Man bites God

Over a hundred years ago in a highly charged Christian world someone had the insight to blasphemously declare that ‘God didn’t create man. Man created God’. It is not an argument that could be scientifically supported a hundred years ago but evidence is mounting that the brave fellow was on the mark.

Have you ever argued or debated this with a devout Christian; one who doesn’t believe in evolution and stands firmly alongside their belief in intelligent design? If you have, you may have walked away with the belief that ‘man’ was clever enough indeed to create not just God but a perfect God at that. He must have been clever to be able to do everything they claim He did. I use the word ‘He’ as every religious person I’ve ever met insist that God is a male.

Personally, I think it’s all ridiculous but I never ridiculed these people for their ignorance. After all it makes them happy. Just don’t get into a debate with them. Here’s a summary of three I’ve had recently.

Person number 1 insisted that God made everything in the universe, including the universe.

‘It’s a very big universe’ I interjected, ‘being 15 billion light years across which means the distance in kilometres is 300,000 times the number of seconds in 15 billion years’.

‘Yes, God did create it’ boasted the young fellow proudly.

‘Even our own Sun, which is 14.5 million degrees in its centre?’ I asked.

‘Yes’ (Without getting his fingers burnt, apparently).

‘And how about photons, those little light particles that travel at the speed of 300,000 kilometres a second?’

‘Yes’.

‘And molecules?’

‘Yes’.

‘But they’re rather small. There are more molecules in a spoonful of water than there are spoonfuls of water in the Atlantic Ocean’. (You can see I was doubting this guy).

‘Yes, He still made them’ (and the spoons too I suppose).

‘How?’

‘God can do anything. He created the universe’.

Whilst I tried to show some interest in our discussion the one thing running through my head was that this is a load of crap. Do people actually believe this stuff?

Person number 2 was equally as perplexing.

‘The world is a only a few thousand years old and dinosaurs never existed’.

‘There is plenty of evidence to suggest they did, you know, like bones’.

I thought I had a real ‘gotcha’ there. But no.

‘The bones were planted by atheists to try and prove that evolution was real. They were intent on diverting people away from the truth that God created the Earth a few thousand years ago’.

So there we have it. Over the last couple of hundred years non-Christians have been busy making millions of fake dinosaur bones. It’s probably China’s biggest industry.

Person number 3 takes first prize.

I thought I was chatting with an astute fellow in number 3. He was interested in such things as science and its disciplines (and even science fiction) so I mentioned to him that I was puzzled to understand how sight evolved.

‘It’s simple’ he replied. ‘God gave all creatures eyes’.

Thinking I had another gotcha moment I bounced back with ‘but who gave God eyes then?’

Number 3 looked at me as though I was the complete idiot, for which I was for not knowing that . . .

‘God had eyes in the first place, duh’.

Dear oh dear. And to think we have politicians and community leaders who also believe all this.

God help us.

126 comments on “Man bites God

  1. Crikey Migs , I thought that you of all people would know that ‘GOD’ is black……… and she dosn’t care who knows it.., 😀

  2. And just so ‘youse’ don’t get the wrong idea….. I ‘hates’ all religions equally, I wouldn’t want anyone to think I’m being biased…. 😆

  3. ” I don’t know……. you don’t know……. nobody has EVA known (?)….. and nobody ever will…… ” …… repeat mantra 😉

  4. Migs…. seriously….. if’n there was this God un-person…. would he associate ‘his/slash’ with a… ho,ho.. a team such as ‘plonk’… like OMG fella.. 😉

  5. The funny thing about your post Migs is that you could find precisely the same sort of certainty about their faith from AGW zealots even though there is no more proof of their beliefs that there is for the Christian position on creation.
    That said I’m with you when it comes to letting people believe any sort of nonsense if it makes their lives better because I have, like you done may share of arguing with the devout and while it can be great sport it can also encourage you to be unnecessary cruel to the ignorant, which is not so admirable.

  6. Miglo, I believe it is said that man is made in the image of god. Where does this leave women, especially as God has always been, therefore not needing a mother.

    It is true, that man is made in the image of god, why did he not make him as perfect, as he is,

    Come to think of it, he did not need a father. Maybe that is why the three divinities were created. The God, the Father and the Son.

  7. The funny thing is that you can find precisely the same thing in religious zealotry about AGW deniers. They ignore all the empirical evidence and science and go purely on blind mostly ideologically driven faith against the science whilst without question believing in every scam and crackpot paid by the polluters. They project their blind religious like faith in denial to the AGW proponents having a religion.

