This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by AsylumWarden

Go to: Simply ... should I read the bible?

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by AsylumWarden

Go for it. At least then no-one can call you out on not having read it and therefore can't understand it. As to why the Bible over the others... well if you're in a native English-speaking country, the King James version will also help to understand the history of your language.

Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:31:26 UTC | #950830

Go to: The Dawkins Challenge

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by AsylumWarden

Mr Carrol, I am simply going to borrow from the Prof. and go for the jugular here. If science turned up evidence for the existence of a God, or even better, specifically the Judeo-Christian one, would you still be at pains to point out that faith and religion were something beyond science and subject to a completely different mindset that scientists can't understand?

Now go down the shops will you? I think you need to get some more straws to grab because you appear to running painfully thin on them here.

Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:45:11 UTC | #947420

Go to: Richard Dawkins Has a Point, Your Eminence!

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by AsylumWarden

This article really highlights the problems of Christianity:

If you accept the truth of science, you accept that it has largely proven Christianity completely wrong, so why, in the name of all that is reasonable, do you still believe?

If you accept the word of the bible, you are ...[message terminated due to inevitable breaches of profanity rules]

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:13:46 UTC | #937845

Go to: Who matters (or should) when scientists engage in ethical decision-making?

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by AsylumWarden

1.Do you feel like you have an interest in what science and scientists are up to? If so, how would you describe that interest? If not, why not?

Yes, mainly because I am a scientist myself and as such find it interesting in general to know what else is going on in the field.

2.Do you think scientists should treat “the public” as an interested party when they try to make ethical decisions? Why or why not?

Scientists have a duty to ensure no one is harmed as a result of their research. Results of research simply show what is. It is then for society to decide how to best ethically deal with it. e.g. coming up with solutions for climate change is ethical. Denying it is happening to avoid having to do anything is unethical.

3.If you think scientists should treat “the public” as an interested party when they try to make ethical decisions, what should scientists be doing to get an accurate read on the public’s interests?

This is a tricky one because on so many subjects such as evolution and climate change, so much of the public is woefully misinformed by well-funded propaganda by people whose positions are under threat from the results of some of these research areas. General scientific education needs improving drastically!

4.And, for the sake of symmetry, do you think members of the public ought to take account of the interests of science or scientists when they try to make ethical decisions? Why or why not?

What needs to be understood is that science simply 'is'. It is not good or evil, liberal or conservative, communist or capitalist, etc etc... It is simply the study of the way things are. Reality should always be considered when making any sort of decision. Buying a new Ferrari may be a good decision if you want a new car, but if you are only just managing to balance the books each month this certain reality has to be taken into account to tell you it is a bad idea!

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:37:01 UTC | #937030

Go to: 10 Reasons Why We Should Explore The Deep

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by AsylumWarden

Let's not forget that when Faraday was messing around with electricity he was shunned with such remarks as' Electricity is just a scientists' toy. Steam has given us everything we need.' I don't think anyone here now thinks he was wrong to go prodding around in areas which were seemingly useless at the time.

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:55:01 UTC | #931051

Go to: Blessed are those with a persecution complex?

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by AsylumWarden

*applauds

Superbly put!

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:06:19 UTC | #930120

Go to: Civilian Pastor Attacks Atheist Soldier - Reverend Bryan Griem Claims Atheist Solders Are "Big Fat Chickens"

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by AsylumWarden

Emailed him.

Dear Rev. Griem

I am writing to you with pride about my Grandfather who served his country, alongside yours I believe, in World War II. He was shot in the shoulder by a sniper, lost a finger and held in a POW camp for his troubles. Fortunately he survived to tell me these tales and be a loving grandpa to my entire family until he lost his battle with chronic bronchitis. He was also an Atheist. Being that he fought so bravely to help secure your freedom of speech, would you exercise it to call him a 'big fat chicken' to his face were he still alive?

Yours in utter contempt for your misguided (and rather un-Christ like, I must say) judgment on your fellow man

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:13:52 UTC | #927843

Go to: Marriage - two viewpoints

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by AsylumWarden

Marriage has always existed in society, they argue. But only since each area/culture/country has had a developed society, has there subsequently been marriage. Marriage never predates society. In other words, each definition of marriage has emerged following the emergence of a new society.

