401. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152597 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 31, 2008 at 8:44 am

Why isn't RichardDawkins.net hosting the video? Surely as many sites as possible should host the video to show support for freedom of speech?

402. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152288 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I assume the ill informed reporting the LiveLeak cites as a reason for the withdrawal comes from the upstanding and considered source the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=548528&in_page_id=1770
Dutch MP Geert Wilders claims to be all about freedom of expression - but is he about to engulf Britain in a holy war?

403. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152277 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Fitna accuses Islam of being a violent religion. Well that's been proven to be lies and propaganda by the insidious mendicant Geert Wilders hasn't it. Islam is a tolerant and peaceful religion.
Oh wait....

Islam World's Biggest Religion

There will be a massive uprising of peace loving Muslims to denounce the threats of violence and crippling of free speech. Let us hope.

404. Beware the Believers

Comment #152233 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 1:57 pm

High Defintion Version if anyone is interested
http://www.mininova.org/tor/1278276

405. Beware the Believers

Comment #152226 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 1:29 pm

We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped, becomin' more than we hoped, creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.

406. Beware the Believers

Comment #152218 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 1:00 pm

TRANSCRIPT OF OPENING

BACKDROP THEARTE

RD: Ladies and Gentlemen we are on the cusp of a glorious age. The age of the machine!
Audience: GASP!!!
RD: We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid, afterall we are all scientists, much much smarter than you. But perhaps a little demonstration will set your minds at ease.

SCENE CHANGES TO LABORATORY

Sceptical Scientish: Hey Boris look at this
Moustached Scientist (HITLER/STALIN REFERENCE): Big deal natural selection creates that sort of thing everyday.
Sceptical Scientish: Natural Selection? I think there is something else going on here.

PING MAD LOOK ON Moustached Scientists face.

Moustached Scientist (into secret microphone): Big gadget this is little tool we have got ourselves a situation.

Big tool grabs Sceptical Scientist and throws him out of the lab.

Sceptical Scientist: ARGHHH!!!

GOES TO IMAGE I LINKED EARLIER POST #252 WITH EXPELLED LOGO ACROSS SCEPTICAL SCIENTIST'S FOREHEAD.

RD: I wish I could take full credit for the machines development for its efficient expulsion of so called scientists. Its unwavering rejection of your quaint though ludicrous notions about the origins of life but the story of the machine began well before I arrived on the scene. For that we present this little ditty. (CLICKS FINGERS)

RAP STARTS

407. Beware the Believers

Comment #152209 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm

The reason I pointed it out is that I watched it again. Listen to the introduction. The bit thats intelligible.

TRANSCRIPT to come

408. Beware the Believers

Comment #152204 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Some may have pointed this out already but this is promotion for expelled. The "machine" is the machine that expels scientists who question Darwinian natural selection.
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS SCREENSHOT

mikes

Dembski had a simular video by the guy that did those JibbaJab Bush flash videos way back when. This Dicky Dawkins one has the same style and production value. Someone paid for this or had access to resources and staff that have a history of producing flash animation.

409. Beware the Believers

Comment #152196 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 12:13 pm

bitbutter
I agree it is funny. It's like Morecambe and Wise, Larry Sanders, The Office, Curb Your enthusiasm. Its the kind of humour that takes your perception of a famous persona and inverts it or distorts it.

410. Beware the Believers

Comment #152174 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 10:58 am

Richard Dawkins
South Park just enjoy playing with taboos. Surely it's funny to see anyone buggering a bald transvestite? Well that's their rationale anyway.

As to the connection with Sam. I would doubt anything specific. I imagine they arbitrarily chose uniforms for each of you that resembled the types of clothes and jewellery worn by rappers.

411. Beware the Believers

Comment #152164 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 30, 2008 at 10:12 am

It could have zoological explanation Steve. A form of display like a Gorilla beating its chest.

412. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150337 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 26, 2008 at 6:07 pm

"Ah, my birthday. Normally I'd put on a festive hat and celebrate the fact that the Earth has circled the Sun one more time; I really didn't think it was going to make it this year, but darn it if it wasn't the little planet that could all over again."
- Gregory House from TVs House MD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qRUaEwB1Bw

413. Two More Fleas

Comment #149459 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Please are you a parody?

