401. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99901 by phasmagigas on December 17, 2007 at 7:32 pm

most secular brits are cultural christians by default, only the most jaded atheist would honestly bear a grudge against those who wished him/her a merry xmas, its so normalised that youd make yourself very unpopular if you didnt return the greetings although if the same person heard you deriding christianity the same day they might well feel you were being reasonable.

This xmas i will be in the UK, its about merry making and making the most of the short days, about seeing my family. i personally dont sing carols but i did go to a carol concert a couple of years ago, a nice tune is a nice tune. one of my favourite hymns from my school days was 'god is love:his the care' I like the melody, reminds me of something i imagine youd hear in the middle ages, the lads in school would always lower their voices (well as far as a 5-9 year old can) with the 'praise him' bit at the end whereas the girls (and am i right in thinking it was boys on the right, girls on the left, hom,ho, ho, how bloody quaint is that??) would sing the line beginnnings in higer pitches (kind of a boy/girl battle) anyway daily hymns and prayers didnt make any difference to me, i never took them as anything more than songs, good job i didnt make anything of the boy/girl divisions too otherwise i could now be a misogynist, conservative bigot.

402. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99467 by phasmagigas on December 16, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Then why don't you Brits institute separation of church and state? (Hint: it's tradition)

i went to a CoE primary school in the UK, daily hymns and prayers and then compulsory religious (comparative)education right through to being 16 leaves you taking religion non to seriously, i suspect my exposure to religion is preferable to non atall in school than having it evangelised to me as could happen in the USA. religion in the USA is oprahfied, people are so confident in looking like they are on prozac shouting 'believe' and 'joy', the brits generally just arent into that shit.

403. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99351 by phasmagigas on December 16, 2007 at 12:16 pm

double bass.

for sure many do wholeheartedly believe what they say but in many cases i simply refuse to believe that people can be so deluded, eg believing that the grand canyon is from noahs flood despite evidence through the stratigraphic column that suggests anything but, i just cannot understand the mentality so i prefer to imagine they are knowingly lying (maybe im deluding myself!). It must be like being a closet homosexual masturbating frantically to male images and thinking 'im not gay' 'im not gay' 'im not gay' rather than 'i dont want to be gay....'

404. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99347 by phasmagigas on December 16, 2007 at 12:05 pm

only the most die hard fundies in the UK would make a trip to a place like this.

the concept of acceptable traveling distances in the UK is nothing like in the USA. I have driven almost an hour in the USA to find a decent asian grocers and not found that considered unreasonable (aside from the CO2 emissions) but in the UK if you did that youd be seen as totally crazy. I personally (in the UK) dont know anybody aside from some muslims who are actual creationists. Most who go to church do so becasue its seen as a bit 'respectable' rather than anything to do with an honest to god faith. If this did open i'd like to see natural selection at work and watch it fail. As a whole the british are just a bit more skeptical, or should i say cynical than people in the USA, that whole clapping/crying/BIG praying thing is seen as somewhat embarrasing and something that puts you in the oddball bracket.

405. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99256 by phasmagigas on December 16, 2007 at 5:50 am

In the UK, we shouldn't laugh too much at this sort of thing. There are moves afoot to bring us our very own Creation Theme Park. See here: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2228201,00.html Aaargh!

that artice, the quotes are so full of non sequiters and falsehoods as to almost comical, seems kids in the UK binge drink because theres too much sex and violence on TV. Hopefully such a theme park in the UK will fail dismally. as i said earlier, it doesnt matter how many lies are told, poeple will believe that shit, people cannot differentiate shit at the best of times, many watch pop idol at weekends!!

406. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99253 by phasmagigas on December 16, 2007 at 5:43 am

the whole creation movement is a strange animal.

As far as i can tell many proponents knowingly deliver falsehoods, anything from twisting evidence to down right lies and then ideas like 'teach both sides' are insidiously added to make them seem reasonable. At the end of the day no matter how weak their position is through real science showing that their beliefs are not compatible with evidence they will still tell knowing lies.

