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

Comments by daftness

Go to: An Apology

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 417 by daftness

396. Comment #465340 by living easy

The apology was inauthentic. It's just a charade, a cheap performance, to still be able to market his goods. Dawkins, like pastors are dependent on the devotion of their flock, they have to pretend to care about them, in order to sustain their living. He realized that, after all the media attention he initially tried to brush aside. When he started realizing that angry atheist were refusing to buy his books, and donate to his site and encouraging others to do the same, he changed his tune.

And your evidence for this is what? None, thought not. You're not happy, you've made your point but your unsubstantiated opinion is not fact. You are making a fool of yourself.

Piss off if things are not to your liking. No need to keep on crying like a spoiled child.

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:22:00 UTC | #445465

Go to: An Apology

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 377 by daftness

376. Comment #465312 by Yorker

and if the new site isn't to my liking, I shall comment no more.

That, in essence, was the main point of my long winded last post.

Not been to Dafty's house yet, but I will make the effort this year sometime. Cheers

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:14:00 UTC | #445412

Go to: An Apology

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 370 by daftness

In a manner entirely consistent with how most of us here would expect Richard to react, he has apologised and accepted that mistakes were made.

That seems fair to me, but, not being a user of the forum, maybe it is none of my business to accept an apology on behalf of those who feel damaged in various ways be the incident.

Whatever has happened and will happen in the future, there will be those for whom no apology will be sufficient and they will move on to somewhere else and nurse their resentment there.

There will be others who remain and will refer forever to the 'good old days' before the changes.

There will also be a completely new cast of members who join the remodelled forum who will think it the very best site in the world, unimproveable in any way.

Things change and lots of people don't like either the change, or the manner of it, or both.

That is human nature.

Too often the human condition appears to be dissatisfaction, and the satisfaction in expressing that dissatisfaction is, it seems, one of the few satisfying past-times enjoyed by some people.

Once again, though, we have seen how the media misrrepresents the truth to suit its own agenda. And the small minded smug attitude of people like Andrew Brown does him and his god no credit whatsoever.

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:33:00 UTC | #445393

Go to: Essay of the week: The New Puritanism

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 145 by daftness

Comment #463004 by Bonzai

Actually I listened to a local advocate for sex workers and she was exactly against 'legalize and control'. She said that prostitution should be decriminalized, sex workers themselves should take control of their own trade like other business.

Bonzai, I would prefer in hindsight to have used the word ‘regulate’ rather than ‘control’: but how are the ‘local advocate for sex workers’ ideals opposite to mine? All business is subject to regulation and that is as it should be. A sex industry not subject to regulation would be open to the same exploitation from which it already suffers.

Business, all business, entails regulation. Try starting one if you doubt it.

You then take me to task for my ‘inappropriately’ comparing sex with taking drugs because taking drugs is, in your opinion, ‘bad’. In fact I was comparing two commodities that are desirable to many people and which as a direct result of their criminalization makes them infinitely more dangerous for those who participate in them. That is a fact unless you have some other information to which the rest of us are not privy.

Now, having said that, by what standard do you get decide on my behalf what is bad and what is good? What if I like drugs but, because you decide that they are bad, I have to get my drugs contaminated with anything the criminal, who is now my only supplier, wishes to put in them. That is the result of these decisions to ban things for puritanical reasons. In fact here is one right here and happening:

Heroin is simply diamorphine and taken in controlled amounts has no long term deleterious effect on the human body. You may get addicted to it but you can live a normal, functioning and long life. And before criminalization, many people did. At the moment you get the added constituent Anthrax at no extra cost but your life. We are consigning people who take drugs to horrible lives and often horrible deaths. And for what reason? It is one of the greatest scandals of our times. Sam Harris expands on this in “The End of Faith”.

Adults should get to decide for themselves how they live, even if it kills them. All society needs to do is to Inform Educate and Regulate. It is no business of society if I am stupid enough to cause myself harm (see alcohol, nicotine, fast food, laziness, obesity, cycling, climbing or any number of things I could fill pages with). Should I be deemed a criminal for any of these activities? No, of course not: just the ones Bonzai finds distasteful.

It is a knee jerk reaction that has been instilled in people because of the continuing misinformation put about by successive governments, police forces and the press. As ACG points out, drugs have only been illegal for less than 100 years. I don’t remember reading too much about the end of civilization previous to that.

Apologies, Bonzai, if I have personalized this a bit too much. I enjoy you contributions here, and that made me a wee bit more surprised by your attitude to sex and drugs.

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:16:00 UTC | #443475

Go to: How prayer can crack crime

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by daftness

Another result of the power of prayer from a few years back. An actual situation with a very real tragedy ready to unfold. None of your shite after-the-event claiming a result.