    Back on topic from the furphy raised, and back to scrolling for me.

    I’ve had a lot of religious debates in my time. I was raised in a strict Catholic family where an incident had my mother and father break from the religion but not belief in God.

    I was educated in Catholic schools, primary and secondary and every Wednesday at the secondary college there was an hour of religion. I began questioning the religion very early.

    I found out early that you can never win in a religious debate because of the one thing that can never be argued against, faith.

    Whenever you get down to the nonsense, the scientific failings of their contentions, the lack of empirical evidence and even the historical flaws they always resort back to their “faith” in God.

    You can’t argue against faith. I’ve used the multiple faiths argument and even that doesn’t falling back to their faith being the true faith.

  8. I’ve used the multiple faiths argument and even that doesn’t falling back to their faith being the true faith.

    That should be;

    I’ve used the multiple faiths argument and even that doesn’t stop them falling back to their faith being the true faith.

  9. ME, I like to base my faith on at least one or two facts. The facts I see when it come to religion, if not if there is a God, point the other way, that leads me not believing in religions, and therefore God.

    I do not see why we need one.

    Others are entitled to their own beliefs. I am OK with that, as long as they do not push their’s down my throat.

    Same goes for denialist, and those from the the right.

  10. the whole God debate gets me, like you and Iain, I have no issue with people who have faith, believe what you will as long as it makes you happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else. I think you made an important clarification here Migs you spoke to people not organisations… it gets a little dissappointing though when you strike up a convo with someone who hope/expect will have an intelligent broad ranging debate, sadly however many fundies are often way to narrow in their views. They decry that there is a ‘just’ God… why then does he/she play favourites, why does the winning sportsman get to thank God yet the loser can’t blame her, why are the rich more entitled than the poor, why are there whole countries God turns her back on and others she loves unconditionally and gives everything. I’ve been involved with churches and people of faith in the past, some questions they simply wish you wouldn’t ask… creationists… fall back line is she created everything…even the plague, disease and earthquakes, cyclones…hmmmm If I were a just God I’d give everyone the same fighting chance… perhaps i don’t have the same sense of humour

  11. “why are the rich more entitled than the poor”

    That one is easy. They work harder, therefore the rich believe they need the handouts, as a reward, not the lazy poor.

    Well that is what some claim.

    Of course, those who are of this belief, follow the Protestant God, that somehow came about at the time of the industrial revolution. Coincidence I would say.

  12. Iain @ 6.36am: I think you’ll find the science of climate change is normally represented as a probability (the probability that a result could have occurred by random chance), never as certain. Given the number of measurements that point in the same direction and that the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change is internally consistent, we drop the probability discussion as it is *very* unlikely all those results occur by chance.
    I can’t understand how anyone can compare climate science which involves a massive umber of measurements and the interaction of a number of scientific disciplines, with all their knowledge, to religion. Priests aren’t out there measuring physical realities to test theories about the nature of god: there is just faith, and the fingerprints of man (and I mean that to exclude women) are all over religious myths.

  13. I don’t like the no issues with those who have faith as long as they don’t push it onto others argument either. That’s OK at an individual level but each individual contributes and gives power to the religious institution that overarches their faith. That holds true for even non-practising followers.

    Religion is all about power and influence and has always been so. Just as empirical world powers seek to control and influence other countries to their ways so do many religions, especially the main institutional ones. They put out missionaries and in modern times use the media and communications to “sell” their religion so as to garner as many followers as possible, for followers give them power and influence.

    An example of this is in the census.

    The large proportion of Christians and especially Catholics the census shows make up the population of Australia is often cited as to why the population should hold to Christian tenets and governments should cater their value set over and above all others.

    This would hold true if that significant proportion were practising and individually held to their cited faith, but the fact is only a small proportion are active in their cited Christian religion and most only give lip service to the tenets and morals of the religion they say they follow.

    Because the census states the greater proportion of our populace are Christian the Christian religions are able to form powerful lobby groups citing the number of people behind them, and thus votes, to influence government and laws that are supposedly separated from religion.

  14. Signe, I think that I am closer to you in my beliefs. I cannot say whether there is or isn’t a God, however I do believe that there is a lot we humans do not know..Roswell knows what I mean. In our arrogance, who are we to proclaim one way or another?