As we seem to be entering a new societal era (relatively speaking of course, through slow evolution!), why should we not subsequently be laying down our new definition of marriage that comes with it?

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:26:21 UTC | #927002

Go to: Church schools shun poorest pupils

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by AsylumWarden

Didn't most of us know this at least 2 years ago?

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:28:58 UTC | #924709

Go to: Can Jewish and Christian values last without belief in an omnipotent God?

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by AsylumWarden

No, Christian and Jewish values cannot last without belief in an omnipotent God. Without God there is simply no way you can condone ritual animal sacrifice, stoning your unruly children to death, slavery, offering up your virgin daughters for gang rape, slaughtering entire villages...

Sat, 03 Mar 2012 12:30:02 UTC | #924032

Go to: Atheist group targets Muslims, Jews with ‘myth’ billboards in Arabic and Hebrew

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by AsylumWarden

          [Comment 2](/articles/645160-atheist-group-targets-muslims-jews-with-myth-billboards-in-arabic-and-hebrew/comments?page=1#comment_923639) by  [Sjoerd Westenborg](/profiles/178299)          :


                 @Rtambree,They tried that. Oh boy did I have a laugh at this site, if you can bear the ignorance.http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/atheist-group-to-sponsor-anti-christmas-billboards-featuring-jesus-santa-satan/

Jesus wept! Well, I'm sure he would do if he existed at that display of judging, not turning the other cheek, hate-filled bile. Why is it devout Christians are some of the least Christ-like people in existence?

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:35:59 UTC | #923740

Go to: The real opponents of secularism

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by AsylumWarden

Very good points. The 'left' one I can particularly sympathise with. I signed up to an organisation that shall remain nameless to help combat the threat of the BNP. They claimed to fight racism, facism and intolerance in all its forms. With the BNP now largely defeated, the attention is shifted to the EDL. I've lost counts of the frustrated conversations I've had with some of their organisers where I've argued that, yes, we should be campaigning against the EDL's violence-inciting marches etc, but that equally we should be campaigning against Anjem Choudary's Shariah marches against which the EDL formed to protest against.

"No", I am told. "This isn't what we're about. We want to end intolerance. We want to help spread multiculturalism and respect for other people's beliefs and help end oppression." Now matter how much detail I go into explaining that this is precisely the point! How much I show them about how Choudary and his Shariah groups are perhaps the most intolerant group of people in the UK, who have no respect for any religion or culture other than their own highly oppressive one. The fact that they who would destroy multiculturalism overnight given the chance. No, my arguments seem to fall on deaf ears, or I am told that 'I really don't get it - Choudary and his ilk are a small group that don't represent the views of the majority of Muslims.'

The fact that they are a very dangerous, very vocal minority out to swell their ranks to promote beliefs we find abhorrent doesn't seem to enter into account. Nor does the fact that Nick Griffin's BNP were a small minority and the very reason that this group was formed was to demonstrate this for those very same reasons I just listed.

It seems that these 'lefties' (in quotations because I also consider myself a leftie) just want to protect the rights of all minority groups to do exactly as they will no matter how abhorrent they may find it or how badly it would impact upon society as a whole.

I think the only way to bring these people is to just keep on hammering home the point that we want secularism purely BECAUSE we're trying to end oppression, intolerance and hatred. Because the groups who would suffer under it are the groups who promote exactly that. That and to dispel the idea that critising Islam in particular is neither racist, nor 'islamophobic'.

The 'right', I fear, are even harder to convert. They seem to either not want to upset the status quo, or if they do, to step BACKWARDS towards a 'Golden Old Age' that, in reality, probably never existed.

Long post, but my two cents on the matter.

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:16:29 UTC | #922939

Go to: Vatican told to pay taxes as Italy tackles budget crisis

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by AsylumWarden

Good start! Mr Cameron, can you please follow suit?!

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:43:01 UTC | #922236

Go to: BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by AsylumWarden

I have to echo the negative sentiments. They won't see it as a good thing that science was willing to take on board the possibility that it was wrong, even though it turned out not to be so. Faith-heads will just see it further signs that the scientific method is somehow at fault.

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:11:41 UTC | #920871

Go to: Writing a new code for life?

