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

Comments by PJG

Go to: James Randi Explains - Homeopathy

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by PJG

Thanks again Luciani.

I'll look forward to it.

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:55:00 UTC | #442165

Go to: James Randi Explains - Homeopathy

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by PJG

Thank you Luciani

In fact, it looks as if the one they are referring to is in a link next to that one:

Combination of Two Doses of Acetyl Salicylic Acid: Experimental Study of Arterial Thrombosis
Thrombosis Research
Volume 90, Issue 5, 1 June 1998, Pages 215-221

Is there a doctor in the house?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:56:00 UTC | #442150

Go to: James Randi Explains - Homeopathy

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by PJG

There is a problem with being given evidence of efficacy for homeopathy in the form of "proper trails published in peer-reviewed journals".

When I have followed these up I have generally either been unable to track down the papers at all (online) or they have not offered the support for homeopathy that the person had claimed. Very often, proper references or links are not given so it can be too time consuming to bother with. However, one which I was told "proved" that homeopathy worked is mentioned on the NHS Directory Complementary therapies site - it says:

"In another study (Belougne-Malfatti et al, 1998), it was found that homeopathic doses of aspirin had significant effects on platelet aggregation and in reducing bleeding time. As normal doses of aspirin increase bleeding time, it was predicted that homeopathic doses would reduce it, a prediction that was verified in this study."

The NHS site doesn't appear to give proper references (tut tut) but if it says the study exists, it MUST be true mustn't it? [/sarcasm]

Does anyone know anything about this - or have the time to track it down?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:04:00 UTC | #442128

Go to: Reminder - 10:23 Event

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by PJG

I was one of the "overdosees" in Leicester so I am speaking from a position of support here but ....

All the objections about people delaying medical treatment etc are valid but anecdotal "evidence" will drown that out. However, many of the people who claim that "placebos work" would oppose companies if they were conning people.

Homeopathy is a con.

Marketing "medicines" which contain 0% active ingredient is a scam. "Aspirin tablets" with 0% aspirin would work too - at placebo level. Would that make it OK for Boots, or any other company, to market them as real medicines?

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:56:00 UTC | #437043

Go to: Richard Dawkins' 'Greatest Show on Earth' Exposed

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by PJG

In a way, we should be grateful that the IDers are having to make the "science" they use more complex... it suggests that their congregations are getting a little more discerning.

First they used the eye to claim "irreducible complexity", then they had to use the blood clotting system, bacterial flagellum etc.

First they said "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" but had to drop that one and now use "we can't have come from simple single cells because single celled organisms are complex" (modern single-celled organisms of course - morons!).

First they used the "747/hurricane" argument and now they are down to chains of proteins and confusing statistics and probability to blind their sheeple.

Let us take comfort that God is being squeezed into smaller and smaller gaps and at some point he will no-doubt be forced to disappear up his own..... at least so far as scientific evidence is concerned.

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:10:00 UTC | #430667

Go to: Brit Hume: Tiger Woods Must Become Christian To Be Forgiven

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 140 by PJG

Is anyone here discussing open marriages? If Tiger Wood's wife understood that she had agreed to an "open" marriage, I very much doubt she would have attacked him with a golf club or anything else, for which, as others have stated, she perhaps should be charged with assault.

What most people here seem to be discussing is dishonesty... the importance of which, on a continuum, is very subjective ... and hypocrisy.

Most of the people I have ever met who have been cheated on, rate their partner's loyalty as being very high on their list of "must haves", perhaps higher than their partner's attitude to, say, theft. The funny thing is that the people I know who have cheated have also rated their partner's fidelity as being high on THEIR list too! Multiple adulterers will cry and swear revenge when they are on the receiving end.

Infidelity is no-one's business if they are not involved, but deceived partners are involved and perhaps could be seen to be privately "provoked" into public behaviour that would otherwise be seen as unacceptable. High emotion doesn't pass through the "reason" areas of the brain, after all!

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:33:00 UTC | #429275

Go to: Biblical scholar's date for rapture: May 21, 2011

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 87 by PJG

Sorry, can't resist...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJQ18S6aag&feature=related

... still funny after all these years!

