401. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141795 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 8:15 am

'I am confused. What happens if you are extremely gloomy but also very lustful?'

It looks like you're sad that you won't be getting any soon, mate :)

402. Fleabytes

Comment #141734 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 6:36 am

clearthinker;
'Should we jail them if they misbehave? Should we hold them accountable and responsible? Or do they police themselves?'

What a monstrous arrogance is displayed here! I really hope you meant it as a humorous (although it isn't) remark; if not you display again a vanity that knows no bounds.

403. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141730 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 6:33 am

Damn! Logicel beat me to a lower level (it must be the living in France part :)) plus I knew I shouldn't have answered so nicely on a couple of questions grrrrrr!

404. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141724 by AllanW on March 11, 2008 at 6:26 am

Man, I'm very pleased with myself; 8th level for me!

Level
Purgatory Repenting Believers Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo Virtuous Non-Believers Very Low
Level 2 Lustful Very High
Level 3 Gluttonous Moderate
Level 4 Prodigal and Avaricious Very Low
Level 5 Wrathful and Gloomy Very High
Level 6 - The City of Dis Heretics Very High
Level 7 Violent High
Level 8- the Malebolge Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus Treacherous Very High

405. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141540 by AllanW on March 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Wrong, Shmeezers;

'What I am saying is that the debate is reduced to a simple nothing; it is simply thrown out the window, as if there is no debate.'

I wish it were; theists are sooooooo adamant that they know the things that they cannot possibly know (blind faith?) that the debate continues.

As for your stupid assertions that Hitchens and Dawkins et al are spiritual leaders it deserves no time spent upon it; plainly worthless and patently untrue. As a starter just look at the threads where disagreement with these gents is quite firmly held.

'No God'. Ok, let's say that. 'No good or evil'; whoa! One step too far; they are man-made concepts and have no part in being dismissed along with God.

'No ultimate justice'; there is none. Why should there be? The Universe is pitiless in not caring for any of the individual atoms or clusters of them that exist. Any justice existing, we make ourselves, or fail to make. Just prove the opposite if you can.

406. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140169 by AllanW on March 7, 2008 at 3:04 am

Comment #140161 irate_atheist

I agree; it's beliefs like those expressed by wooter in that section that demonstrate most clearly how sick the God mind-virus makes people.

407. How to abandon your God

Comment #139475 by AllanW on March 6, 2008 at 12:20 am

What a poorly organised, thought-out and written article. Full of 'look at me/what I think' self-obsession, disorganised points in no particular flow and how do you read sections like;

there might yet be hope for the nation to evolve and grow and bust out of the archaic straitjacket of religious authority once and for all. Possible? Possible.

Or maybe not.

408. Ayaan Hirsi Ali to get EU protection

Comment #135912 by AllanW on February 29, 2008 at 10:50 am

I hope this really does deliver the protection and quality of life she deserves; as free from worry as possible.

One up for Europe I would say (which is difficult for me as I have soooooo many problems with the Euro political elite).

409. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134580 by AllanW on February 28, 2008 at 2:35 am

I can't disagree with the proposition that a strong and united Europe would be a very useful entity. Strong links to America but a forceful, friendly foil to their idiocy in foreign relations. A possibility to bring Russia and the ex-Soviet republics into the fold would be well worth pursuing.

However the ideal is not only far from being realised but I would argue that the current political structures and participants are so woefully corrupt and unfit-for-purpose that it positively harms the chances of ever achieving this ideal.

I've travelled and worked in much of western Europe including Scandinavia and agree that the similarities and outlooks of the vast majority of the population would provide a solid and useful concensus for the ideal when set against the differences that most of the media concentrate upon.

But the utterly distant and remote political superstructure of the EU as it is currently formed would, in my opinion, be wholly incapable of representing this concensus and is therefore frustrating not enabling of progress.

410. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #134190 by AllanW on February 27, 2008 at 11:27 am

Yep, nice session. The interviewer was a little hesitant at first but then let things flow as the callers come online. She cut things off when calls got too long as well so congrats to her.

Dawkins was quite a bit more agile in his responses; I'm so pleased to hear that. He was abrupt but crucially full of facts in response to one caller which shows his developing presentation and debate skills; more feisty is good sometimes.

I came away from the show with a warm feeling that he is in good shape to take on all-comers in whatever guise they appear; the responses are sharper, pointed, and still fact-packed. Please, someone photo-shop that scene on the steps in Philly from 'Rocky' with Dawkins' head superimposed as my abiding reflection is that he is finishing his pre-fight training in preparation for his american tour :)

411. Fleabytes

Comment #134128 by AllanW on February 27, 2008 at 9:58 am

So. Come on, Robertson. When are you going to answer the question?