414. Two More Fleas

Comment #149455 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm

The mistakes with your grammar, they are too perfect to not be deliberate. Surely a parody? Are you clearmind?

415. Two More Fleas

Comment #149451 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 4:03 pm

I never know whether these people are parodies or not.

416. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149450 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 4:01 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUeoem1gR3s
'Biblically Correct" Tour Guides For Jesus!!

Shows how dishonest, or just wilfully ignorant, fundamentalists can be.

417. Expelled Overview

Comment #149431 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Brendan Flowers the lead singer of The Killers is a devout Mormon.
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1877695,00.html

418. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149427 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 3:37 pm

justdust

If you have religious faith - can you have a personal conscience? I would not vote for any MP of any persuasion if they were going to be voting on my behalf based on their religious beliefs - where does it stop?

419. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149416 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Riley

The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

420. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149395 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 2:48 pm

It was a trick question. I expect such a stupid answer from vulgar reductionists such as yourself.

People who read poetry and listen to music want the experience, not your "explanations". Explanation is not always what people always seek, that was the point of my post.

421. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149390 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Swifty32661

Your claim of love to your wife is not at all the same as "knowledge of the world", and you damn well know that.

Scientifically prove that I am not thinking about how stupid your comment is.

You obviously can't, and it's as ridiculous as asking science to scientifically prove that you love your wife.

"well, you can't prove love, are you saying that doesn't exist??"

422. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149381 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Bonzai
The mode of thinking could be applied. If a piece of poetry evokes feelings x and y etc that's completely subjective and not open to interrogation (at the moment). Claims of the nature that "Shakespeare's prose is Bacon-esque in its exactitude" or something similarly inscrutable can be analysed used the scientific mode of thinking. Offer up evidence etc. I think that mode of thinking can be applied to almost anything. It is essentially don't make unfounded, inconsistent claims.

423. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149371 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm

clodhopper good one.

I can imagine a time in the future when it could possibly be possible. If we get a full understanding of what 'love' is and could submit your brain and physiology to some kind of 'interrogation'. That's one she'll have to take on faith for now ;). But not a moderate wishy-washy faith. Full balled fundamentalist immutable faith.

EDIT: Am I still in peril?

424. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149366 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Quine I can remember when I came across that in Misquoting Jesus. It didn't disappoint. Still a good story nonetheless.

425. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149360 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Science uses the scientific method and the restraints of falsifiability etc. Everything else that claims knowledge of the world without submitting itself to interrogation by the scientific method of inquiry can safely be ignored. The description seems to fit the development of religions, except something like Scientology which is just downright dishonest.

426. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149351 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 1:49 pm

What is religion? Well I like the way chomsky defines it:

"As for religion being "a part of every observable society," if what is meant is that every society we know has sought to find some explanation for matters of deep human concern that we do not begin to understand (death, the origins of the universe, etc.), that's doubtless true. If one wants to call the constructs developed "religion," OK. I don't see what that implies, apart from the fact -- I presume it is a fact -- that people seek answers to hard questions, and where understanding reaches limits (very quickly, in most areas), they speculate, construct myths, etc. To draw conclusions about "human nature" from historical constructs of dominant societies in the past few thousand years seems to me quite a stretch."
- Noam Chomsky

So how am I dishonest if I knowingly interpret the bible because I genuinely believe that the Bible is meant to be understood in its proper context?

427. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149278 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 11:35 am

The three areas where Mr Brown said there would be free votes during the passage of the bill through the Commons are:

* Preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women and lesbians - under current legislation clinics must take account of the welfare of the unborn child including "the need for a father". This will be replaced by the "need for supportive parenting".

* Creating a child with the correct tissue match to save a sick brother or sister.

* Creating so-called hybrid animal/human embryos to aid stem cell research.

428. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149274 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 11:26 am

Leviticus, is devoted to nothing else. "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you," said the Lord, ruling out lobster. Nor could you partake of "the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat".

429. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149266 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 25, 2008 at 11:07 am

It is not a vote of conscience. conscience, from L. conscientia "knowledge within oneself, a moral sense,". These people are not contemplating their own navels they reflexively going with Mr. Infallible.
The cabinet members who are catholic. Ruth "Opus Dei" Kelly, Des Brown and Paul Murphy. I think Des Brown has said he's going with the bill. The others haven't said.

430. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148977 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 24, 2008 at 8:12 pm

The image to the side is from The New Mexico Connection to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

They look similar?

This is the Mark Mathis who wrote the books. The same guy?

Here's another picture of him as an extra in The Astronaut Farmer

Mathis Media
"[The Media] repels people because they're scared to death of making a mistake and looking stupid"

431. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148947 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 24, 2008 at 5:54 pm

The image to the side is from The New Mexico Connection to "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

They look similar?

This is the Mark Mathis who wrote the books. The same guy?

Here's another picture of him as an extra in The Astronaut Farmer

Mathis Media
"[The Media] repels people because they're scared to death of making a mistake and looking stupid"

432. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148943 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 24, 2008 at 5:40 pm

433. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148919 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm

The historian Niall Ferguson argues that:

[The 20th century] was also an age poisoned by an idea: the idea of irrevocable racial differences. Above all it was an age of struggle between decaying old empires and predatory new 'empire-states'. Who won the war of the world? We tend to assume it was 'the West'. Some even talk of 'the American century'. But for Niall Ferguson the biggest upheaval of the twentieth century was the decline of Western dominance over Asia. Drawing on history, economics and evolutionary theory, The War of the World is a revolutionary new interpretation of the modern era.

Published on the eve of the twentieth century, H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds (1898) is much more than just a seminal work of science fiction. It is also a kind of Darwinian morality tale, and at the same time a work of singular prescience. In the century after the publication of his book, the nightmarish scenes Wells imagined became a reality in cities all over the world - not just in London, where Wells sets his tale, but in Brest-Litovsk, Belgrade and Berlin; in Smyrna, Shanghai and Seoul.

Invaders approach the outskirts of a city. The inhabitants are slow to grasp their vulnerability. But the invaders possess lethal weapons: armoured vehicles, flame throwers, poison gas, aircraft. They use these indiscriminately and mercilessly against soldiers and civilians alike. The city's defences are overrun. As the invaders near the city, panic reigns. People flee their homes in confusion; swarms of refugees clog the roads and railways. The task of massacring them is made easy. People are slaughtered like beasts. Finally, all that remains are smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses.

All of this destruction and death Wells imagined while pedalling around peaceful Woking and Chertsey on his newly-acquired bicycle. Of course (and here was the stroke of genius), he cast Martians as the perpetrators. When such scenes subsequently became a reality, however, those responsible were not Martians but other human beings - even if they often justified the slaughter by labelling their victims as 'aliens' or 'sub-humans'. It was not a war between worlds that the twentieth century witnessed, but rather a war of the world.

434. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148901 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 24, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Just closing the Bold tag

435. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148876 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 24, 2008 at 12:37 pm

The historian Niall Ferguson argues that:

[The 20th century] was also an age poisoned by an idea: the idea of irrevocable racial differences. Above all it was an age of struggle between decaying old empires and predatory new 'empire-states'. Who won the war of the world? We tend to assume it was 'the West'. Some even talk of 'the American century'. But for Niall Ferguson the biggest upheaval of the twentieth century was the decline of Western dominance over Asia. Drawing on history, economics and evolutionary theory, The War of the World is a revolutionary new interpretation of the modern era.

Published on the eve of the twentieth century, H. G. Wells's The War of the Worlds (1898) is much more than just a seminal work of science fiction. It is also a kind of Darwinian morality tale, and at the same time a work of singular prescience. In the century after the publication of his book, the nightmarish scenes Wells imagined became a reality in cities all over the world - not just in London, where Wells sets his tale, but in Brest-Litovsk, Belgrade and Berlin; in Smyrna, Shanghai and Seoul.

Invaders approach the outskirts of a city. The inhabitants are slow to grasp their vulnerability. But the invaders possess lethal weapons: armoured vehicles, flame throwers, poison gas, aircraft. They use these indiscriminately and mercilessly against soldiers and civilians alike. The city's defences are overrun. As the invaders near the city, panic reigns. People flee their homes in confusion; swarms of refugees clog the roads and railways. The task of massacring them is made easy. People are slaughtered like beasts. Finally, all that remains are smouldering ruins and piles of desiccated corpses.