Multi-Faith prayer it was too. Just to give all the gods a chance to chip in if they so fancied. Nothing left to chance. I remember it well: a nations believers closed their eyes and prayed in unison to their chosen (by their parents) god.

Mysterious ways indeed.

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:41:00 UTC | #443256

Go to: New science: ancient eukaryotes and altruistic ants

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by daftness

Comment #462555 by Palaeocystodinium

Thanks for that.

It makes the subject more alive to get information from a scientst actively involved in research directly related to the article we are reading.

Still went whizzing over my head, though.

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:23:00 UTC | #443252

Go to: Andreas Moritz is a cancer quack

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by daftness


Sorry to shout Doc, but if you are around could you please visit this thread.

It is full of New Agey nonsense that requires the full weight of your expertise to sort out.


(Hope the underpants are being pulled over the tights as I type.)

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:17:00 UTC | #443177

Go to: The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by daftness

Comment #462899 by Ron Millam

Good question.

I found that mere existence on my part did the trick. Directionality wasn't important.

If you get lost just type 'Sanity' into Googlemaps and you'll get here.

Hope that helped.

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:34:00 UTC | #443158

Go to: The fires of Hell are real and eternal, Pope warns

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by daftness

His popeness says that:

Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

I have “freely and definitively” separated myself from god, (the Ratzi version and all others to boot) and am happy to report, to anyone keen to find out, that Hell is fine and a jolly spiffing place to be.

In fact, I believe I could put up with an eternity of this. It turns out that Ratzi is fallible after all: there are other sources of life and joy. Who’d ‘ve thunk it.

Love, family, friends, culture, nature, books, sex, drugs (optional), to name but a few guilt free pleasures. And no worries about offending an imaginary mass murderer in the sky.

Come on in everyone, the water’s lovely.

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:07:00 UTC | #443149

Go to: Essay of the week: The New Puritanism

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 76 by daftness

Comment #462763 by Steve Zara

Yes, we have information of how potentially dangerous the prostitution industry is. The industry has been working to a great extent underground and is being run by unscrupulous individuals who care only about money and not about the conditions under which prostitutes work. That is a recipe for a dangerous industry. Of course people will suffer

And that is the whole point of AC’s piece: bring the disinfecting effect of sunlight into the process and things can change for the better for prostitutes and clients alike. Consensual sex between adults in private must be acceptable at all times whether there is a cash exchange or not.

Society must rid itself of the puritanical attitude towards sex. Not everyone is fortunate enough (for any number of reasons) to be able to participate in one of nature’s greatest, most pressing natural urges: sex. It is almost inhumane to deprive a human of that most basic act of nature.

It is only because of religions telling us that sex is dirty and shameful instead of the beautiful and natural thing that it is, that we have set up a society that consigns a large proportion on its population to a life without sex. I would not even wish to imagine how that must feel. I said almost inhumane: no, it is entirely. Give it some thought.

For thinking people like Steve Zara to leave his principles of freedom for all people in all matters just at the entrance to a brothel, shows how the effects of his catholic upbringing still chain his critical thinking when it comes to that dirty, shameful, sinful subject, sex.

And his anecdote of the 15 year old getting into it to fund a drugs habit only further reinforces the case for positive legislation in prostitution. Not the other way around. Is it not obvious that in a legally protected sex industry, there would be almost no place for a 15 year old to ply their trade? With a perfectly regulated and available supply of consenting individuals, what place would there be for an under age drug addict?

And on the subject of funding a drugs habit: drugs are only expensive because they are illegal. And of the relatively few deaths through drugs every year (nicotine and alcohol excepted of course), almost none are caused by the drugs the addict tried to buy. Instead they are killed by what the criminals who sell them decide to put in them to make more money. If you put the supply and distribution of water into the hands of criminals, we would have deaths from contamination and criminal acts committed in order to quench thirsts.

Our puritanical attitude to sex and drugs is one of the greatest causes of misery in the world and we need to change things for the better.

Legalize and control: that is the only way for everyone. Nothing was ever made better by prohibition. AC Grayling is absolutely correct once again.

I second AC for PM.

Sorry for the long post.

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:59:00 UTC | #443070

Go to: Essay of the week: The New Puritanism

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by daftness

Comment #462654 by Steve Zara

"something they are forced into, perhaps by addiction.

And this is another example of a problem caused almost exclusively by prohibition.

Nothing is ever improved by making the supply and distribution of any commodity lucrative for criminals.

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:02:00 UTC | #442918

Go to: Malaysia canes women for adultery

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 44 by daftness

Comment #462485 by LeeLeeOne

Toward the original context, anyone who is "canned" suffers and are tortured. PERIOD.

Just ask any sardine.

Sorry, LeeLeeOne. I know it is a serious subject and I understand your argument against all and any physical punishments. I would love to see a day when man’s inhumanity to man could be consigned to history. I just don’t see how this could happen.