412. Fleabytes

Comment #132619 by AllanW on February 25, 2008 at 3:50 am

Bye bye David. Running off again with so many questions left unanswered. We all look forward to your return to these boards and the light you will shine here.

Your last paragraph above reminded me of a stock trader I knew once whose favourite phrase was 'Market's open, gotta do business'' he was a huckster as well :)

413. Fleabytes

Comment #132605 by AllanW on February 25, 2008 at 3:17 am

'Allan, and all the others please stop the amateur psychology. I believe what I believe because I think it is true. It is not out of fear and yes I have doubted many times, and a couple of times even tried to be an atheist. But the evidence would not let me.'

Just show us the evidence then David.

414. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132602 by AllanW on February 25, 2008 at 3:09 am

'Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?'

He is not incapable of understanding it, he just thinks that anyone making or accepting statements such as;

"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong." in other words, if I've already decided that any evidence you present is wrong or is based upon assumptions I think are wrong then I won't let it change my mind,

is bonkers.

415. Fleabytes

Comment #132254 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm

krisking; no. I could but I won't. You get the most benefit if you read it yourself and take what you can from it. We did.

That is not meant to be a facetious response but constructive. I could write my understanding of what TGD says but I expect it would be muddled in parts, miss crucial points and nuances because of my own perceptions and I'm sure RD would be able to point out a ton of points I had completely missed.

This stuff is complex and difficult; don't expect to reduce it to a simple list of prescriptions. It won't boil down to that. It is written in an accessible way but deals with the top surfaces of many complicated issues; lap it up then let it ferment.

A spoon-feed from anyone will wildly miss the mark for your understanding.

416. Fleabytes

Comment #132244 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm

'Religious conflicts are probably less of a problem than non-religious ones, as all the one side has to do is convert to the other's religion, and there is no longer a problem.'

This could be termed the BORG approach to conflict resolution.

417. Fleabytes

Comment #132211 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm

krisking; no. So many mistakes.

1. Observation not argument. Correct factually. But not 'religion' rather organised religion and people with that credulous mind-set.

2. No; you are wrong. RD does not say that. Some have been, some are not. More complex than that.

3. No again; do what you want with your belief system but recognise the evidence basis for it and stop shoving it down other peoples' throats.

4. Sigh. Yet again wrong. He does not want everyone to be atheist and forcing them if necessary. He believes that if everyone looked at things scientifically they would inevitably conclude atheism is the only way forwards.

5 Give me a break.

Firstly I can't believe the other posters waltzed over your completely skewed and erroneous list.

Secondly I suggest you reread the book as you have not the first understanding of the seventy-odd pages you claim to have read so far.

Mark so far; D and falling.

418. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #132201 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Top 5 fiction;

Cyteen - C.J.Cherryh
LOTR - J.R.R.Tolkien
One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Behold the Man - Michael Moorcock
Foundation trilogy - Isaac Asimov

Bugger! I couldn't fit any Pratchett in! Or Orwell :((

419. Fleabytes

Comment #132134 by AllanW on February 24, 2008 at 9:20 am

His pathology is that of a typical fundamentalist, imo. At root, he may suspect his religion is not true but cannot for one second give in to the surging, primal fear of being responsible for himself in an unforgiving universe. Fear or maybe a better word is terror; that's the root of fundamentalism.

420. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131896 by AllanW on February 23, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Steve; 'This was a rare lapse, and I apologise to everyone.'

So you should to, you stepped on other peoples' turf but Diacanu, me and others will let you off this time.

Seriously? Don't be so hard on yourself. And it's ok sometimes to get frustrated at the sheer scale of willful ignorance displayed. Let loose once in awhile; we're all human :)

421. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131827 by AllanW on February 23, 2008 at 11:52 am

Shrommer; Steve Zara and the others are nice, polite people and will try to convince you of facts as they believe you are open to debate. I'm not nice; I can see from your posts you are a deeply deluded, bigotted and closed person.

Read the information already posted to you as well as those below before strutting your arrogant ignorance here.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

422. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131566 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Babrock, you haveta keep yanking the mans chain on these things; I'm entirely with you.

On all forms (not just unimportant ones now) when asked my nationality I always answer 'English'. This may not seem a big thing but over here we are expected to write 'British'. My point being that the nation I was born in is England; it just points out the absurdity either of the question or of the nature of our little kingdom/commonwealth.