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by AsylumWarden

          [Comment 8](/articles/645056-writing-a-new-code-for-life/comments?page=1#comment_920794) by  [Degsy](/profiles/43401)          :


                 Not that there is anything wrong with carbon chauvinism, after all it's the only way of life we know, but could other elements offer the complexity and diversity of compounds to allow life to occur. I recall silicon being a candidate due to its tetrahedral chemistry. The modification of bases is one thing (TNA), but does anyone know of other theories pertaining to an origin of life that does not require carbon? Just curious.

Silicon's chemistry is similar to carbon, yes. But it is a larger atom and as such, bonds are formed further away from the nucleusouter orbitals. That's not generally a problem for single bonds, but it means that double bonds and aromatics contain nodes, making them less stable. Double bonds and/or aromatics are found in practically all key biological molecules including amino acids, sugars, fats and yes, DNA and RNA.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I would argue carbon's properties are so unique as to make it an absolute necessity for life.

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:16:10 UTC | #920824

Go to: There’s More to Nothing Than We Knew

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by AsylumWarden

I admit questions like 'What was before the big bang?' or 'what is outside the universe?' can be mind-boggling, but I hate the assertion that religion answers these questions when all it does is move the goal posts. i.e. What was God doing before he created the universe? How old is he? What's outside of heaven and hell? etc etc etc...

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:20:29 UTC | #920559

Go to: The Sins of the Fathers [Also in Polish]

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by AsylumWarden

          [Comment 71](/articles/645002-the-sins-of-the-fathers/comments?page=3#comment_919308) by  [God fearing Atheist](/profiles/50368)          :


                 I'd take it as a compliment. You have rattled their cage far too much for their comfort, and they have no sensible defence. Keep calm, and keep going. You are winning.

It's true. When people have to resort to defaming, belittling or smearing someone rather than show refutations to their arguments, it's a sign they've lost. If they had a reasonable argument or evidence against the poll etc, they could simply use it. Resorting to these tactics simply shows they don't.

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:34:21 UTC | #919320

Go to: Petition for evolution to be taught in UK primary schools

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by AsylumWarden

Signed!

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:01:55 UTC | #916978

Go to: Unsafe abortions rise as contraceptive funding is cut

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by AsylumWarden

Is anyone surprised by this? Really? You make it so shameful to have abortions so people have them dangerously on the hush-hush instead?

Of course the Christian Right won't be surprised either, but they'll no doubt blame it on, for instance, not having proper sex education to prevent these pregnancies in the first place. So no doubt they will now try to rectify this by encouraging proper use of condoms, frank talk about family planning in the open and proper biology lessons as opposed to abstinance only and purity pledges. I expect pigs to be flying by next year as well.

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:02:48 UTC | #910124

Go to: If by "Christian love" you mean hatred & contempt...

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by AsylumWarden

Ah yes, all that Christian spirit coming out. But yeah mole at the counter, comments like those really baffle me. Surely rotting and burning in hell is proof of God's hatred, not love. 'Anyone who does not believe in God's infinite love... has an enternity of hell to look forward to!'

Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:05:03 UTC | #908206

Go to: Women cane morality police

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by AsylumWarden

Excellent! Stick it to them1 (no pun intended, honestly! :-P)

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:17:08 UTC | #907518

Go to: [Update 13-Jan - more info] Evolution of complexity recreated using 'molecular time travel'

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by AsylumWarden

Ever progress. Lenski shows bacteria CAN develop new biochemical pathways through evolution and now these guys have shown how. On that note, it could be interesting to see how Conservapedia respond to this one!

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:52:03 UTC | #906697

Go to: German marine reptile find rewrites fossil record

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by AsylumWarden

          [Comment 3](/articles/644481-german-marine-reptile-find-rewrites-fossil-record/comments?page=1#comment_905634) by  [Rtambree](/profiles/6979)          :


                 Rewrites? Augments.

I agree, augment is a better word. Words like 'rewrite' just give creatards and IDiots ammunition.

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:38:12 UTC | #905658

Go to: Stupid and clever questions for people who understand the biology

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by AsylumWarden

          [Comment 6](/discussions/644369-stupid-and-clever-questions-for-people-who-understand-the-biology/comments?page=1#comment_905652) by  [The Jersey Devil](/profiles/175379)          :


                 I do have a technical question that has been bothering me.'Mutations' that enter a population and turn out to be viable probably aren't one off situations, correct?I should clarify.  It seams to me that it would be a lot less likely that a one-off mutation could take hold in a large population, even if that mutation was a competitive advantage.  Therefore, it seams to me that mutations should not be one-off phenomena.What I mean by 'one-off' is that a new, first generation trait that would occur in a single individual that would then proliferate in future generations.  What I'm imagining instead is that a mutation can occur in say x% of a population under the proper conditions.  Is that correct or no?

