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

Comments by DaveUK9xx

Go to: New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by DaveUK9xx

Comment 4 by Mrkimbo :

Judging from the illustration, they had a real hatred for cocker spaniels.

LOL

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:37:07 UTC | #922724

Go to: What leads some to never accept religion at all?

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by DaveUK9xx

It's an excellent question and one which I also don't know the answer to. I believe IQ does factor into this to some extent but perhaps more important is having a strictly logical mindset that relies on evidence and fact based reasoning rather than gullible acceptance of illogical premises. Whether this sort of mindset comes from nature or nurture I'm not sure but I have always been fascinated with how things work and I'd dismantle things as a kid to fathom their function for myself rather than relying on what anyone told me who didn't really understand mechanics. I too have always been a sci fi fan and maybe this also plays a part.

From a fairly early age, certainly by my early teens and probably before that I was fully convinced that religion was no more than fables and allegories and that it was all very obviously the writings of ordinary men who were just "making shit up" rather than some sort of divine dictation from on high. I could see no proof to support the stories and it seemed absurd to me that an all powerful superbeing who supposedly kept appearing to people during the stone and bronze age and telling them what to do should just disappear without trace thereafter.

I had a very similar upbringing with a mild religious content and a brief foray into Sunday School until I made it very clear I wanted no part of this and from then on it played no part in my life for many years. I had little to do with anyone who practiced it or talked about it until my mid thirties when I became friends with a fundie who lived in my village. I was briefly fascinated as to how someone could take all this nonsense so completely literally and believe that the world, in fact the whole universe, was only 6000 years old, that the Flood really happened despite it leaving no trace evidence on the ground and there being nowhere near enough water on the planet to raise sea level high enough to cover all the mountains.

However every logical argument I presented to refute these things was countered by a completely illogical one to try and support them.

"God just magicked the extra water into existence until sea level was high enough and then magicked it away again afterwards." Why FFS? Why not just click his fingers and make everyone except Noah disappear as an omnipotent being could so easily do? Why go through the pointless charade?

"We can see the light from stars that are more than 6000 light years away because God magicked the universe into existence with the light already having travelled most of the way here." Why FFS?

"We find dinosaur fossils that appear to be millions of years old when they can only really be 6000 years old because God magicked them into existence like that when he created the planet." Why FFS?

Why all this sleight of hand and misdirection to make everything appear much older than it is for no apparent purpose? The stock answer to this and every other unanswerable question was "God has his own purposes which we can only pray will one day be revealed to us and then it will all become clear." Bollocks! It already is clear. Science is right and the Buy Bull is just made up stories.

I finally sussed out that he wasn't coming up with all this stuff off his own bat. There was an entire industry devoted to refuting science wherever it contradicted the Buy Bull and an endless stream of anti-science books sold in churches and at fundie gathering places written by nutcases who devoted their lives to trying to prove the impossible was true or at least to give enough pseudo plausible arguments that the hard of thinking could trot out like mantras to try and counter the irrefutable logic of science to some small extent.

At that stage I lost interest in the pointless debates. I also started to realise just how dangerous religion was and how much it held human development back. How it demonised and ridiculed anyone who dared to suggest something in the "holey" books wasn't true like Galileo or Darwin had. How it set man against man, nation against nation and caused people to slaughter others for having trivially different beliefs or for drawing cartoons of someone they had arbitrarily decided you couldn't draw cartoons of because it "offended them". Well killing other people for no good reason offends me! Discriminating against homosexuals because the Buy Bull says they are evil and should be put to death offends me. Discriminating against women, making them cover themselves from head to toe in public and amputating their clitorises without anaesthetic offends me. Flying planes into skyscrapers because your invisible sky pixie doesn't like their invisible sky pixie offends me. Call me old fashioned.

Humanity will only be able to call itself truly civilised when religion has been wiped off the face of the planet.

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:20:44 UTC | #922345

Go to: Cardinal Edward Egan Just Withdrew His Apology for the Catholic Sex-Abuse Scandal

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by DaveUK9xx

An Irish boy stands crying at the side of the road. A man passing by asks, "What's wrong lad?"

The boy says, "Me dear old ma has just died."

"Oh bejaysus", the man says. "Do you want me to call Father O' Riley for you?"

The boy replies, "No tanks mister, sex is the last 'ting on me mind at the moment."