Why? because they know enough people will believe them to aid them with their poisonous endeavour. At the end of the day the proponents of creation want it there so it makes them feel better about themselves and it always boils down to that, its about status and power, dembski (for eg) isnt interested in truth, hes interested in showing his world view is right, that it gives him an elevated position here and now and that it elevates his 'cosmic status' as it puts man in a priveleged position. I wonder why such individuals have such insecurities??

its all rather like a perversion, these self loving, bloated creationists swamp themselves in technology and the excesses of selective breeding and genetic manipulation (food) and yet deny the foundation that has allowed that to happen.

Its incredible that the greatest flasehood from religion is willingly being inserted into schools. In many ways being in america is no different from being in the middle east, people just own more junk here. edit:well not quite but one wonders what could happen in the next century or so.

407. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99087 by phasmagigas on December 15, 2007 at 1:27 pm

mr grape.

I don't know where in the U.S. you were or what age group you're talking about, but a "hi" to a group of kids would result in funny looks, laughs or a confrontation. Maybe it's just the city.

you misread me, its the kids who will say 'hi' to me, not the other way around.

408. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99025 by phasmagigas on December 15, 2007 at 9:05 am

around the 53 minute mark SH asks if there could be an argument for religious beliefs generally. I wonder this in relation to behaviour of children/adolescents in the UK. After living in the states for a few years ive never met the same type of aggressive behaviour and nihilistic mentality that many kids in the UK possess. Its the type of behaviour that one wouldnt expect in an essentially ordered and safe environment.

I guess that the double control of religion and substantial punishment from parents/techers and neighbours meant that years back you would not be subject to harrassment from kids, today both of those controls have all but vanished and may?? be the cause of the so called 'feral' behaviours that are all to common in the UK, and to be sure you do not need to be in some ghetto to see it. I pass a gang of kids in the USA and i usually get a 'hi' (and it took me a while to actually get used to that), in the UK you either get stared down, a 'what the fuck are you looking at' or a stone or two thrown as you walk away, who here in the UK hasnt experienced that? the point here is that kids in the US seem to have a stronger code of right/wrong and more general respect for people (including older people!).

interestingly after that SH also mentions that US muslims are less radicalised than in europe. From what ive seen in the UK, many muslim youths seem to be persuaded by religion as a backlash to the 'vulgar' behaviour displayed by many of their non islamic peers, be it drinking, revealing clothing or general loutishness. Its interesting to note that I feel less intimidated passing a group of muslim youth in the UK than i am passing a group of non muslim youths. A polite 'hi guys' to the muslim kids is often greeted with a suprised positive response as they otherwise assume you 'dont like them'.

409. How do you explain the lack of transitional forms in nature, the gaps in the fossil record?

Comment #98976 by phasmagigas on December 15, 2007 at 4:47 am

I can explain it by the fact that the vast majority of organisms do not get fossilised. To demonstrate my point see what happens to a chicken body that you leave at a woodland egde, my point will be self evident within a very short time.

The fact that you expect a perfect set of transitional organisms/features demonstartes very well your ignorance of biology and natural processes and a low appreciation that things were not exclusively set out for YOU.

To make you think a bit more deeply you need to appreciate that any organism that leaves descendents (it will of course always had ancestors) is a transitional organism in itself.

410. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98873 by phasmagigas on December 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm

The banning of ruht is welcome. As i said before anybody set out to deliberately troll has no business on any forum, that was his intention and its simply good riddance. Now where is that nice chap revcort??? hes welcome to take his place (as long as rev doesnt start hurling scriptures again).

411. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98871 by phasmagigas on December 14, 2007 at 7:35 pm

scotch, maybe, well have to ask those in the know!

412. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98867 by phasmagigas on December 14, 2007 at 7:20 pm

i'll watch this later but the pics of the jolly 4 with drinks and smiles must be enough to make many a fundamentalist turn red with fury. i have to say Mr harris could suit a pair of horns on his head. Wow, thats a large brandy for Mr hitchens!! probably not the first and probably not the last.

unmoderated, sheesh!!

413. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98120 by phasmagigas on December 13, 2007 at 5:22 am

i like debating evolution but as soon as i start being told im evil, that somebody is praying for me, that i will eventually bow to jesus I have to leave it there.