Plus I'm getting a little pissed-off about the Scots banging on about gaining their independence.

423. My Argument With God

Comment #131564 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Nice little humorous article with an important point to it.

Good on yer Gervais.

I love the idea that other celebs could do the same thing.

424. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131560 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm

In answer to Deepthought; something else :)

425. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131559 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Yep babrock; the monarch is the titular head of the church (thanks to good ole shy and retiring Henry the eighth :)) but the Archbish is the leader on a day-to-day basis.

426. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131556 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Hehe; epeeist I have had exactly the same experience; "I will put you down as CofE."

Gotta love Frank Zappas story about when he went to the hospital for the birth of his first child (named Moon Unit Zappa). When asked for religion he hummed and hawed then asked the nurse to enter 'music'. She refused :)

427. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131418 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I'm off to take my youngest son to his swimming training. I'm sure that when I return krisking will still have made no substantive point and that you other guys will be playing kiss-chase with his non-ideas.

Fruitless and unproductive.

428. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131413 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Re; comment #131411

Another example. Say what you mean then!

429. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131410 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Hello Steve

Faith is not a benign approach to understanding things.



But then neither is atheism.


Yeh, I thought you wouldn't or couldn't stay on a point.

Sigh. Off on another jolly little comment merry-go-round, dodging anything substantive.

This is precisely why many non-believers have been forced to accept a view that believers are merely procrastinating their way around their own internal dissonance. You demonstrate it perfectly.

430. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131407 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Come on again, krisking. Outline for us all the ideological implications of atheism, please.

You'll notice that I use no swear words or ad hominem attacks.

But you consistently refuse to follow-up on your little statements leaving me of the view that you are merely here to disrupt. Make statements that we can debate; air your views; don't hide behind little non-sequiters or bomblets and then move on to another point.

See if you can make any one point stick with us.

431. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131401 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:11 pm

I have to disagree deepthought; 'I can picture a form of atheistic indoctrination. It would consist of a parent homeschooling their child to protect them from religion and teaching them all the arguments for atheism. I would say that the best way to bring up children would be to not teach them religion and don't bring it up except when directly questioned.'

As anyone who has tried to bring up children would tell you, no matter what rules/principles/guidelines you try to enforce, any exposure to society will bring them into contact with opposing or diverse ideas. This process of itself will cause young minds to question and rebel and defeat the aims you set out.

I go back to my original point, despite krisking failing to convince that there is an atheist ideology to indoctrinate, not teaching about religion or attempting to remove them from any contact with it will only prove self-defeating.

Rational, sceptical enquiry and openness to all ideas will inevitably lead most people to a rejection of religion. You don't need to do anything else; certainly not coach or teach against it. The best way to get people to question belief is to expose them to the proponents of belief and inquire into the teachings. Most people here will tell you that is the process that made them into non-believers.

432. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131394 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:01 pm

You could do those things, yes. But how does that support your posted view that atheists would be indoctrinating their children with their ideology?

433. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131388 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 11:50 am

Oh come on krisking, you're being a little evasive here; or at the least disingenuous.

'to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.'

The main point here is that of instruction. The only way you could conceive of an atheist doctrine being instructed is through a meaning-mangling idea that teaching sceptical, rational enquiry is an ideology. You may try to make yourself believe that but most would accept that it is not an ideology.

434. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #131191 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 3:38 am

'*Not the rock climbing equipment website mentioned on the post above by AllanW! Sorry Allan'

My bad; a typo in a web address screws everything up :)

Good luck with this and let us know how you get on.

435. Fleabytes

Comment #131099 by AllanW on February 22, 2008 at 12:55 am

Bye bye Artful Dodger; you will not be missed. Having chosen self-imposed exile from this site, could you convince Robertson to do the same? For a supposedly banned poster he makes a lot of noise here.

Robertson; the fallacies in your approach and outright lies contained in your last post have been clearly exposed. The role you have chosen as 'martyr on the unbelievers altar' is self-chosen not imposed.

Face reality; post a response either here or linked here (there is no restriction on you doing that) or crawl back under your wee free rock.

436. Fleabytes

Comment #130807 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 10:06 am

Typical of Robertson; his position holds no water. He can already post here, he is not banned. He refuses to post a reply to Paulas commenst until the non-existant ban is lifted. He refuses to post anywhere else.

All in all it seems his reply is like his God; non-existant. He has the ability to reply but has just run away.