Correct to the best of my knowledge. It's my understanding that evolution works on populations rather than individuals. So if the mutation occured with a 5% probability, it would occur in 5% of a population, but natural selection would preserve it in say, 90% of that group.

Feel free to correct me if I've gotten the wrong end of the stick here.

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:34:59 UTC | #905655

Go to: Stupid and clever questions for people who understand the biology

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by AsylumWarden

Yawn. A simple collection of arguments from ignorance or appealing to the God of the Gaps.

But I'll go for it!

1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? Odd that your jumping ahead. I'd have thought Question 2 would be a better place to start. But anyways. Proteins, just like living beings have been altered, mutated and diversivied over millions of years. If one happens to change for the better, it will be preserved. Such is the power of natural selection. It is also worth remembering that around 95% of the protein does absolutely nothing. With so much 'free' area to work on, there's a lot of oppurtunity for mutations to throw up something better, worse or (in the majority of cases) change it so it does nothing at all but create a platform for something to built on later.

2.How did the DNA code originate? Don't know. There are several hypotheses being put forward but we do not have a definitive answer (though it's a question I'd love to see answered in my lifetime). That doesn't mean you can fill in the blank with God. In any case, this is abiogenesis, not evolution.

3.How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist? See question 1.

4.Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? It explains the diversification of life yes, but not the origin. That would be abiogenesis again.

5.How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? See question 1.

6.Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Why do they look designed? They are full of wasted space, use materials highly inefficiently and have mechanical and chemical faults that no sane designer would EVER make. From a design point of view, they are absolute c*ck-ups!

7.How did multi-cellular life originate? Sigh. Extension of question 5. Regress to question 1.

8.How did sex originate? Again a gap in our current knowledge. That doesn't mean you can plug it with God.

9.Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Because a corpse only has about a 1% chance of fossilising in good conditions. We are lucky to have any at all to work with. And btw EVERY fossil is transitional. Allow me to reverse the question: Why has no fossil ever been found out of sequence on the evolutionary model? Why has no expected fossil ever been found that shows the spread from Noah's Ark, i.e. penguins in Africa?

10.How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years? Because if they already fit a niche nicely and there is no pressure for them to adapt, there is also no need.

11.How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? Simple. If altruistic creatures are able to survive better than non-altruistic ones, they will pass on those traits. Morality is also something we as people define and as such has evolved as well. Question for creationists: Is it ok to stone your unruly children to death?

12.Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’? Because of the exquisite amount of evidence supporting it, the fact that it has been verified via the scientific method, is supported by numerous other branches of science independantly and is the cornerstone of one of them. i.e. it is not a 'just so' story.

13.Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? In every field of medicine, genetic engineering and farming. In fact it's quite laughable that creationism breeds amongst rural areas of America where farming is rife and the people probably know more about breeding and 'selection' than anyone.

14.Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science? It IS operational science. It continues to operate around us, day in, day out, all over the globe!

15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? It isn't a dogmatic belief. The theory of evolution itself has evolved as new evidence has come to light but not a single piece of evidence has disputed the core idea. It isn't like we go: the book is correct and I will oppose anything that says otherwise. That's what you lot do. And on that note, a final question: When asking such questions, where do you get the nerve to suggest that YOUR (defined as) fundamental religious ideas and dogmatic belief systems that not only fail to explain the evidence but are openly contradicted by it, should be taught in schools?

Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:30:51 UTC | #905654

Go to: Faraday and Templeton brainwash British kids

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by AsylumWarden

Simple question/proposal for these people:

If science were to actually throw up evidence thoroughly, clearly, positively and undeniably destroying the very idea of God, would you accept it?

If the answer is no, then Science and Religion are most definitely irreconciable and at polar opposite to each other and must always remain so.

