gdp's Comments

Atheist Revolution : No, We Shouldn\'t Shun PZ Myers

Tue, 14 Apr 2015 05:19:03 +0000

No-one is shunning PZ because they don't like his *ideas*. They are shunning him because of this: "He said Richard Dawkins ‘seems to have developed a callous indifference to the sexual abuse of children’ and ‘has been eaten by brain parasites’, Michael Nugent is ‘the Irish wanker’ and a ‘demented fuckwit’, Ann Marie Waters is a ‘nutter’, Russell Blackford is a ‘lying fuckhead’, Bill Maher’s date at an event was ‘candy to decorate [her sugar daddy’s] arm in public’, Ben Radford is a ‘revolting narcissistic scumbag’ and his lawyer is ‘J Noble Dogshit’, Rosetta scientist Matt Taylor and Bill Maher are ‘assholes’, and Abbie Smith and her ‘coterie of slimy acolytes’ are ‘virtual non-entities’. He called Irish blogger ZenBuffy a ‘narcissistic wanker,’ after she said she has experienced mental illness."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ : The prostitution proposal needs kicked to the kerb - News Analysis, Opinion - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 02:00:26 +0000

Half the hysteria about sex trafficking is not really about sex at all - it's racism and xenophobia. In the US it's mainly about mexican immigrants. Without mexicans living next door, the irish have to suppose that the russians, the estonians, the … the … the yellow peril (!) are battering down their doors. Never mind that "trafficking" is absurd as a business model. It's selling coal to newcastle, ice to the eskimos: women willing to exchange sex for money are everywhere you go, it's pointless to go to the time and expense of importing 'em. But both the people who think the slanty-eyed menace is setting up shop in their neighbourhood (and displacing the good, honest, hardwiring local whores and sending money back to foreign places), and the people who are certain that people having sex makes baby jesus cry or is necessarily rape (if it's hetrosexual) - they can can join forces on this, the bogus issue of "trafficking".

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:32:14 +0000

"The US states individually would probably fit better." Why not simply break the US into "Yankees", "Confederates", and "The West" ?

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:29:38 +0000

One way of handling the fact that probabilities max out at 100% is to use not p, but p/(1-p). This gives you a nice curve that goes from 0 to inf. The log of this is symmetrical - and is actually the inverse of the logistical function, which I find amazing.

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:25:24 +0000

We did not evolve from apes: we *are* apes - a particular large-brained species of african ape. Asking :did humans evolve from apes" is like asking "did termites evolve from insects".

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/ : Calamities of Nature - Belief in Evolution Versus National Wealth

Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:22:53 +0000

Or, both are caused by a common third factor. Perhaps the general acceptance of the enlightenment program - progressivism in general - causes wealth and acceptance of evolution.

Godless Business : 33 - Access Ministries and More

Wed, 25 May 2011 05:45:10 +0000

"not-for-profit organisations will have to pay tax on profits that are kept for commercial purposes and not redirected towards the organisation's altruistic purpose." Bugger that. If they run a profit-taking business, then they are not a charity. Make 'em do profit-making activities as a commercial entity. If that entity chooses to give its profits to the charity and claim a tax deduction - fine. But keep them on separate books.

Godless Business : Access to kids

Sat, 7 May 2011 11:12:32 +0000

What? In the email in the image above, which quotes the legislation, "may not" is *exactly* what it says! Unless I'm getting a different image file to everyone else: 'If SRI is offered, it is to be scheduled on then school timetable; the usual period of time is 30 minutes per week. Secular instruction may not be timetabled while students from the class are attending SRI.'

Godless Business : Access to kids

Thu, 5 May 2011 12:30:32 +0000

For goodness sake: what does "may not" mean? May not. No, Jimmy, you may not eat a packet of tim-tams before dinner. The only way to understand the sentence your way is to parse it very, very oddly: "[Secular instruction] [may] [not be timetabled] [while students are receiving SRI]." as opposed to the more usual "[Secular instruction] [may not] [be timetabled] [while students are receiving SRI]." I continue to think that the department has interpreted this bad legislation correctly.