It would be the equivalent of me entering an islamic forum (where people can rightly discuss the minutae of islamic doctrine) and have me telling them they are idiots for not accepting evolution, i shouldnt expect to be welcomed or listened to.

Im hoping a few others might join me in ignoring ruht so he can rant alone for a while before being blocked, he might get a better reception on a theistic evolutionist site where they may at least share some sentiments with him, if im not mistaken ruhts first posts were regarding evolution and from there have descended into a display of rabid fundamentalist madness that serves nobody.

414. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97891 by phasmagigas on December 12, 2007 at 7:51 pm

post 596, ive flagged that as a troll. ruht, you are seeing your last few posts on this forum.

415. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97886 by phasmagigas on December 12, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Yes, and we see this in atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Margaret Sanger, etc., etc., etc.

All great 'humanitarians.'

Save your claptrap, Steve.

do we need dignify this with an answer or get a troll blocked? i personally want ruht blocked. its amazing that we get drawn into posts with fundamentalists, hes entered this board specifically to troll, as such he needs to be blocked. I cannot believe hes not deliberately trolling.

416. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97884 by phasmagigas on December 12, 2007 at 7:35 pm

ruht:

Yes, believe it or not there's a whole 'nother world out there besides the very small niche of Dawkins and atheists and darwinists and all of the rest of your closed-minded, dead end little world.

yes, im quite aware of that here in the midwest of the USA, i had another flyer stuck to my door handle tonight asking if i was saved or not!!

417. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97498 by phasmagigas on December 12, 2007 at 7:40 am

the prickly pear certainly isnt intelligently designed, not from a fruit gatherers point of view. Imagine falling into a pile of the cactus whilst gathering those ripe red just out of reach fruits!! I was suprised there wasnt an 'eject fruit' button (maybe as quets was saying) at the base of the cactus (where the old leaves have become huge and woodyish) that fired the fruits off into my basket, how inconsiderate.

418. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97486 by phasmagigas on December 12, 2007 at 7:22 am

There is a counterargument to creationist nonsense at the smaller size scale. Fruits so small that we can't use them. Wolffia angusta has fruits 0.3mm long.

steve, for sure. it would be interesting to see the data for fruits generally (ie those reproductive structures that are food for something as opposed to being dispersal structures for eg) and see how many have we humans use for consumption. then again, what a silly thing to do, it would mean i was taking the creationist idea seriously (that fruit was made for humans). as a side note i took a prickly pear cactus fruit from the cactus earlier this year in california (and im not sure what structure it actually is)but damn, those evil little spines, thinner than a hair that get into your finger tips, delicious though once peeled, i couldnt find the zipper though so i had to use a knife.

419. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97478 by phasmagigas on December 12, 2007 at 6:54 am

Yes, perhaps you can ask yourself why such large vegetables and fruits don't grow in trees, where they could fall onto someone's head and hurt or kill someone.

Once again, evidence of Intelligence Design.

In any event, are any of these ground crawlers too heavy to be lifted by the average human? And I'm not talking about purposely altered and grown prize pumpkins and so forth, but the average, natural size and weight of such specimens.

How did so-called 'evolution' figure out not to allow such foods to grow too big for man to lift? How did it figure out not to allow such things to grow in trees?

Because they were designed and created by a Creator, that's why.

an incredible example of an unitelligently designed brain on display for the worlld to see!

Im beginning to think ruht is maybe 11 or 12 at the most, if you are a child then i can understand your misunderstandings.

Try walking under coconut palms, if one of those (seeds)land on your head youll be lucky if anybody even recognises you.

Ruht, this is honestly one of the most incredible things ive read EVER, i actually wonder if you are an evolutionist trolling just for fun, you manage to say things that are so full of ignorance that i find it hard to believe you are simply misunderstanding evolution, im thinking you say them deliberately, knowing full well how ridiculous they are.

the reason giant fruits dont usually grow on trees is that the tree itself and its thinner branches can only support so much weight, theres an optimum size for fruit anyway as plants can only divert so many resources to 'temptations' for frugivores. YOu are under the infantile notion that fruits were designed just for us, strange then that the majority of fruits are inedible to humans. Then again, there is the pomegranete, i often wonder if that was designed to improve the patience of children, the new atheist nightmare!!