All of this destruction and death Wells imagined while pedalling around peaceful Woking and Chertsey on his newly-acquired bicycle. Of course (and here was the stroke of genius), he cast Martians as the perpetrators. When such scenes subsequently became a reality, however, those responsible were not Martians but other human beings - even if they often justified the slaughter by labelling their victims as 'aliens' or 'sub-humans'. It was not a war between worlds that the twentieth century witnessed, but rather a war of the world.

436. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148678 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 23, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Very good. I wonder how the Stork question went down?

On a side not, does anyone know when Richard and PZ Myers discussion will be posted?

EDIT:Does anyone else think that the rule of no such thing as bad publicity applies? It does the cause of intelligent design harm no doubt, but who seriously thinks that was the film-makers main motivation? Who thinks the passion of the Christ's main motivation was to show Jesus' suffering and condemn the Jews? $$$?

437. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148569 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 23, 2008 at 10:08 am

Check out Price Equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_equation

Incidentally this equation was the inspiration for a recent film

WAZ (should be W delta T)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804552/

438. The science of religion: Where angels no longer fear to tread

Comment #148521 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 23, 2008 at 8:47 am

I like the way Chomsky defines religion

"As for religion being "a part of every observable society," if what is meant is that every society we know has sought to find some explanation for matters of deep human concern that we do not begin to understand (death, the origins of the universe, etc.), that's doubtless true. If one wants to call the constructs developed "religion," OK. I don't see what that implies, apart from the fact -- I presume it is a fact -- that people seek answers to hard questions, and where understanding reaches limits (very quickly, in most areas), they speculate, construct myths, etc. To draw conclusions about "human nature" from historical constructs of dominant societies in the past few thousand years seems to me quite a stretch."
- Noam Chomsky

439. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148504 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 23, 2008 at 8:18 am

Lacking any agreed ten commandments of liberal values today, they know not what they believe in. But they at least know it's not God. Railing against the spectre of religious fundamentalism gives the New Atheists a sort of phantom philosophy to hold on to.

440. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148502 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 23, 2008 at 8:12 am

Why now?

441. Fleabytes

Comment #148371 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Superstition is superstition with the potential for horrific consequences depending on time and space. Hitchens answer to Sam Harris in The Four Horsemen Video about Islam being the most dangerous religion is informative.

442. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148360 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 6:09 pm

I agree with Steve. Animations like this promote the idea of design in a lay audience.

443. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #148327 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm

When is the whole discussion being uploaded. I'm in a frenzy of anticipation

444. Fleabytes

Comment #148319 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 4:08 pm

It's also a truism to say there are other things that influence people other than religion or belief in God. You are arguing about a very specific kind of non-specific believer. I'm sure some exist but I wager that there are far more murkies who believe in god and that god and the bible have a big influence than your murkies for who god is superfluous a metaphor and meaningless.

445. Fleabytes

Comment #148300 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 3:31 pm

influenced by your prior experience with people and practical considerations

446. Fleabytes

Comment #148285 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Finally, I don't think having a belief in God means you are categorically incapable of carrying out evidence based thinking. Indeed most "murky religious people" are rational on most decisions where such thinking is required.

447. Fleabytes

Comment #148279 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Suppose you are a punk who wants to beat up on some gays I don't think the thought of whether you will get absolved at confession on Sunday would even enter into your calculation.

448. Fleabytes

Comment #148264 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Bunting is post-modernism personified. It is the post-modern critique of science that allows murkiness. Why are you not a murky? Because you know that it is an untenable position and that you have interrogate your views with the scientific mode of thinking. Murkiness and post-modernism are one and the same.

449. Fleabytes

Comment #148253 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 1:19 pm

The whole idea that subjectivity has any value is the main tenet of post-modernism.

Reality is a story. All reality exists, not objectively--out there--but in the mind of those who perceive it. Nobody's version of reality can claim to have more objective authority because all versions are merely human creations.

450. Fleabytes

Comment #148251 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 22, 2008 at 1:12 pm

I am talking about the fact that Murkies exist in the huge numbers they do, as a result of a post-modern education system. The media is full of murkies and their ideas will not be confronted for generations because the leading opinion setters are murkies themselves. Murkiness will not disappear until the scientific method, critical thinking and human fallibility are foundational to education.