437. Fleabytes

Comment #130742 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 8:17 am

So the lies start already; as has been pointed out to you very clearly, you have not been banned. Write what you like on this account and see if it ends up in the alternative comment thread.

Not a good start from you. Trying to play the hurt and injured card and threatening to lie at your public appearances gives a poor impression.

438. Does the Bible have a place in public schools?

Comment #130698 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 7:07 am

Hello criminal, evangelical fundamentalist person :)

Which rock did you climb from under?

439. Fleabytes

Comment #130694 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 7:03 am

Good grief! A post whose tone is reasonable and promises rational argument; it can't possibly be true.

Upon second reading, there are enough indicators here to hazard a guess that Mr Robertson is just looking for a chance to launch his invective again in front of a far larger audience than is available to him now; for that reason alone I would vote no to unbanning him, if given the chance.

440. Fleabytes

Comment #130630 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 3:35 am

Good post Richard.

My reading of that section (and one I personally experienced over the last few years) is the "I didn't believe before but now I can better understand and justify my non-belief."

I think this is what Paula is alluding to here but am willing to be proven wrong :)

441. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #130614 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 2:04 am

TonyA; if this site had the equivalent of the Molly award as pharyngula does, my vote would be for that post. I don't know how long it took you or how you had to twist your mind to produce it but it was great; many thanks :)

442. Ken Ham in Leicester April 2008

Comment #130613 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 1:55 am

This is the message I sent PJG about the flyer for Preston; any comments welcome.

Appended below is the text I used for the flyers intended for Preston. I printed it on A4 sheets, landscape, 2 columns then folded it in half so it appeared as an A5 flyer (with the blank sides outermost) to appear as an order of service :)

I took the view that trying to rebutt the inane arguments these cranks use is too long a process and plays to their obfuscating strengths; rather I wanted to get a message to the congregation who attended. These people will be unscientific in outlook; scientific arguments will confuse rather than win the day. but everyone wants to be part of the majority so the text is meant to isolate the quacks like Ham; deliberately show with cool, calm facts that they are marginal scientists if at all and are peddling gobbledegook not science as assessed by the informed scientific and legal community.

I hope it is of use. Text follows;

Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.

UK Government: GUIDANCE ON THE PLACE OF CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCIENCE LESSONS

"Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. "

Council of Europe states must 'firmly oppose' the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline

Parliamentarians from the 47-nation Council of Europe have urged its member governments to "firmly oppose" the teaching of creationism ?quot; which denies the evolution of species through natural selection ?quot; as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution. In a resolution passed by 48 votes to 25 during its plenary session in Strasbourg, PACE declared: "If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights."

Swedish Government bans Creationism

The Swedish government is to crack down on the role religion plays in independent faith schools. The new rules will include a ban on biology teachers teaching creationism or 'intelligent design' alongside evolution.
"Pupils must be protected from all forms of fundamentalism," said Education Minister Jan Björklund to Dagens Nyheter.

John E. Jones III, United States District Judge, a Christian, in Kitzmiller v Dover School Board.

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.

However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

To find out more facts please visit;

The British Council for Secular Education
(www.bcseweb.org.uk)

443. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130578 by AllanW on February 21, 2008 at 12:33 am

Still nothing more than air from the Bish, i see. No surprise here.

As for wooter; still marking as troll. Please do the same; you know it makes sense :)

444. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130420 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Yeh ...

That was the sum total of wisdom in your locker, Bish?

Lame lame lame.

Give it a rest and stop jerking our chains.

Marking as troll from now until he posts something substantive.

445. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130406 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Bot or berk he needs to post something substantive not just quote-mine and inflame. We're still waiting Bish; got anything?

446. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130400 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Sympathies now post something substantive; we're all holding our breath.

447. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130397 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Yeh, yeh Bish; go bash yourself. You might feel better.

Post something substantive.

448. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130393 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Guys, indulge yourselves if you want but this jerk is just pulling your wires. So far he has dropped a couple of verbal bombs, side-shifted the topic when pressed, refused to answer any direct question put to him, only contributed one-line ripostes and then eggs you on with specious, bullshit inanities (You are committed to not believing in God, so you do not see.).

Face it, he's a wind-up merchant, or troll in the common vernacular.

449. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130236 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 7:30 am

Ah! 'Peacemakers. I thought he said cheesemakers. Blessed are the cheesemakers.'

'Well obviously he's using a metaphor; it plainly refers to all workers of dairy products ..' etc

450. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130107 by AllanW on February 20, 2008 at 5:18 am

'Snowflakes speak for themselves.'

hahahahahahahahaha