    There is always the ancient argument, if there is a God then why didn’t He make everything perfect. The answer is because we humans were given a gift and this gift is Freedom of Choice. We choose our own destiny.

  15. Drunkslag

    Iain @ 6.36am: I think you’ll find the science of climate change is normally represented as a probability (the probability that a result could have occurred by random chance), never as certain. Given the number of measurements that point in the same direction and that the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change is internally consistent, we drop the probability discussion as it is *very* unlikely all those results occur by chance.

    I am talking about the true believing climate change laity more than the green faith’s “scientific” Profits here its a theory as you concede and one that by its vast scope and long time scales is essentially immune from being adequately tested by the scientific method. Further the ambiguity and uncertainty you allude to is really not substantially different to to the sorts of ambiguity that is inherent in most religious prophecy.

    I can’t understand how anyone can compare climate science which involves a massive umber of measurements and the interaction of a number of scientific disciplines, with all their knowledge, to religion. Priests aren’t out there measuring physical realities to test theories about the nature of god: there is just faith, and the fingerprints of man (and I mean that to exclude women) are all over religious myths.

    There are more commonalities between religion and science than most modern day secularists would be willing to admit. Not the least of these is the underlying intent of both to try to understand the world around us, to provide a social template for a “good” society and to explain the inexplicable. Both religion and climate science promise global destruction for continued sin against the deity (God/Gaia)if we don’t repent our sins (straiten up and fly right 😉 ) so is it any wonder that I see the similarity rather than the religion/science dichotomy that you perceive?

  16. How a commentary on the existence (or otherwise) of a God thingy ever got across to anthropogenic global warming I’ll never know, and how the two can be equated is equally unfathomable. Trying to rationally argue the presence of a creator with the believer is as Iain says, sometimes entertaining but ultimately cruel to the ignorant.
    Global Warming (anthropogenically caused) can be clearly demonstrated by factual data. And whilst a belief in God may be, in essence, essentially harmless — except if you have to listen to the tedious God bothering — AGW is not. While the deniers continue to deny, the evidence just becomes more convincing by the day.
    Perhaps AGW deniers are like the religious zealot — essentially ignorant to the use of evidence to sustain an credible argument — and that’s food for thought!

  17. Migs great read , welcome to my world. Ditto; if Santa, the tooth fairy or Mickey Mouse floats their boat..then so be it. Just don’t argue the point.

    The Fact less troll wrote…
    NOVEMBER 17, 2012 @ 6:36 AM
    The funny thing about your post Migs is that you could find precisely the same sort of certainty about their faith from AGW zealots even though there is no more proof of their beliefs that there is for the Christian position on creation.

    Seriously , what stupidity…. The only doubt in the mind of peer reviewed scientists is the font type and size they print their findings in. That’s “Scientists” not denial Zealot Journalists trying to further their career and get the mug in the media..
    [IMG]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o310/rickypann/Peerreviwe.png[/IMG]

    I have stated before that I am an atheist. I am only interested in Science. My cousin is a minister who “studied theology” and he had not even read the Koran. I actually knew more about theology than he, as such it was pretty much the same as Mig’s Number 3.

    Blind faith? Great band have all their albums but a doctrine for life? No thanks.

  18. Number 3 on Migs list is ‘intelligent design’, as opposed to the miracle of nature.

    We all agree there is no universal god, but there is still a small chance that humanity has been adjusted along the way. I’m not at liberty to say more….got work on.

  19. “Perhaps AGW deniers are like the religious zealot — essentially ignorant to the use of evidence to sustain an credible argument — and that’s food for thought!”

    Food for though alright, especially when one considers that warmists today are exactly like religious zealots…totally ignorant of the fact that science is never settled and that debate on the matter has been too long stifled by appeals to an authority long discredited…

  20. Maybe we need a new page…the theology of climate change, ’cause I didn’t see any reference to it in Mig’s post.

  21. MJ, maybe, but I find it hard to agree. At the same time, any psychiatric ward will be full of Mary’s and Jesus’s.

    Another interesting fact, is what the mentally ill manifest over time changes. There appears to a hidden conscious that these people hook into.

    Research has not discovered why this is. Some can be accounted by being in public arena, but others not so,

    Simply said, there appears to be fashions and fads that the mentally ill believe themselves to be.

    The brain is a marvelous organ indeed.