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:24:34 UTC | #919850

Go to: “It’s Part of their Culture” - Reading Nick Cohen in the light of the Jaipur affair [Also in Polish]

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by DaveUK9xx

Isn't the heart of the problem the unsufferable hypocrasy in the bible (and no doubt the koran too) where the Ten Commandments say you shall not kill but the bible then goes on to give numerous examples of where you must indeed kill including gays, followers of other religions and even people who work on the sabbath?

Here's a list of where the bible says it's perfectly fine to murder people, in fact it's required.

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

It's a pretty long list.

The Xians who believe in this tripe have the nerve to call him a "loving god" when he's no more than a petty vindictive tyrant, bereft of moral values and deserving of utter condemnation rather than worship. I can't imagine having to spend ones life in fear of this murderous being and what he might do to you after you die if you don't utterly kowtow to his every whim.

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 02:40:59 UTC | #913670

Go to: Letter from a Medical Doctor

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 80 by DaveUK9xx

It's easy to over estimate how much supposedly clever people really know about things. I used to have a friend who's a race engine builder, as am I, and to do it right requires a lot of maths, physics and even chemistry is useful in understanding by products of combustion. One night down the pub the topic turned for some reason to that of vacuum. He said there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum which is indeed true in most cases but I responded that the vacuum in deep space is near as dammit perfect barring maybe a few stray atoms per cubic metre.

He looked at me askance and said that space can't possibly be a vacuum. I asked why he thought that.

"Well if space was a vacuum then what would rockets have to push against."

I nearly fell off my bar stool.

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:46:24 UTC | #913454

Go to: Letter from a Medical Doctor

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by DaveUK9xx

Actually following my previous jocular comments I'm going to revisit this doctor's second question which is really rather interesting. What I think he's asking is this. We are told the primates split into lines several million years ago of which one line became humans, another became chimps and yet another became gorillas. If in the same amount of time one line evolved all the way to us with huge brains and high intelligence then why did the other lines coming from the same root evolve much less? i.e. why aren't chimps at least up to the level of as he says Homo Erectus.

Well the answer is that each line clearly faced different evolutionary pressures, possibly just in certain locations or evolutionary "islands" that forced some animals to evolve further to best adapt to their environment and others to evolve less as they were already well suited to their local conditions.

That's why for example crocodiles have changed very little in many millions of years. They are perfectly adapted to their environment and encounter little pressure to adapt further. In fact it's why there is still such a diversity of animal life today instead of it all being very highly intelligent species given that we all evolved from a single common ancestor if you go far enough back in time and have all had that same amount of time to evolve in.

So I think that given the language barrier perhaps hindered his explanation of his questions and that the second question at least has merit then Prof Dawkins has perhaps been unduly dismissive and indeed rather rude in ridiculing him. Even the first question about whether evolution still goes on deserves more than just a dismissal and in fact is quite a hard question to answer in respect of human beings who now have the power to shape their environment rather than having to evolve to adapt to it.

So off your high horses everyone and perhaps an apology to the doctor is in order Richard. This is not the best way to further our agenda or message if someone is genuinely searching for the facts by us resorting to ridicule rather than patient explanation.

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:13:56 UTC | #913399

Go to: Letter from a Medical Doctor

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by DaveUK9xx

I think the posters on here as well as the good Professor himself are being a bit harsh on the good doctor. Firstly he's clearly trying to convey something in a language which is not his mother tongue. Secondly his questions are not unreasonable.

As to whether evolution is still continuing clearly it is not. The fossil record shows that evolution happened abundantly until about 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs were wiped out and from then on it has ceased.

As to why gorillas and chimpanzees have not given rise to Homo Erectus it's because they are already far in advance of that. You only have to look at the 1978 National Geographic photo of Koko the gorilla's self portrait with a camera and compare that with the fact that Homo Erectus never took any photos of themselves with a camera.

Now you might argue that when Homo Erectus was around there were no cameras but that's a specious argument. If they'd wanted to take self photos surely they'd have invented the camera. It stands to sense.

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:18:24 UTC | #913286

Go to: Atheists are arrogant? I think the opposite.

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by DaveUK9xx

I well recall the video of the discredited sodomiser Ted Haggard telling Richard when they met how arrogant scientists were because they thought they knew the answers to everything when that's the exact opposite of what scientists and the scientific method do. Scientists invest in evidence, peer review, fact checking and logic. It's only the jeebus freaks who think they know the answers to everything because they have "blind faith" in their big book of lies.

It gets my hackles up when these morons have the nerve to tell the rest of the world how things are because some semi-literate bronze age goat herder wrote about it several thousand years ago with zero knowledge of physics, chemistry, cosmology or any other ology.