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:22:00 UTC | #428976

Go to: Brit Hume: Tiger Woods Must Become Christian To Be Forgiven

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by PJG

If people do not wish to remain faithful, why get married which involves making a promise to commit to one person? No-one gets married saying they want to be cheated on, lied to, and possibly humiliated in the process, and certainly children often suffer when their parents deceive each other.

What two or more consenting adults do in private, what parts of their anatomy they rub together or where they insert them is surely no-one's business. However, once someone is being deceived (e.g. a spouse/partner) then that individual (and only that individual) is involved but not "consenting" and their part in the theatre cannot be dismissed.

Regarding "celebs" and what they do - who cares?

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:16:00 UTC | #428968

Go to: Irish Bishop Donal Murray resigns over cover-up of child sex abuse

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by PJG

In answer to the people who ask why the paedophiles are not tried. I believe I am correct in saying that most of the abuse comes to light many years, sometimes decades, after it actually took place. This means that finding "sufficient evidence" is difficult and I was told that some crimes, like rape, must be reported within a certain number of years for it to be tried as a criminal offence. Perhaps one of you lawyer types out there could confirm/refute this?

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:43:00 UTC | #424402

Go to: Religion seen an 'oddity' by ministers, Archbishop says

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by PJG

It is hilarious isn't it?

I can't believe the ABofC is not intelligent enough to see the irony. There he is, in a particularly outrageous gold and white get-up with an equally ridiculous hat, stating that others (in this case politicians) might see faith as being an eccentricity practiced by oddities!

When I saw this on the BBC news, I wondered whether the Archbishop, who seems like a rather sweet, kind man, if a little naive and confused, doesn't look around himself at religious gatherings and wonder exactly what planet he has landed on. Perhaps his whole statement is a projection of his own attitude to faith and religion?

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:26:00 UTC | #423307

Go to: Textbook Disclaimers

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by PJG

Words spelt incorrectly - see final sticker. Any creationist who reads well enough to notice might say "... and they call us stooopid".

Signed,

A. Pedant

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:13:00 UTC | #422154

Go to: Kent Hovind's Doctoral Dissertation

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by PJG

So, at least now we know where we can all get a Ph.D. in Ranting Lunacy.

Actually, I find this sort of thing scary rather than funny - Why? Because of three things - Kent Andrew, Eric and Marlissa. Yes, these people produce viable young.

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:03:00 UTC | #421885

Go to: Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. The Catholics

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 248 by PJG

Re AW's claim that women cannot be priests because they cannot "stand in" for Jesus.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then he cannot have a gender as that would mean he was incapable of knowing what it is like to be female and incapable of BEING female - therefore, not all-knowing or all-powerful. Therefore, if Jesus did have a gender, he could not be God, as Christians claim ... unless he was hermaphrodite, in which case both men and women, or neither, could play his role!!

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:38:00 UTC | #412717

Go to: Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. The Catholics

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 236 by PJG

Regarding the mismatch between the numbers in the first poll and that of the final one. My party (all against the motion, of course!) were responsible for five of the missing votes in the first poll. The person counting as we went into the hall was deep in conversation with someone so we walked past. For the poll taken in the hall our votes were counted.

I hope the full version becomes available.

Whilst I think it was well edited given the time constraint for broadcast, it was a pity they removed everything about Limbo, which was probably one of the more telling parts of the discussion. I don't remember whether it was SF or CH, but one of them brought up the fact that millions of parents who had lost unbaptised children over centuries had the additional horror of believing that their children would never "know heaven" but, that the Vatican had recently decided that Limbo did not exist. How had they decided that? Had God changed his mind and scrapped the idea or had human beings simply made it up in the first place? Many Catholics, particularly in Africa where the majority of the BBC World viewers reside, may not know about this U-turn. I wondered if that is why this particular part of the debate was removed.

Ann Widdecombe defended the church by saying that children were not in Limbo for eternity, "only until the second coming", which was laughed at by the audience. However, I wasn't sure whether that was because it was such a pointless defense or whether, by using it, she showed that she had entirely missed the point!