Godless Business : Access to kids

Wed, 4 May 2011 06:38:18 +0000

I dont agree - the problem is not "a bizarre reading of the act", it is the clear meaning of act itself. "May" means "permitted". The act is not stating "it's ok to not give other instruction", it's specifically stating that it is not permitted for other instruction to be given during RE. Same as "You may not walk through that door" usually means that door-walking-through is forbidden. I imagine that the intent is that religious students ought not be forced to miss out on teaching given to other students - they must not be made to chose between RE and math class. it's not all that sinister, it's just badly thought out.

Godless Business : William Lane Craig was right!

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 03:25:58 +0000

Is there a link to the original? The usual sitiuation when christians make this kind of argument (in the absense of the video, I am assuming he is making the usual arguments) are 1) The christian *defines* "sure foundation for morality" as meaning "god gives it to us". Their position is, if it ain't from a god, then it don't count. To that, all you can do is throw your hands up and point out that they are gaggin the debate. You can target the jargon: "sure foundation" is jargon. What exactly does WCL mean by this? 2) There are other "objective" grounds for morality than coming from a god. Morality arises from *human nature*, which is in our genes. It got into our genes because we are social animals, and societies only work (and help to ensure that their individials perpetuate thier genes) when everyone behaves in certain ways. 8There's* your objective source for moral values. 3) Lets say that it's true that because there's no God, there's no objective basis for morality. Replies include: 3a) So whaddaya going to do? Cry about it? "Boo-hoo! Life has no meaning! There's no right and wrong!". Harden up, for f***'s sake! 3b) Why yes, and this is exactly what we observe. Some people think it's right to perfrom clitorectomies and keep slaves, other people thik it's wrong. Once again, we find that the world looks exactly like there is no God. And finally, go on the attack: 4) If there's a God out there, defining objective morality, and a Holy Spirit living inside each christian as a teacher and counsellor, how come christians disagree on right and wrong? Why are Christians even debating about gays being christians or women being priests - can't God just tell 'em and be done with it? Does he really suck that badly as a communicator? 5) And at this point, you can also drag out the various Old testament laws and atrocities. Job done.

Godless Business : 4 reasons not to date an atheist

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 03:16:33 +0000

The thing is: the bible does say these things. Remember, when you are speaking with a bible-beliver of any stripe: they cannot treat you fairly. They will not listen and impartially weight what you have said. Read Ephesians 6 - the whole armour of God. That passage makes sense when you understand that "spiritual warfare" is code for "engaging in verbal argument with unbelievers". The goal is to score hits without being hit oneself, not to come to an understanding. In that context, all the items of the "armour" make sense.

Godless Business : Dog Heads

Sat, 16 Apr 2011 09:47:43 +0000

Odd - not sure at what end to grab this reply. Just because "you can't really do an experiment", doesn't mean that something is not scientific, or empirical. Climate science and paleontology come to mind. The problem with religious stuff isn't that you can't perform an empirical experiment in the lab. Yes, it's true that mechanical "why" questions aren't the only kind. The power of science, however, is that it has discredited a lot of the old explanations for things (eg: rainbows). And it has done so so broadly, so systematically, so convincingly, that many people no longer trust "spiritual" or religious explanations for things. That is, religion's various scientific claims have been so thoroughly debunked, that people are looking askance on its other claims: particularly as religion has made such extravagant claims of inerrancy - or just ordinary trustworthiness - in the past. If they were wrong about heaven being located above the earth, which we can check for ourselves; can we really be sure that they are right about thinngs that we can't check up on? This applies to both "the bible says so" and "I just feel Jesus is telling me". Even to the point of insisting, as you point out, that "evidence for a supernatural being" isn't good enough. It's not enough any more to say "science doesn't explain this, Goddidit does, therefore God". There's so many things that we were told that science could not - even in principle - explain, that it has turned out to be able to do so (the motions of the planets, the causes of disease, madness and mental states). I think that people who, to yet another claim of "this could only be the supernatural!", reply "O Rly?" have got an excellent case. The woomiesters have been wrong wrong wrong so often and so completely that a person would be a little silly not to. PS: I'll even go a step further. The evidence that spiritual explanations for things tend to be bunk is so complete that you are even well advised to discount your own personal experience of "the supernatural". Experience shows that people fool themselves so often that the odds are better that you are mistaken or hallucinating. PPS: Anyone heard Tim Minchin's "Bob's Mum" yet?