If you have the answer, please tell me.

Maybe at some future stage in human evolution our descendents will look back at this barbaric period and wonder how we could have been so cruel to one another.

I don’t in fact hold out much hope for that happening. Too much destructive technology in the hands of too many poorly evolved intellects.

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:50:00 UTC | #442755

Go to: Malaysia canes women for adultery

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by daftness

@Russel Blackford

I agree with your concerns over how we choose to punish certain groups in society. And the unintended consequences that flow from the decisions we take in even determining what should be deemed as criminal and worthy of punishment.

Jails are brim full of people who ought not to be there and whose future life will be damaged beyond all ability to return to a normal life, as a direct consequence of imprisonment. This is bad for the individual and bad for society.

As you say, Russel, it is not easy to see what else we can do instead, but I believe we need to consider alternatives for the better of everyone.

I would never advocate caning as an alternative to prison. But when you do the thought experiment asking what punishment is in fact more cruel - caning or extended loss of liberty - the answer is not so clear cut as my intuition and automatic revulsion to the idea first suggested.

This site can make your head hurt with people like Russel asking you to think the unthinkable.

Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:38:00 UTC | #442745

Go to: Panel approves Bible classes for public schools

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by daftness

Comment #462334 by Ron Millam

And don't believe lies about how teachers will not preach, but will only provide instruction on the Bible's literary value. I seriously doubt that anyone can get a job as a Kentucky high school teacher unless s/he's a major league Southern Baptist Bible thumper in the first place.

Ron, you have pointed up a very serious flaw in my optimistic last post.

I was relying on a truthful representation of what is in the bible for my outcome. And that is the last thing a xtian fundie is going to provide.

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:24:00 UTC | #442602

Go to: Panel approves Bible classes for public schools

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by daftness

The senate committee that approved this will soon begin to wonder why they are getting reports of children running home terrified or fascinated by all the gore and sex they had just been reading about in class.

Most of these people have likely never read the whole bible and think it's only 'gentle jesus meek and mild' from cover to cover.

If they don't cherry pick, this could turn out to be a consciousness raiser for more than the children when the irate parents actually get to find out what is in the bible and what a horrible piece of work it really is.

Rather than trying to prevent this move, the enlightened parents and school staff should welcome bible reading: but they must insist that it is all taught, full and unexpurgated: no cherry-picked version allowed.

That should net us a whole new generation of atheists.

I'm warming to this idea nicely.

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:06:00 UTC | #442597

Go to: End-of-Days Danger

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by daftness

Comment #461864 by Lord Roke

I defer to your superior knowledge.

And I went to a live performance of Handel's Messiah only a few weeks ago. So I have no excuse.

And I still wear Old Spice™ aftershave. For those of you long in the tooth.

Doubly no excuse.

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:35:00 UTC | #442147

Go to: End-of-Days Danger

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by daftness

Comment #461856 by Lord Roke

And whenever the name 'Sarah Palin' is uttered on the News Quiz, there is a short burst of Carl Orff's 'O Fortuna'

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:02:00 UTC | #442136

Go to: 1000 Rabbis Warn: Open Homosexuality in the Military is a Disaster and May Cause Further Natural Disasters

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by daftness

Absolutely fantastic.

What a pity that this insanity won't reach a wider audience. We need more demonstrations like this of the the clarity and rationality of the religious mind.

That guy should have his own prime time TV spot.

No one could possibly listen to this and still want to be even remotely associated with it. More gems of wisdom from this chap could convert more theists than Richard himself.

He da man!

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:42:00 UTC | #442119

Go to: Caring for Pets Left Behind by the Rapture

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by daftness

Comment #461524 by Brigham

Fear not dear Brigham, like you, the first and probably natural reaction is to mock and laugh and think such people deserve all they get. But I refer you to crazycharlie's comment below. And there I think you will find typical atheist morals on show.

Comment #461234 by Crazycharlie on February 15, 2010 at 3:03 pm

All the regulars here at RDnet. could offer their services for this. Like televangelists, we could rake in the money from the credulous. A couple hundred dollars per pet and then give all the money to Richard's foundation.

Oh wait...

We have ethics. Damn.

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:10:00 UTC | #441826

Go to: Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 217 by daftness


You seem to be a serial searcher after... something: anything.

Congratulations on looking at and discarding all the various faiths and foolish world views you encountered.

But must you strive to shoehorn something equally ridiculous into the gaps you think science can't fill? Yet.

Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:13:00 UTC | #441604

Go to: Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 174 by daftness

flying goose

I said you would be missed during your Lent break and I think some of the above shows why.

'Exasperation' aside this has been a good thread, largely because of the comments that have been generated around you.

You said that you think that the thread has been derailed as a consequence. Maybe, but most are eventually.