Oh and BTW, vegetables dont grow on trees as such, plants that we eat are called vegetables unless its a reproductive structure and then we specifically call it a fruit (technically the fruit is the ovary of the flower, wow to think adam was chewing on an ovary! although of course not all 'fruits' are ovaries, i digress...). The heart of palm is a good example of unintelligently designed vegetable , try biting out one of those from the growing tip of a palm (no tools allowed)!!

i think we are all wasting our time with this person, its dreadful to think that his thoughts might be sincere.

420. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97175 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Ruht

When hitting a dead end in the theory of evolution

"The central finding is that human evolution is happening very fast -- faster than any of us thought," Harpending said in a telephone interview"

Translated: "Since our 'billions and billions of years' thing is being proven to be impossible, then we have to come up with something else."

very strange, i read 'evolution is happening very fast, faster than any of us thought' now to my mind that says that evolution is happening just simply at a faster rate than scientists at first realised. Ruht, until you can get a grip and actually learn a bit of evolution and learn to 'decipher' difficult news text (you misinterpreted that one) you really shouldnt bother trolling this thread.

It never ceases to amaze me how a creationst will read an evolution artice and then assume somehow it disproves it!!!! I recently was talking to a creationist about selective breeding (i had no idea he was one) and only when he said, 'and selective breeding just goes to show what a load of nonsense darwins theory is' I was like 'what?' i explained that it actually demonstrates it, it demostrates it very well, and i quickly mentioned genetic variation>trait selection>genes passed on>gene frequency change in population = evo. Amazingly he didnt say anything more.

Now you might jump to the 'god' stuff again as its obvious you are intellectually incapable of engaging the evolution topics realistically so the god stuff is relatively easy, no proof either way just lots of assertions. Ruht, im sorry but when you post these things (like the first quote at the top) you are displaying not only a poor understanding of evolution but what appears to be a general lack of logic, i dont want to be rude but the first comment is so indicative of poor understanding that im not sure you will ever be able to understand evolution, maybe you just dont want to understand it, if you dont then you have no (useful) business on these threads because at that point you are a troll.

421. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97059 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 10:54 am

anybody want to join me in deepest peru to convert a few natives to atheism??

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

Comment #96972 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 7:26 am

boycott or not, im happy i didnt actively not see narnia because of its supposed christian symbolism. its something i didnt even think about. The religious mind truly can be poison.

i watched narnia as i enjoy the story anyway and i was interested to see a new adaptation of something ive seen on the (small) screen several times. Im not familiar with the pullman stories so just havent felt the inclination to watch the movie, i'll wait to rent on DVD.

that nasty BD only want to say the boycott worked so hes in the news, so hes right, so hes having an effect, as often with the religious their motivations are as selfish as the genes which they seem to be afraid of.

423. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96966 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 7:18 am

pyota

i'm rather shocked to read all these anti-circumcision posts! weird. i can only suppose its further evidence that atheists are just another herd.

male circumcision is a health operation with about as much 'trauma' as getting a tooth cavity filled. the health benefits are well attested to by the medical community. the fact that jews practice it as a religious ritual has nothing to do with its practice in the secular world.

you talk nonsense, my post circumcision care was a nightmare, it was painful, there was infection, i was in hospital for over a week (im not sure how normal that is). As for being part of another herd, well being opposed to removal of highly sensitive tissue for no good reason be it foreskin or earlobe or tongue or fingertips, or any tissue for that matter is hardly part of being a herd, its the default condition to be intact so to oppose it is hardly showing im in a herd but the reasonable natural default position.

If your culture suggested that you should clip a triangular segment from your lower ear lobe would you accept that? most likely you would.

Your point relating atheism to anticircumcision is absurd, just what the hell has not believing in god got to do with me opposing circumcision, as a teenager i was really unhappy being circumcised, a time when god was something I never thought about, at the end of the day there is no good argument for circumcision and if you suggest that health benefits are one let me suggest you get a testicle removed so you can possibly reduce your chance of testicular cancer by one half.

424. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96964 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 7:02 am

I think a big reason for the continued prevalence of infant circumcision in the US is the natural desire for people to think of themselves as good parents

I can imagine many american dads have their sons circumcised for no better reason that they can be just like dad, you know a ritual like taking him to his first ball game or drinking his first beer.

425. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96958 by phasmagigas on December 11, 2007 at 6:52 am

i was circumcised as an 8-9 year old in the UK for tight foreskin, something that apparently can be 'fixed' without circumcision.

I absolutely regret that it happened. The aftercare from the operation was painful and i remember vividy having salt baths and having medical gauzes stuck tight onto my glans, yes it fucking hurt and yes i have scarring on my glans as well as the usual stitch marks which i see as ugly.

Being circumcised means that a good sized portion of skin has been removed, remember the foreskin has 2 sides. a circumcised penis is compromised in many ways, the skin on the shaft cannot come far back as it should when the prepuce is retracted, most guys have no idea that the prepuce skin ends up all the way down the bottom of the shaft, so basically we miss out on a lot of sensations and apparently (i can see there being truth in this) the fact that there is litle skin movement over the erect circumcised penis means that during intercourse the inside of the vagina can become easily chaffed as the skin is constantly moving over her inside, in an 'as intended' penis the shaft moves a lot but this is not followed by the loose skin over the penis, chafing is minimised. I read somewhere (im not sure if its true) that an circumcised infant does have neural growth into other tissues in the area but as an older child/adult its already set so the loss of sensation (from the missing several inches square of tissue) is permanent.

I was the only non muslim kid who i knew who was circumcised, thats great fun when you are at school.

The circumcision mentality is so normalised in the US that my wife wonders why i make a fuss about it, she thinks im crazy for even questioning it, i dont take the conversation any further, can you believe that! now if that isnt proof that this thing can piss you off nothing will.

As the saying wisely goes 'better to have and not want than to want and not have'

irrespective of why i had mine done im totally aginst circumcision unless of course there is a valid medical reason, i cannot understand why men (of all creatures) would submit their sons to have part of their penis actually removed, I can almost understand (if you see my point) why a patriarchal society would allow women to have their clitoris's hacked out but to do it to ones self (as such) is crazy. i suspect that most religiously circumcised men havent given the notion any thought, rather like many other topics.

In a nutshell i honestly feel that my sexual pleasure is reduced by circumcision and that fucks me off as we only live once.

Yes, it is an abuse of the childs rights, let the man decide if he wants his prepuce removed.

426. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96181 by phasmagigas on December 10, 2007 at 5:59 am

Here's an encouraging fact. As the producer was showing me out after the show, he told me that the great majority of callers were on my side. The BBC filterers deliberately choose those who disagree with the guest, for the obvious reason that it makes for more interesting television/radio. So, the English woman from France was actually in the substantial majority of those who phoned in.

Interesting. understandably its more useful to have disagreers on the calls but i wonder if the 'filterers' knew the actual question to be posed before putting them through, my point being, i wonder if the filterers thought that any of these people were asking good questions.

Its funnny how the junkyarders always seem to think they have a good point when its obvious they have totally misunderstood what they have read or believed some misunderstanding that they have been told.

427. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96003 by phasmagigas on December 9, 2007 at 5:02 pm

RD answered well, concisely and to the point.

I'm not sure how representative the callers were but its quite obvious that some of theists werent really understanding some basic points.

I found the american cleric difficult to listen to (ad hominem), sounded way to confident atacking straw men.

The lady from turkey seemed to be of the school 'freedom of speech, just watch what you say' im not sure she realised she was contradicting herself though.

428. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95994 by phasmagigas on December 9, 2007 at 4:27 pm

that father marks bloke sounds like the son of dinesh d souza and ted haggard attacking straw men in a frenzy (re stalin etc........)

RD gives a concise answer, he (caller) then says people wont believe you and you are commenting outside your subject.


classic.

429. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95552 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Thanks for the recipe....I've had tofu till I'm sick of it!! My wife thinks it's great!

cheers

krisking, you could stir fry wood chips in that mix and it would be nice!

430. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95550 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 3:09 pm

The most that can be said is that we are wired for empathy with our kin, relatives, tribe etc. The tribe on the other side of the valley, was just as 'alien' to our ancestors - and a possible threat to their survival as any other wild animal.

just think how many cattle rustlers have been shot dead in their tracks only to have the owners get back their dear cattle?? remeber, outside of kin (and i dont know HOW far outside of kin) another human becomes a competitor (and indeed even your own child is a competitor at some level) as they want the exact same resources as do you. A group of hunter gatherers might welcome an influx of game on thsir land but not a new tribe despite being more related to the tribe than the game.

431. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95545 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 3:05 pm

mdowe

Let me think about this for a second. If I said I prefer to live in a world where I could savour an occasional Granny stew from a humanely and locally reared Granny that was killed ... you get my point. Clearly the culinary-choice aspects of 'kind of world I would like to live in' doesn't influence the moral question, and even humane and painless killing doesn't get me completely off the hook from a moral perspective. If it is ok to kill the cow, why isn't it ok bump-off Granny? I guess I'm personally just skirting the issue by just leaving the cow (and Grannies) alone .. call it intellectual

acthually instead of beef in my post please insert any given animal flesh, grannies included, theres no reason to suppose that grannies once dead couldnt be ingested, in some cultures im sure they are/were. Its interesting but i wonder just how much more revolting would the average person find eating human flesh be to eating that of any animal they are not used to, fancy a rat, a cat, a fox, a monkey, a chimp?? as we know chimps are widely eaten and we are but 5 million years apart.

432. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95542 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 2:56 pm

I tend to agree with you....but I live in a mostly vegetarian household...with a nearly vegan wife.....and I just wish the food were more palatable and that we could get our daughters to eat more variety.....

salt and pepper tofu:

deep fry 1 inch or so cubes tofu until brown.
then stir fry the cubes quickly in the following:good splash sesame oil, crushed garlic (lots), fresh ground black pepper (lots), salt (quite a lot), red chilli flakes and finally throw in some fine chop spring/green onion, the whole dish is quite dry (ie no sauce as such) but incredible to eat with some nice steamed rice, its does make your kitchen a no go area, like a hell of sorts. Its a fantastic dish though, very addictive.

433. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95495 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

i suppose for now any position is better than that of some theists i have known (have being the operative word) and that is that animals are here for mans use, they dont feel anything anyway so they can be treated any way atall, suffering is unknown to them.

that is a friendship breaker if there ever was one.

434. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95492 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 12:45 pm

one wonders about the whole issue. would i prefer to live in a world where i could savor an occasional beef stew from a humanely locally reared animal, so killed as to be rendered oblivious in a careful instant or one in which i had to eat some biotechnology byproduct fungi/bacterial composite of high biological value protein instead??

435. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95478 by phasmagigas on December 8, 2007 at 12:24 pm

the dissonance of knowing cruelty and eating meat is not equivalent to that of the general theist ignoring evidence. One can realise some degree of suffering occured to provide you with meat morsel x but the difference is our bodies have evolved to find meat morsel x ecstatic, kind of a mouth and mind orgasm, its real to the eater and proportional to degree of hunger the individual feels.

Its a tricky one but there is a difference between factory faming some poor pig to feed an already obese person at low cost and having a family share a scrawny chicken over a week thats been happily converting seeds and beetles into flesh on their tiny smallholding in a developing country.

at the end of the day we have choices (ignoring the whole free will thing which i know nothing about), a person can be a vegan and eat only organically and locally or a person can keep kitterns locked in tiny cages in their basement and put pins in their feet each night and eat only factory farmed animals.

Im finding more and more ways to cook tofu im happy to say!!

436. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94633 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:41 am

when you consider the expense of decorating a home with lights, giant inflatable snowmen (and in the US its funny how these are seen from the sub tropics to the near arctic), plastic trees, fat man in red costume, ginger braed house, real trees, plywood prop sleighs that grandad made in the 60's, angels, fairies, stars, candy canes, cribs, babies with halos, baubels, candles, oh and then another round of some poor bred for size last remaining dinosaur (even though the thaksgiving one still being eaten by the dog) one would think that more people might stand back and ask 'just why do i do this?

brits do at least have it right. We have traditional 'christmas crackers'. The emergent (post cracking of the cracker) black poirot like moustache and paper hat which invariably ends up on some uncles head is good enough reason for christmas as it gives us all a chance to act silly.

437. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94627 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:26 am

So, to put a star on top of a pine tree or to arrange various farm animals around a crib is to be as accurate and inventive as that Japanese department store that, as urban legend has it, did its best to emulate the Christmas spirit by displaying a red-and-white bearded Santa snugly nailed to a crucifix.

hilarious, actually in japan the cities are highly decorated with christmas decorations.

438. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94625 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:13 am

the bishop of carlisles vulgar comments. I'd have been more persuaded by his argument had the UK seen a severe drought (it rains most days in the uk anyway so a bit more is hardly remarkable). Water, even a flood is preferable to drought, i think i should rather drown than die of thirst.

westboro baptists do a good job of showing americans what religion can do to minds but unfortunately it doesnt make them question their own faith views, instead they say 'we just dont like those crazies'.

dinesh, well atheists are not to be found after school massacres because they tend not to poke their nose into others business and dont like to condescend people with false hopes and thoughts.

439. Fox: 'Atheist Outrage' over holiday 'Tree of Knowledge'

Comment #94624 by phasmagigas on December 6, 2007 at 5:03 am

the whole christmas thing is so confusing.

Here in america people shout 'happy holidays', in the UK people say 'merry christmas', when i see my family and friends this year I will say merry christmas despite i nor they being practicing christians or even non practicing, in fact they probably dont think about it atall, its simply become a way to get through the miserable winter with an excuse for some lights and drink. the brits take a far more relaxed view to the whole thing. Despite that you still get religious leaders on tv saying 'people forget what the real meaning of christmas is' and i wonder just what that is????

For the average secular brit (and perhaps for more americans than we realise) christmas is little more than nostalgia for childhood dressed up in a rather thin religious veneer.

UK schools tend to have christmas trees up and i suppose symbols of all the major faith festivals (fairs, fair)but its seen as a bit of fun and nobody really (i hope) gives a damn, and this is in schools that still have moring prayer, and nobody still gives a damn. America seems to strangely politicise everything or at the very least seem to force prescription onto things (ignoring the church/state separation for now). An example was over halloween I saw articles in local news papers that showed the schools recommendations for appropriate conduct/costumes/activities for kids in schools, eg one suggested that costumes shouldnt have a horrific theme. I got the feeling that its an attempt to pardown a festival that has somewhat religious/supernatural elements even if it means little more than eating sugar all day and holllowing out a pumpkin.

mere musings anyway...

440. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94072 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:32 pm

walk. I conciously rejected every notion of supernatural about 10 years ago, its a great way to clear fluff from the head (well by that I mean its useful in that when you hear a bump in the attic you know its NOT a ghost but maybe something much more dangerous like a rabid racoon). Some might say thats dogmatic and closed minded, well not so, im quite happy to see the proof for mind reading, mediums, ghosts etc but it is simply that thre is not ONE case, not ONE case worldwide that can be shown to be reasonably verified. Its depressing that fraudsters like sylvia browne can earn a substantial living by conning people who believe in pure nonsense.

I keep my supernatural appreciation in film and books.

441. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94063 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:02 pm

At least if us atheists are wrong, we'll find out. Unfortunately, if the believers are wrong, they'll never know! (Damn!)

walk, i think this is an important point, perhaps more important than anybody might realise.

My worldview can be falsified anytime, anywhere but as far as im concerned it has yet to be so, the theist worldview cannot. The theist can imagaine any scenario they choose be it fossils planted by god to test faith or heavenly gluten placed in each and every tube of penne, they cannot be disproven. I walk happily ready to be shown i am wrong.

remember the debate how dinesh facetiously suggested that the afterlife might be proved by visits from the dead, what a bloody comedian, hes the one who accepts ressurection.

442. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94057 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 4:45 pm

another 'newbie' troll from under the bridge but thats fine as long as the said troll engages in some decent debate/conversation from this point on.