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:14:57 UTC | #911692

Go to: Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by DaveUK9xx

That is definitely a "you've been served biatch" face :)

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:45:03 UTC | #908482

Go to: Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by DaveUK9xx

Hurrah for Professor Hawking, I mean Dawson, I mean Darcy..oh whatever the hell his name his. He's married to a Doctor Who girl anyway, how cool is that?

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:14:32 UTC | #908473

Go to: [Updated 15th Jan]- Atheists have no right... - Atheists face Muslim-led censorship from UCL Union

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 201 by DaveUK9xx

Comment 180 by zahmad :

This issue is about Love; Muslims Love the Holy Prophet - so we are offended by any depiction of him...

Is that so hard to understand?

Yes, because it involves a complete disconnect in logic. What conceivable reason could there be for not wanting to see something you love, even if it is completely imaginary? I love my ferret and when she's gone, hopefully not for a long time yet, I'll be able to see photos of her to remind me how beautiful she was. Your religion's arbitrary decision to not want to see any depiction of your imaginary friend makes no sense. Every other type of woo revels in paintings and sculptures of its imaginary friends. However lack of logic and clear thinking is the cornerstone of every type of woo anyway so I suppose the bizarre edict to not show any depiction of Mohammed fits right in with that.

However this is basically not about logic or clear thinking. It's about the right to freedom of speech and expression. You are free to believe in and talk about your non existent gods and we are free to talk about them and how ridiculous they are, disbelieve in them and depict them any damn way we want.

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:30:47 UTC | #907938

Go to: Sir Salman Rushdie facing threats of Muslim reprisals over Jaipur Literature Festival appearance

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by DaveUK9xx

Oh boo hoo. He said nasty things about your pet invisible sky pixie. So fucking what morons. Grow up and get a life. If everyone who'd had nasty things said about them went out and killed the person who'd said them there wouldn't be any of us left.

Is there anything so intolerant as religion? I can't think of anything else that people get so worked up about and it's even more insane given that all religions are just inventions of man with no shred of reality attached to them.

Two council estate blokes wiv their birds (ok two religious nutters with their invisible sky pixies) in a bar.

"Oi! You lookin' at my god?"

"Might have glanced at her. So what?"

"I'll fuckin' ave you mate."

"Yeah? You and oos fuckin' army?"

"Leave it Ahmad. Ee ain't worf it." (chorus from the sensible bystanders)

"Go orn, glass the fucker Raheesh. Ee dissed your god." (chorus from the idiots)

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:30:48 UTC | #907184

Go to: Richard Dawkins on Sky News, TODAY, 1.30pm GMT

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by DaveUK9xx

I can't imagine how Richard is going to get through a live interview at a time like this when he must be griefstricken at the loss of his friend. May our collective well wishes fortify you sir both today and in the future as you shoulder the burden of carrying Christopher's torch as well as your own.

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:00:58 UTC | #900260

Go to: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 219 by DaveUK9xx

I woke up at 8am, went to the BBC website as I do first thing every day and promptly burst into tears. So I immediately came here by which time there were already over 140 comments and have been trying to organise my thoughts ever since.

I feel desperately sad but also horribly hypocritical. What right do I have to shed tears over the death of someone I never met compared to what his wife, children and actual friends like Richard and Stephen Fry must be feeling? So my thoughts must primarily be with them even though to be honest I could do with a hug too.

Having spent more than enough time banging my head against a brick wall with fundamentalist christian friends who refuse to admit evolution, try every pathetic trick in the book to claim that Noah really did get two of every creature on the planet into a tiny wooden boat and somehow deliver them to the appropriate far flung corner of the world after the flood subsided I know I don't have the mental fortitude to do this for a living. Today we lost someone who did have that fortitude plus the fierce intellect and encyclopaedic memory to fuel his thunder and sharpen his barbs.

How you fought and railed against that horrible disease. What courage you showed us as it dragged you down. How much braver to go kicking and screaming into the oblivion you know is all that awaits us rather than cling to the false comfort of life everafter or 72 virgins or whatever crap the hard of thinking believe in.

You inspired us in your life and even more so in your death.

I raise a glass, I shed another tear, the world will never be quite the same again and a multitude of people are poorer than they were yesterday.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:53:12 UTC | #899735

Go to: Science is about facts, not ideology

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by DaveUK9xx

Comment 4 by Laurie Fraser :

Spot on, crookedshoes.

Seconded.