If we only had atheists on here, the conversations would not be so deep and wide ranging. I do find it hard to fathom the contortions you get into to justify your faith. But you let us see how difficult it is for even intelligent people like yorself to travel the short distance from the agnosticism you now seem to adopt, to full blown unbelief.

Sometimes your comments suggest you are close to the tipping point, and then you draw back from the edge.

Keep on posting, we may snare you yet.

Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:16:00 UTC | #441339

Go to: Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by daftness

Comment #460744 by Jos Gibbons

Great comments, and I admire you for taking the time to cut the whole thing to ribbons point by point. I nodded along in agreement as I read. Good stuff.

I hope there are some fence sitters around today to benefit from your common sense, and that it's not only the choir you're reaching.

Keep it up.

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 13:25:00 UTC | #441085

Go to: Atheists are wrong to claim science and religion are incompatible, Church of England says

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 50 by daftness

Comment #460780 by flying goose

I am giving up TV, Facebook and RD,net for lent

Disappointed to be forced into giving up goose for Lent. You'll be missed.

Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:40:00 UTC | #441078

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by daftness

Comment #460444 by Crazycharlie

Yes, I agree, Maxwell's achievements have been under recognised even in his own country, and we Scots are not usually noted for failing to blow our own trumpets "Wha's like us? Damn few an' they're a' deid."

Comment #460468 by HugoRifkind

Welcome and thanks for taking the time to post.

No. What I was saying was that morality without God, at the final analysis, makes little internal logical sense.

But morality makes perfect evolutionary sense, which is really the only kind of sense that humans
rejecting the god hypothesis require.

If you really believe that morality can come only from gods (setting aside all the immorality religions have their gods display), then you have simply not read the vast amount of research on why animals (humans included) act in altruistic ways that eventually help the propogation of the genes they are carrying.

Morality is the label we have given to the interactions between human beings that allow us best to co-exist and interact with one another. We have,in effect, evolved our morals to allow societal living.

Therefore, it makes perfect
internal logical sense
to act 'morally'. No gods required.

It may well be hard for atheists to explain to believers the statistical reasoning behind why acting morally is natural, and how we seem to know instinctively what is moral and what is not. But that is far from saying that there is no 'logical' explanation available.

The faithful know instinctively what is moral but choose to ascribe it to gods. Atheists also know instinctively what is moral but accept the evolutionary history of those instincts.

Why that should get you so annoyed, I really don't know.

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:44:00 UTC | #440810

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 108 by daftness

Comment #460371 by bethe123

I'm glad of the new information. Every day is a school day.

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:49:00 UTC | #440677

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 100 by daftness

Comment #460357 by bethe123

I was vaguely aware of reading something about his shyness, Bethe.

It may well be true that Maxwell did not excel as a communicator.

But we can be fairly sure that when he did communicate, he meant what his words said.

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:27:00 UTC | #440668

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 93 by daftness

Comment #460350 by Rachel Holmes

based on the fact that he was religious and had not been in trouble before

If it does not necessarily mean she would have treated a non religious person differently, why would she refer to religion at all?

How are we able better to devine what a person means, what their intentions are and what their reasons for a particullar course of action are than by looking at their own words.

It is how we communicate. Language must stand for something. And in this instance it looks pretty straighforward. A simple assertion that her reason for mitigation (as well as not previously being in trouble) was, self evidently, religion.

We are contorting our selves out of shape to see any other meaning possible in these few simple words. Making Mrs Blair's excuses for her before she even has to.

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:01:00 UTC | #440658

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 62 by daftness

Comment #460286 by Jiffy

I am sure if she eventually is asked to account for her words (unlikely), she will, as you say, claim that her sentence would have applied to an atheist as well. But as Phatbat points out, with nothing to go on but her own words:

There’s no evidence that she meant what she said, therefore we should assume that she didn’t mean what she said and work on the assumption that she meant something entirely innocent and run of the mill”

And I agree with Comment #460289 by Mark Jones that, even in nohing comes of their complaint (and I'm sure there won't) at least the NSS has raised the public consciousness another notch by pointing out that her words, if not actions, suggest that one section of society has greater a right to sentencing leniency than another.

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:18:00 UTC | #440601

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by daftness

Comment #460281 by Mark Jones

Believer: lenient sentence

Atheist: not lenient sentence.

It is a fine distinction but I accept the two things are different. A 'not lenient' sentence will still translate to heavier than lenient in the end.

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:50:00 UTC | #440592

Go to: A religious but not righteous Judge: Cherie Blair

daftness's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by daftness

Comment #460275 by Jiffy

I have never heard atheists suggest that people of religion are inferior in any way to atheists on average.

It was a typical mischaracterisation from Brown of how atheists consider believers.

I have heard, often, religious types suggest that non believers are less moral.

It is implicit in Blair's comments that if believing is a good thing then not believing is bad.

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:43:00 UTC | #440591