was mostly amused by "Todd" in the debate with Barker all the way up until Dan asked him whether he would have prevented the 9/11 attacks had he the power. At that point, Todd and his beliefs no longer seemed to me to be merely misguided, but rather malevolent. For those who -- probably wisely -- did not listen to this debate, Todd replied (in part) that not only did the people who died on 9/11 deserve it, but that furthermore we ALL deserve it.


of all the religites ive heard debating/prosetylising i'll admit tjis man is the hardest to listen to.

Phelps is at least amusing as he just such a silly old ass, dinesh is at least intelligent and knows full well when hes evading answers, an angry screaming muslim mullah is at least showing some primal passion, but this guy is a snake of the highest order, his answers when he gives them are empty, that whining pleading for our souls is so utterly offensive, his thought processes are so diametrically opposite to mine that i cannot empathise with him or those like him, there is no equivalent in my brain to that which makes him a slave to religion.

I find it incredibly frustrating when falsehoods are presented about evolution, his question on bone, muscle tendon is so redundant but as it takes a few seconds to compose a working answer the audience thinks that dan is stumped, one could have described chordates with muscle but no bones, then with time cartilage and then attachment points to muscle. Its the type of qnotion like 'half creatures' that displays perfectly the speakers inability to understand biology, and its not down to misunderstanding, its down to inability, its down to lack of imagination.

Dan did jump into preacher mode a few times and thats when his arguments fell a bit but old habits die hard.

391. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100502 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 6:21 pm

It's hard to tell what goes on inside the minds of such people. Maybe they truly believe that other people's souls are in danger, and so they can't restrain themselves from lying to news reporters, breaking their own rules, misrepresenting science, etc. Or maybe they're just liars and frauds. We'll never know.


by the end i was simply luaghing, todds argument against polytheism redefines for me the way a theist can delude themselves, and then he says that dan makes their blood boil. incredible.

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

Comment #100480 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 5:29 pm

im not sure if it was borders or barnes and noble but the other day in the tiny science section the staff pick was behes edge of evo, very sad. i didnt see god is not great on the staff pick of the huge religion/supernatural bokum section, would have been equivalent.

393. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100477 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 5:26 pm

He could've done better on the muscles/bone question, but I think he showed well enough that Todd was basically arguing from personal ignorance.


the problem when an answer isnt explained well the less able theists will be unable to differentiate BS from good arguments. What we hear from this 'debate' is a good attempt from dan to give real explanations but todd gives nothing more than emotional sounding sermons, the weak minded will side with the theist as they will simply go with what they know.

as i tend not to listen to sermons this debate has opened my eyes to just what the human mind can become under religious indoctrination. the way todd keeps litearlly BEGGING that we accept jesus is simply nausea inducing, i can tolerate the ramblings of fred phelps over this guy, fred doesnt pretend to be nice.

listening to todd has given me a new insight into the religious mind and how my mind just cannot do it.

The debate was ultimately flawed as there was basically no debate, it revolved around dan making arguments followed by a bilious sermon of begging and pleading by todd. nasty.

394. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100476 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 5:19 pm

i thought Dan did pretty well on the evolution questions, in general. Todd asked him some dumbass question relating to gender - "which evolved first, male or female?" - and Dan succinctly pointed out that there are many forms of life that reproduce with only one gender, female.


id have thrown the question back and asked, so what is male and female?

395. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100457 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 4:27 pm



Friel also did a radio debate in 2006 with Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and lost badly - Dan is a member of the Prometheus Society, which means his IQ is equivalent to one in ten thousand. I think if you listen to that debate, you'll have an understanding of why Todd's voice is so broken and desperate in this clip:

http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast/2006/04/04/friel-barker-debate


holy moses, when todd begins with a little story i thought it was to be used as a catchy introduction, it escalated into a full on preaching session, anybody who falls for this tripe is as far as i can ascertain far more gullible than I.