I'm an engineer although I started off as a chartered accountant, but now I design race engines and spend a fair bit of time on the Pistonheads forum giving people advice on their car engine problems. Deducing the cause of a problem from a set of reported symptoms is an exercise in pure Holmesian logic and it seems not many people are good at this judging by the posts on that forum. They ignore, or miss, parts of what's been posted, leap to speculative conclusions that don't match the facts or simply fail to understand cause and effect.

When it comes to wooishness the same problems apply. I fail to see how anyone can ignore the obvious truth of evolution given the overwhelming evidence. Anyone who "chooses" to believe in creationism, or at least "chooses" to disbelieve in evolution is doing so quite wilfully in stubborn disregard of the facts and evidence rather than because they have any actual evidence for their own beliefs. No matter how much a child has been indoctrinated into believing in God and creationism one would hope a logical intelligent adult would be able to reject the indoctrination later in life. Whether this happens or not appears from surveys to be closely linked to intelligence and IQ. Wooishness is the province of the hard of thinking it seems which is why it manifests much more in the poorly educated and much less amongst university students, professors, scientists and teachers.

As a mate of mine says, "you can't educate pork", although personally I think pigs are more intelligent than they are given credit for and tests seem to bear this out. Sadly for them they're also very tasty but I digress.

If schools spent more time teaching students how to think rather than what to think then fewer people would end up in the thrall of religious mumbo jumbo in later life.

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:36:54 UTC | #899625

Go to: A Small Step for Lungfish, a Big Step for the Evolution of Walking

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by DaveUK9xx

Whoosh.

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:15:58 UTC | #898448

Go to: Brains of tiny spiders fill their body cavities and legs, Smithsonian researchers discover

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by DaveUK9xx

Wow! Best thing I've read on here. Isn't evolution wonderful?

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:59:07 UTC | #898433

Go to: War on Thanksgiving?

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by DaveUK9xx

It's hardly a war on Thanksgiving. It's just the idiot pundits at Faux News finding any tiny thing they can to slam the Democrats with. According to the Daily Show even Dubya didn't mention Dog in one of his eight Thanksgiving speeches and Clinton didn't in four out of his eight. I don't recall any uproar about those events but now that the Repugnant party is actually more a religious cult than a political party the focus has changed.

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:05:28 UTC | #894439

Go to: [Updated video] The Pale Blue Dot - A Tribute to Carl Sagan

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by DaveUK9xx

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH.

35 seconds in and it says "at tiny speck" with a "the" missing.

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:24:07 UTC | #892714

Go to: disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by DaveUK9xx

It saddens and frustrates me that we even have to debate the validity of evolution which is as certain a fact as gravity and that the earth goes round the sun. To not believe in it is I think more than just a simple choice of belief systems, it's a wilful refusal to admit the existence of something that can actually be seen in action in inumerable situations by anyone who cares to look.

I often wonder what intelligent aliens would think of us as a species if we were fortunate enough to have them visit. Assuming they had long since abandoned such childish notions as religion they'd think that half the population of this planet were complete morons. Mad as a box of frogs. Blind to what was staring them right in the face if they could only open their eyes and minds for even the briefest of moments.

How can anyone not understand that every domestic dog species has evolved (albeit by human intervention) from a single ancestor species, that food animals have been bred over many generations to optimise their design and meat yields, that bacteria can be seen evolving in a laboratory in just a matter of days and Italian wall lizards changing in just a few decades.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

How can anyone not see (pun intended) that the vertebrate eye is a disaster in design terms with the blood vessels at the front and photo receptors at the back of the retina or that the recurrent laryngeal nerve is an absurdity that no supremely intelligent being could ever possibly create intentionally.

If God really made human beings in his image and given how old he must be by now it's no wonder we never actually see or hear anything from him. He's sitting in a bath chair crippled with arthritis, he's had a bad back for millenia, his knees have given out and he can't read anything closer than 50 feet away because his corneas have lost all their elasticity. He had to have his appendix out back in our stone age, he's long since lost all his teeth, he used to be white skinned but there are now so many liver spots covering his body he looks brown. His nose and ears have continued to grow to the point he looks a bit like a cross between a rabbit and an eagle and don't even get him started on the nose and ear hair that suddenly erupted in his middle age. Tweezing and clipping is a full time job for a small team of minor angels who tend him constantly just to try and keep him looking even vaguely presentable.