Proof of god. Well as i mentioned on some thread ages ago on circumcision, i am circumcised, i wish i wasnt and if i pray tonight to have my prepuce returned to me (so i can enjoy sensations that have been denied me) and tomorrow morning it is there I will declare a miracle (and im not sure anybody in recorded history has had a prepuce grow back over night if atall so im not sure it could be explained in any other way) and I could well accept the existence of god.

443. Highway to hysteria

Comment #93969 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 2:01 pm

And I personally guarantee they'll throw the old Hitler,Stalin,Mao combo to show how crazy all we atheists are.

of course id be ready for a bit of fallacy bashing.

444. Highway to hysteria

Comment #93946 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 1:34 pm

ive yet to watch the video but it got me thinking.

The next time you have a religious moderate beating you up because you are an atheist or accept evolution you can offer them a challenge.

Take them to the computer and ask them to locate some pro atheist material that would actually make you (the atheist) say 'oh jees, they are just so crazy, thats appauling thats not me, thats a very scary atheist and we are not all like that' then do the equivalent for them with some theistically driven madness, you know maybe jesus camp, this video (i guess), that crazy woman on wife swap, or even some actual decapitation footage if you want to get the message across more forcefully

I guarantee you will be showing them a lot more links than they will be showing you. This is a take on the hitchen challenge but its one that could be quite fun after a few drinks (i personally would not bring up any actual murders but could at least threaten to show them, they are there to be seen after all).

445. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93757 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 6:17 am

hitch did well on that interview, im glad he used every second to get his points across. the interviewer let the comments stand and he didnt end with something like 'dont worry folks, god does exist' as the screen cut (im not sure who said that in a recent interview with dawkins? on fox?). Its intervention from the interviewer that can influence an usophisticated viewer and its all to common on US TV.

446. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93752 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:49 am

seems strange to me that its atheists who arent 'supposed' to be rude and intolerant, I always thought thats what we/they were supposed to be!!

447. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93746 by phasmagigas on December 4, 2007 at 5:29 am

I read some stupid comments in other blogs about this article saying things like our predecessors had a better memory, but chimps aren't our predecessors, we have common predecessors with them. I also don't agree that chimps can help us necessarily to understand our predecessors because how can we know if our common predecessors were more like chimps or more like men?

true, the statements work on the assumption that chimps abilities are closer to the ancestral state and of course it could be that WE are closer to the ancestral state. As our mind has evolved dramatically in many areas we assume it has in all areas, thats is not necessarily true and our bias.

448. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93520 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:52 am

Well, let's be honest - Dan pulled a "Dinesh" and didn't fully address the topic of the debate. He kind of beat around the edges and then it's off to a new topic.

I expected a bit more of dan myself. Ignoring the relative merits of the debaters the problem with the god issue (ignoring religion itself) is that in having debates about unknowable, all powerful, unfalsifiable supernatural entities it is always going to be a little bit difficult for those in opposition.

449. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93517 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:34 am

Dinesh's voice was bordering on hysterical in his tone, compared to, say, his debate with Shermer. Maybe that's because Dennet's arguments are so much more complete and "sensible" sounding...!

dinesh reminded me very much of a salesman who is afraid of not getting a sale, this is a personal attack and it has nothing to do with his stance, now i understand how one could get desperate for a sale and you will behave accordingly (when you are relying on the sale for your income), and weve all seen salesmen who have almost become pleading, the difference is that dinesh isnt selling anything that anyone needs.

450. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93512 by phasmagigas on December 3, 2007 at 10:16 am

gmork.

its interesting that when one reads the transcribed section one immediately sees the zero relation to the question. it has some meaning within its own somewhat bizarre context but it still sounds like something sylvia browne would make up, but thats it. the closest he gets to the topic is something like 'god is outside of the universe and he created it' which doesnt even take us BACK to the initial question!!

well, thats how it reads to me.

so in a nutshell hes basically bullshitted his way after the question and many may wonder if he made a valid point or not before we get to the next question......

so he avoided that question and the one about evidence for god in part 14. i think this debate seriously needs dissecting for future reference.

if dinesh was more honest and said something like 'i dont know the origin of god if there is one' i'd be more willing to listen to him again but his deliberate? obfuscation makes me distrust him.