Godless Business : Dog Heads

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:06:46 +0000

'' Of course, you're never going to have physical, empirical evidence of the meta-physical," Not necessarily. This is only the case if the meta-physical, the supernatural,never has any consequences in the natural. Consider arithmetic. It's meta-physical. But if you put four oranges in a bag and take out two, amazingly, there will always be two oranges left in the bag. Arguably, we learn arithmetic in the first place not by pure reason, but by observing the physical consequences of it. That's one of the reasons we give kids blocks to play with. If there *can* be no evidence of the supernatural in the natural world, if *by it's nature* it never has any effect on the universe in which we physically live ... well, I suppose that might be true, but a lot of people feel that there's would be no point to us worrying about it.

Godless Business : Sam Harris and William Lane Craig

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:01:29 +0000

Please take this vid down - you misunderstand the point that whatshisface is making. He is claiming that the existence of objective morality depends on god. *That* claim is independent of whether or not god exists. "If it's sunny, you will get sunburnt" "If it's not sunny, you won't get sunburnt" Neither of those claims are saying anything about whether or not it actually is sunny right now. I mean, his position is *wrong*, but not in that he is saying that it's independent of the actual existence of God. It's wrong for other reasons. Please take this vid down. You are wrong, and embarrassingly so.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : RAY COMFORT, DEAD AT 61

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:28:20 +0000

Not only that, but do you want to spend forever in an endless worship service? Here on earth, we grow, we plan, we build, make, and produce. We live (or try to live) usefully. Could you bear an eternity of doing nothing but telling God how great he is (as if he didn't already know)? Mark Twain in his "letters from earth" has a wonderful take on thins.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ : RAY COMFORT, DEAD AT 61

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:24:59 +0000

Atheism is a narrow term, it means "does not think that there are any gods". There's a broad spectrum of other views that people who are atheist hold: a person who is atheist may or may not believe in the supernatural, may or may not think that the nonexistence of gods is something we can know "for sure", may or may not believe in an afterlife. However, one of the main flavours these days is scientific materialism, which logically implies atheism by way of a general denial of the supernatural, of "spirits" (remember: God is a spirit). If you are talking to a self-professed atheist on the 'net, is probably that you are talking to one of these. So, the answer is "not necessarily, but probably yes".

LOL god : Thank you, Jesus!

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 06:23:49 +0000

Actually, you see Cuba sending doctors. They have this thing there called "Public Health Care". We got it on Oz too thanks to Gough, that commie bastard.

LOL god : Jesus loves you so much that if you don't believe he is the son of god you will go to hell

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:52:25 +0000

" If a person is invincibly ignorant of the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, they won't necessarily go to Hell." So they only go to hell if they read the poster ... oops! Too late! Sucks to be you, now your going to be burned alive for ever and ever.

LOL god : Anti-science red flags of quackery

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:49:14 +0000

"My point is that the word "energy" used by Yoga and other movement instructors could be referring to the energetic organization or structuring of our bodies" What, you mean when you do yoga, you heat up? Or like, ft has energy, and yoga moves the fat around? "Energetic organisation"? Energy is measured in Joules (or calories). Energy per second in Watts. Exactly how many Joules of "structuring of our bodies" are we talking about?