Intelligence is clearly a relative thing but if the species on this planet, and we humans in particular, are really the product of intelligent design then it's only by a designer with an IQ remarkably similar to their shoe size who bodged the job badly and should be banned from the workshop in future for the safety of both himself and everyone around him.

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:17:21 UTC | #892711

Go to: Republicans insane; want to establish theocracy

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 74 by DaveUK9xx

It's hard to even view the Republican party as a real political party these days. It behaves more like a religious cult whose policies are determined not by what's best for the country but by the dogma and woo that oozes out of every pore of these delusion nutcases. In no other western country are topics such as abortion, homosexuality or nonsense such as personhood existing at conception even remotely newsworthy or anything that a politician would dream of using in his campaign speeches. Simply put we dealt with all these things long ago in the real civilised world, mainly because religion is genuinely not a major part of most people's lives and certainly not an issue in politics like it is in the land of the brainwashed and home of the deluded.

Hopefully the memory of the terrible Bush years will still be strong enough in people's minds to keep them from voting any of these batshit crazies into power next year and removing a President who's actually trying to undo the damage Bush caused albeit being hampered and hamstrung at every step by the treasonous Republicans.

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:43:58 UTC | #892555

Go to: [Updated video] The Pale Blue Dot - A Tribute to Carl Sagan

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by DaveUK9xx

I wonder how many dozens, even hundreds of times the producer of this watched it, lovingly edited it, chose the music for it and still managed to send it out with "inspiration" spelled wrongly in the second caption.

There should also be a full stop after "1994" not a comma.

Anyway it's still a wonderful photo and a very moving piece of writing.

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:19:14 UTC | #892551

Go to: Afghan woman's choice: 12 years in jail or marry her rapist and risk death

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by DaveUK9xx

Utterly disgusting, barbaric and a sharp reminder that this planet is nowhere near being able to call itself civilized yet and will probably be unlikely to for centuries into the future.

Yet again this is all about religion and the evil and suffering it spawns in so many nations when fundamentalists continue to apply stone age doctrines to the solution of modern day problems.

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:09:41 UTC | #892488

Go to: Animals with a built-in self-destruct mechanism

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by DaveUK9xx

This behaviour is similar to that of salmon or eels both of which die after spawning. For species that produce many offspring and are not required to be around to provide parental care it may be an advantage for the adults to die so as not to compete with the young for food or territory. For more advanced animals such as mammals which do need to provide parental care and can only produce small litters then a longer lifespan and multiple litters is a better strategy.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:16:04 UTC | #892027

Go to: How do I define my religious beliefs when asked?

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by DaveUK9xx

I fail to see why anyone would brand the term atheist as being negative. There are an infinite number of things one could postulate for which there is no evidence that require one to reject them but that position carries no negative connotation. I don't believe in the tooth fairy or that cats can procreate with dogs as they belong to different species and the evidence says they can't mate. I don't believe in gods for similar reasons. There is no evidence they do exist, an enormous amount of evidence they don't exist or at least they are not required to explain natural phenomena and postulating their existence creates more problems than it solves.

As to my views on people who do believe in gods I think religion is holding humanity back from achieving what it could aspire to. It is a force for harm more than it is a force for good. It leads to muddled thinking, people who are easily manipulated and unable to make logical decisions for themselves, it leads to a rejection of the scientific method and science itself, it promotes ignorance, hatred of others who think differently, war, discrimination, child abuse, abuse and diminution of status of women, gays and lesbians, the spread of AIDS and millions of unnecessary deaths due to the Catholic church's ban on using condoms and people who think that serious illnesses can be cured by prayer rather than proper medical attention.

That makes me not just an atheist but a militant anti-theist who thinks that humanity will only reach true maturity once it has fully abandoned its childish beliefs in invisible sky pixies, the afterlife and prayer rather than action.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:30:02 UTC | #890323

Go to: Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by DaveUK9xx

Comment 16 by educationsaves :

Comment 14 - Red Dog. Yes I do in fact think that they do actually believe. That does not stop me from pointing out reality and leaving it up to them to figure out the ramifications of that. I have an employee that told me the Earth was just 6000 years old. I just pointed up to the stars, said we know how far they are away and how fast light travels. You could not see them if the universe was created just 6000 years ago left him to figure it out. Polite , friendly open to discussion but blunt.

I'm afraid I tried that argument 20 years ago in a long series of debates with a fundamentalist friend and like every other scientific fact I threw at him he simply invoked magic. "God created the universe with the light already having travelled all but the last 6000 light years to earth so we can see stars further away than that but it doesn't mean they are more than 6000 years old." "Why the hell would he bother to do that just to trick scientists?" "It's just one of many things we pray he'll eventually tell us the reason for that we don't currently understand."