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:33:00 UTC | #412536

Go to: Morality: no gods required

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 58 by PJG

Flying Goose

I agree to a certain extent. There was a wonderful longitudinal study done in the 50's (published in the 60's as "The Psychology of Character Development" by Peck, Havighurst and others) in which they categorised a continuum of moral development. In very simplified terms...

Amoral (no understanding of right or wrong)
Expedient (immediate gratification of impulse and only felt bad if they were caught - no internalised morality)
Conforming (did what they were "told" and so were highly influenced by peers/authority/religion - no internalised morality)
Irrational conscientious (did the "right" thing because it made them feel good about themselves - not a bad outcome, apparent morality - but still for selfish reasons)
Rational altruistic (weighed up the consequence of their behaviour regarding the effect on others as well as on their self-worth/values - true internalised morality).

Only the rational altruistic are what we would call truly "moral". When theists claim that people can only be moral if they (believe they) are being watched (by God), they are simply telling you that they are at the "conforming" level and have no internalised morality - they can speak for themselves, of course!

The Peck and Havighurst study is fascinating for anyone who wants to understand morality. It is frightening how many people in power are amoral or expedient. It is also clear that those in power (religious or political) want the rest of the population to be conforming, particularly to black and white "morality". The Rational Altruistic person is able to judge morality on a case by case basis based on its effect, not on some set-in-stone rule.

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:14:00 UTC | #410596

Go to: Morality: no gods required

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by PJG

j mills

Studies have shown that the effect of peers on morality is greater than the effect of parents, but that is missing the point. Our relationship with our parents, our upbringing and their (our parents') morals, influences who we surround ourselves by... who we choose as our peers.

It may be "comforting" for parents to convince themselves that their errant teenager has "got in with a bad lot", but the truth is, their teenager is PART of a bad lot. Just as they are being influenced by their peers, they too are likely to be influencing others.

Children with good self-esteem and basic trust who have empathy and conscience, choose peers that continue that effect and avoid those who undermine it (who make them feel bad about themselves)and vice versa.

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:56:00 UTC | #410582

Go to: Intelligence Squared debate: Catholics humiliated by Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by PJG

I was there too. A wonderful evening!

The Archbish spoke first, followed by CH. My husband turned to me as CH sat down and said, "Follow that!"

In fact, I was as impressed by SF and felt that the combination of CH and SF was just superb. I will enjoy watching it again when it is available online.

As someone else has mentioned, Ann Widdecombe's defence of Limbo was embarrassingly pathetic and, when many in the audience sniggered at her attempt, even she seemed to realise how lame she sounded.

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:15:00 UTC | #406980

Go to: Kirk Cameron has gone too far! But we can stop him.

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 28 by PJG

This has to the the most despicable thing I have seen for many years. Morality comes from the BuyBull? Yeah, right!

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:48:00 UTC | #398127

Go to: Forget Design, It's All About Adaptations: Review of The Greatest Show on Earth

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by PJG

"Science's most outspoken advocate is eloquent but also patronising in his latest crusade against creationists".

"Patronising"? What is he supposed to be, "respectful of their intelligent and reasoned argument"?

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:18:00 UTC | #395107

Go to: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 43 by PJG

I am reading the book at the moment and am enjoying it, so far.

I fear, however, that it is just preaching to the choir again (pun intended). I hope I am wrong.

Even if teachers are convinced that there is more evidence for evolution than they previously understood, they are still likely to be stymied by the threat of protest from parents who do not want their children taught anything that contradicts their (the parent's) religion.

In addition, creationists who are well enough educated to understand the evidence put forward probably know about it anyway, those who are creationists through lack of education won't read it - it is a big book with big words! If the book is not meant to "convert" (i.e. educate) creationists... does what it says need to be said - again?