If the answer is yes, then yes, one could argue that Science and Religion are compatible. For the answer to truly be 'yes' however, one would have to acknowledge the following:

  1. Religion (and therefore God) is disprovable as is any scientific hypothesis or theory.
  2. As there is no material evidence to support it, as far as scientific ideas go, it remains in the realm of a former: a hypotheis and not a very strong one at that.
  3. This hypothesis must throw up some actual evidence which can be peer-reviewed to enter the scientific literacy.
  4. To advance further into scientific mainstream, it must be compatible with other branches of science to be independantly verified and thus upgraded to theory.
  5. There are currently many scientific theories about different areas, at different levels of strength and it would be impossible to teach them all in school due to the constraints of both time and complexity of some of the theories.
  6. It therefore makes sense that only the strongest theories (those that common sense would happily call fact) that are integral to our understanding of the world and that can be explained either directly or by analogies and models that are taught in schools.
  7. For any new theory to be accepted into the school curriculum it must satisfy this theory.
  8. Religion is nowhere near, having not made it past the level of hypothesis.
  9. It therefore doesn't fulfil any criteria to be taught in school so **** (insert expletive of choice) OFF OUT OF OUR CLASSROOMS!!!

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 22:26:44 UTC | #905383

Go to: Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani could be hanged in Iran

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by AsylumWarden

          [Comment 33](/articles/644368-sakineh-mohammadi-ashtiani-could-be-hanged-in-iran/comments?page=2#comment_903069) by  [Virgin Mary](/profiles/182461)          :


                 > [Comment 5](/articles/644368-sakineh-mohammadi-ashtiani-could-be-hanged-in-iran/comments?page=1#comment_903020) by   [Richard Dawkins](/profiles/53) :> >  I would also love it if decent, 'moderate' Muslims would stand up and condemn the barbarisms that are carried out, or threatened, in their name.> > Richard> Then speak to any sunni muslim you happen to cross paths with because they'll condemn these actions until they're blue in the face. Unfortunately their motivation will be purely sectarian and they'll go out of their way to explain to you how shias aren't real muslims. In fact they'll tell you that shias aren't muslim at all and that it isn't islam that they follow.You're fighting a losing battle with them because anybody who points out the fallacies of modern islam will simply say that it is today's muslims that are the problem and not the system; the system works. Then they'll tell you stories of a time when there was no poverty or crime of any sort and how everybody lived harmoniously with each other, and the reason for this was the proper implementation of islam.

In other words they'll just exploit the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy over and over and over again to avoid admitting that these social injustices are rooted in accepting the Quoran as truth. Which makes them Muslims.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:09:51 UTC | #903074

Go to: Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani could be hanged in Iran

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by AsylumWarden

          [Comment 27](/articles/644368-sakineh-mohammadi-ashtiani-could-be-hanged-in-iran/comments?page=1#comment_903056) by  [Tyler Durden](/profiles/10658)          :


                 > [Comment 26](/articles/644368-sakineh-mohammadi-ashtiani-could-be-hanged-in-iran/comments?page=1#comment_903053) by  [Peter Grant](/profiles/51655) :> > Cool! :D Got any military or special ops training? I have no such experience, though I am a fairly decent tracker and my other bush skills aren't bad, dunno how useful that will be.> I think we need a 4th team member, Amos?

I'm a Jitsu instructor if that helps. Can I join?

Seriously though, all I saw from that article was them trying to say that they were being more humane by hanging her rather than stoning. Ignoring the inhumanity of her arrest in the first place. I'm just amazed by the fact that these inhuman b*stards can even think they're doing the right thing. But that's the evil of religion. My holy book says it is ok, therefore it is ok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGHAFxwI2qU

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 19:43:36 UTC | #903062

Go to: Chinese Atheists Lured to Find Jesus at U.S. Christian Schools

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by AsylumWarden

Very true Vorlund. I did my PhD at York Uni where there is also a very high Chinese population, especially in the graduate community. By the end of my third year it was becoming a fairly common sight seeing Bible-pushers openly trying to woo the Chinese community who unfortunately gave them far more of their time in return than many of the others did.

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:05:02 UTC | #901735

Go to: Turin Shroud resurrected

AsylumWarden's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by AsylumWarden

The thing that strikes me most about the Shroud is... Well, I'll put it in my own thought process:

"Seriously? That's the face of Jesus? A Jewish man born in the middle east and THAT'S what you think he would've looked like?"

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:58:07 UTC | #901732