You can't easily fight this sort of blind refusal to learn science or believe it. The various churches have armies of people dedicated to refuting everything in science that disproves religious lore who produce books of poorly written drivel with ludicrous counter arguments trying to prove that everything from the Noah flood, 6000 years, creation etc etc are literally true. The arguments they raise are spurious but only have to be sufficiently plausible to fool people with little or no scientific knowledge and to give them talking points they can trot out such as the ones the OP mentions at the start of this. Lies such as men have one less rib than women will do just fine for people who don't even want to fact check a single thing.

The audience for these books and talking points haven't got the slightest interest in understanding science, logic or anything else that might upset their dogma. They just want some straws to cling to that can help them continue to believe in the great "scientific conspiracy" to undermine their faith.

The only thing that will shake them is when the church itself has to admit a truth such as the sun does not in fact go round the earth. Until then no atheist argument will shake them as they have no conception of how science is a vast interwoven tapestry of peer reviewed and fact checked data obtainied from multiple different sources and methods that correlate and reinforce itself until truths become self evident.

For instance we don't just think the universe is 13.7 billion years old from one bit of work or random guesses. Estimates from the original Hubble Constant first revealed in the late 1920s have been constantly refined by more accurate measurements from later telescopes and finally reinforced by the Wmap telescope that produced the CMBR map of the remnant radiation of the Big Bang. The red shift from nearly 1 million distant galaxies has now been measured to confirm that expansion is the same everywhere in the universe.

Those with little education and even less desire to obtain it have no inkling of the richness, complexity and beauty of the scientific quest to understand our universe and how we fit into it. Only such detailed education, and the instilling of it from an early age will help counter the voodoo in the books of drivel produced by fundamentalist theists. It's our schools and our science teachers that will eventually drive away the darkness and reveal the light if they are tasked with teaching more and better science to the young. By the time a person has left school it's too late in many cases to reverse the dogma that the hooks of theism have embedded into their flesh.

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:43:45 UTC | #890020

Go to: All eyes are on huge asteroid buzzing Earth on Nov. 8

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by DaveUK9xx

Comment 14 by inquisador :

Can any of you smart folks calculate the height of the tsunami this thing would cause if it smacked into the ocean?

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:04:46 UTC | #888170

Go to: All eyes are on huge asteroid buzzing Earth on Nov. 8

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by DaveUK9xx

Running the potential collision of something this size through the Earth Impact Effects Program there would be little effect on anyone more than 100km away from the impact site unless the impact were in deep water and generated a tsunami. It would certainly be a pain in the butt for anyone closer than 50km but would have no long term effect on the planet. If it landed on Washington DC at least it would get rid of the useless bunch of do-nothings currently incumbent there. If it landed in central Australia or much of Canada or Russia I doubt if anyone would notice.

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:50:36 UTC | #888158

Go to: What's God got to do with it?

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by DaveUK9xx

Comment 70 by Mr DArcy :

What's all the fuss about?

We all know God loves America. He doesn't seem to care too much about the other 6.7 billion people in the world, but America, well that's special!

Largest economy, largest prison population, largest defence (defense) budget, largest number of small arms per head of population.

Highest obesity rate, worst healthcare system of any 1st world country, worst education system of any 1st world country, highest rate of religious fundamentalism in the west, most broken political system, a military that has a death rate of over 50% killed by "friendly" fire from its own troops like Pat Tillman, systemic racism in many parts of the nation, highest gun crime rate, highest percentage of the population killed by guns, most litigious country...have I missed anything?

Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:10:46 UTC | #887649

Go to: Believers vs. Non-Believers: Bill O’Reilly And Deepak Chopra Take On Atheists

DaveUK9xx's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by DaveUK9xx

It was hard enough making myself sit through the video of Richard's appearance with O'Reilly although that had to be done just to see how much of an idiot O'Reilly could make himself appear. I can't face a second helping when O'Reilly only has a similar minded numbnut to cozy up to and no one to call them on their bullshit. I have absolutely no doubt it will be vomit inducing if I attempt it.

It must be mortally difficult for Richard having to appear with these idiots and bash them down on the same old hoary talking points time after time but it has to be done to get the message across to the hard of thinking who constitute O'Reilly's audience. I'm just thankful it isn't me that has to do it. I'm not made of stern enough stuff.

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:09:03 UTC | #886939