Dan needs to brush up on evolution a bit so he can answer horrible questions like what came first, the bones, muscles or tendons, ie quuestions that cannot be answered with soundbites but require an explanation that would exceed the mental capacity of someone like todd.

get ready to hear straw men, assertions and general ignorance like never before. indeed id go as far as to say upon listening to todd he sounds like a total psycho and the type of perverted nonsense he spews is what keeps the weak on their knees.

3 mins into teh Q&A todd demonstrates both his inability to answer a question and his deliberate deviousness, he skips the evo question by saying 'waht evidence?' then jumps onto the previous question on morality that was thrown at Dan although its not his question, of course he can preach another sermon here, a despicable individual.

his point that all transitional fossils are 'fully formed' and so not transitional shows that he is only used to preaching to the most uninformed, ill educated sections of society, such a ridiculous statement is a testament to the education the man didnt receive.

396. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100379 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Sounds like you're talking about the likes of Peter Popoff and Slyvia Browne! That fact that these frauds are still getting away with it is truly depressing.


well they would be good examples, in the giant global village the buffer of religion (giving credibility to superstition) and the sheer number of gullible people makes villany profitable, sylvia browne is a fake of course but society at large wont put her in the stocks for that (because society at large thinks shes real)thats why she can still function.

a hunter gatherer shaman on drugs may well describe future events for tribal members or contact the dead but within the framework of the society he is acting as a totally different agent with a totally different agenda.

397. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100366 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 2:28 pm

altrusim certainly pays.

most people are altruistic generally so consider what happens to individuals who do the opposite, those who actively disregard, attack or rob others, there is a social consequence be it ostracisation, imprisonment or even reciprocated attack, in most cases it reduces your social standing.

i suppose there were very few benefits in our darwinian past to misbehaving within the framework of a small group(i propose that the notion of bad behaviour in small traditional societies is way below what we see in modern societies, i cannot imagine teenagers in tribes trashing a hut for the fun of it).

For sure today a very sophisticated villain can swoop amongst the giant village he finds himself in and make some gains but ultimately if hes caught he loses out.

398. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100319 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 1:47 pm

part 1. just what on earth has somebody 'feeling' the prescence of jesus got to do with 'fancy darwin talk?'

a great way to get all those brain dead creationists on your side.

the interviewer talks of miracles as if they are real, ie the WAY he talk of them.

the interviewer is a prat, the way he emphasises words would easily persuade an unsophisticated audience, these questions are so old, anybody making brief enquiries into theism/atheism will find these arguments all over the place (net/books) dawkins is indeed patient. The end section is telling, viewing the explanation of altruism with a sexual analogy will totally lose many viewers (simply because they wont 'get it') and indeed althought the interviewer 'got it' he was quite happy to emphasise those parts that my disquiet those who dont. the problem with many creationists/believers is that their view of nature (including our part in it) is ultimately retarded and essentially non existent so a fresh take on altrusim just wont make any sense, which is why people like dawkins are so important as teachers.

that whole altruism from god is bollocks, in nature do we see any examples of creatures utterly unrestrained whirling dervishes of destruction? some may seem that way like an ant army but their are darwinian codes built in there, the ants dont just randomly kill each other and snip and hack at blades of grass and everything that stands i their way.

399. Abstinence Programs Face Rejection

Comment #100194 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 11:26 am

I know somebody who got married so she could have sex with her then boyfriend and very soon into the marriage things went wrong generally.

The pro abstinence lot are not living in the real world. Evolution simply does not allow for clear thinking during sexual courtship, sex is inevitable and when there is no condom in the back pocket people will simply copulate without one. they think some 16 year old guy is going to stick to his abstinence vows during the heat of the moment, what a joke, its almost like the religious lobby are in denial of our animal instincts.



Just what the hell is it with sex and religion??

400. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100043 by phasmagigas on December 18, 2007 at 6:04 am

I think it would be really good if they could capture the light which was emitted from the earth millions of years ago so that we can see evolution happening.


thats something thats always interested me, there will be some info out in the universe contained in light that was reflected from some dino or giant dragonfly but i guess its now highly fragmented due to interception from dust or planets or stars.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | Next