Incidentally, regarding the footnote on page 35 of the hardback edition...

babies DO "suckle":

Chambers Dictionary (1998 ed)
"suckle, vt to feed by allowing to suck milk from the breast or other mamma. vi. to take milk in this way.
and
http://sb.thefreedictionary.com/?Word=suckle&mode=

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:25:00 UTC | #395012

Go to: RDF TV - Distribution of Life: The Iguanas of Galapagos

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 125 by PJG

What to do, what to do? Being English, I have always said "ig-yoo-ah-na" but have called an iguanodon "ig-wan-a-don". Do I have to chose one or t'other pronunciation?

Richard, what are you thinking of? Bowing to American English? Before we know it, you'll be saying "y'all"!

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:16:00 UTC | #393605

Go to: [UPDATE 8-28]From mousy to blonde - in 8,000 years

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by PJG

Bolland

It says 8,000 years, not 8,000 generations. I may be wrong, but I think mice generally have quite a short generation time and several litters each year. 8,000 year could equate to about 50,000 generations - perhaps someone who knows could tell us what the generation time for Deer Mice is?

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:10:00 UTC | #392562

Go to: Evidence Of Iridescence In 40 Million-year-old Feather Fossil

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by PJG

How wonderful!

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:01:00 UTC | #392036

Go to: Praying man let his daughter die

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by PJG

If this is a sign of mental illness, do you really think this man should be punished deejay64?

Isn't that making a victim of a victim? Let's say his child, for whom we all feel sorry, had not died but had lived to have children of her own. Would people be baying for her blood if she turned out to be mentally ill herself, because of her childhood experiences? What sort of childhood did this man have? What made him so sick that he could kill his daughter in this way?

The trouble is, if we, supposedly as rational human beings, seek to punish those who are deluded, doesn't that make us as bad as the religious who see people as "sinful"?

I'm not saying I know what should be done, but is punishing someone like this the answer? Of course, if locking him up in prison is the only way to stop him a) having more children and b) subjecting any he already has to this sort of abuse, then perhaps it is justified. I don't know. *shrugs*

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:56:00 UTC | #384409

Go to: Praying man let his daughter die

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by PJG

How blind are they, AtheistRocker90?

When perverted nutters deny medical care to their children based on their (the nutters, not the children's) beliefs, we can try them in court - though they are clearly crazy. When perverted nutters allow someone to hack at their children's genitals based on their (the nutters, not the children's) beliefs, that is OK, apparently. At least let's start treating all religious abuse of children the same.

I'm waiting, patiently, for the first cases brought by people whose genitals were mutilated when they were children in the name of religion. If a few Rabbis or Mullahs were sued, they might think twice before inflicting this on children and, like this guy, they might be seen as deluded rather than "holy"!

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 19:12:00 UTC | #384388

Go to: Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by PJG

I suppose if you are trying to educate people with this sort of mentality:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8112209

you are onto a loser no matter what you do.

The mind boggles, it really does.

Of course, this is a REAL one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ

"...and millions of Christians see birdshit every day, this particular Christian has seen some birdshit that just happens to look like the Virgin Mary...."

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:21:00 UTC | #381637

Go to: Homeopathic A&E

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by PJG

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:27:00 UTC | #378846

Go to: Teen Outsmarts Doctors In Science Class

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by PJG

Perhaps the relevance is that if we teach science, children may use it to seek answers to their problems. She wouldn't have found the answer if "Goddidit" was the given answer to every question, or if she'd been told she was sick because God was punishing her.

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:55:00 UTC | #370787

Go to: Scientists hail stunning fossil

Go to: Simon Singh and Free Speech - Against the BCA Libel Claim

PJG's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by PJG

Comment #377947 by andygaffey

While I support any attempt to expose pseudoscience for what it is, condemn "alternative therapists" who make unsubstantiated claims and any attempt to stifle free speech, I have to say that claiming that one of the problems is that chiropractors may "miss a tumour or other life threatening illness" is unfair. Three of my friends have died because doctors - real, qualified doctors - have "missed a tumour".

I have had very good treatment from an osteopath for a spinal problem, far better than any I have had from my GP. If he (the osteopath) failed to recognise cancer, I would not blame him any more than I would blame my dentist for failing to recognise that I was suffering from an ingrowing toenail - that is not his area of expertise.

Mon, 18 May 2009 06:46:00 UTC | #361304