  22. Here’s a thought to add to the mix. We all born with a spirit – when we die the spirit leaves the body. So where does it go back to – A Higher Power? Guess that this is what I really believe. So what does that make me when it comes to a religious belief? LOL

  23. Sandra, as someone said, science is always in flux. We are always learning more. Science changes as our understanding of the facts change.

    As for spirit, where does it reside in the body. Is it in the heart, is it in the brain, or maybe it is just is.

    Saying that, I do not see why one needs a god.

    We see things as having a beginning and end. Yes, when we look about us, look at the universe, that cannot be true for everything.

  24. Sorry rabbit I couldn’t let Treeman’s inane statement at a dig at climate change proponents go untouched. My bad.

    It’s their stupidest argument, framing climate change science, proponents and opponents, as religion and when they resort to it proves they have absolutely nothing left in their small bag of nonsense left to debate with.

  25. Mobius, one must equate the spirit with “life forces” or whatever one calls it, I believe.

    Is there any distinctions.

  26. Science has proven that at the time of death there is a very small but nevertheless unexplainable weight loss in humans.
    Attributed to the life force (soul) leaving the body.

    Those that put all their faith in science conveniently overlook the “Theory” disclaimer tacked onto, the big bang…. of evolution… etc.

    Science will never have all the answers, no matter how hard they look.

    If the odds of the diversity of life forms to create the delicate balance that we live with on this ball of dirt, happened by chance, were calculated accurately it would make winning the loto a hundred times consecutively look like a dead certainty.

    Amazing how so called smart people can rationalise their own belief systems when to others they seem so completely irrational.

    The truth is that one day we will all know for sure, and when that day comes some will be proven right and some will be proven wrong.

    Mental illness?

    Just sayin.

  27. Yet Truth Seeker/Skeptical science has explained the tunnel and going into the light when people have died or had a near death experience.

    To say the life force/spirit or whatever it is has weight goes against that tenet and also goes against the science where the exact mass of a human body can be accounted for by every organ, matter and liquids in the body.

    Life has a purpose, but it’s main purpose is done when it dies and then it performs one last purpose, putting back into the earth nutrients and organic matter.

  28. I saw the experiments years ago where people volunteered to be weighed at the time of death, and the weight loss was definitely measured, but as I said unexplained. These were scientific studies done under strict conditions and recorded.
    The only conclusion was that the the life force/ soul/ spirit left the body in that exact moment.
    The same experiments were done on animals, with no discernible weight loss.
    From memory it was a scientific documentary, but was around twenty tears ago that I saw it.
    The main conclusion was that energy has a weight factor that can be measured, and when all variables were taken into account there was a very small weight loss that could not be accounted for by any other reason.
    The weight loss was consistent in every volunteer that took part.

  29. ‘The same experiments were done on animals, with no discernible weight loss.’

    This is interesting TS and gives us a small opening into a new way of thinking about life on earth. Many thanks.

  30. deknarf

    How a commentary on the existence (or otherwise) of a God thingy ever got across to anthropogenic global warming I’ll never know, and how the two can be equated is equally unfathomable.

    Its far from unfathomable if you have an ecumenical spirit 😉

    Trying to rationally argue the presence of a creator with the believer is as Iain says, sometimes entertaining but ultimately cruel to the ignorant.

    Well religion is almoust always about the certainties of false hope to conquer the fear of both death in particular and the unknown in general but it is nice to see that we have some common ground :0

    Global Warming (anthropogenically caused) can be clearly demonstrated by factual data.

    It can’t actually there are certain empirical facts that suggest that the theory may have some substance, however they are very far from being conclusive to any sort of Scientific standard.

    And whilst a belief in God may be, in essence, essentially harmless — except if you have to listen to the tedious God bothering — AGW is not. While the deniers continue to deny, the evidence just becomes more convincing by the day.

    That sounds like a plaintiff cry for (AGW) believers to have faith and it is also an admission that the evidence for the theory is far from conclusive.

    Perhaps AGW deniers are like the religious zealot — essentially ignorant to the use of evidence to sustain an credible argument — and that’s food for thought!

    I go to first principles of science and ask for the proof of the theory (which even you admit is not there yet. Is it any wonder we sceptics see the religiosity in the Pro AGW arguments? Ricky 10:44 am

    The funny thing about your post Migs is that you could find precisely the same sort of certainty about their faith from AGW zealots even though there is no more proof of their beliefs that there is for the Christian position on creation. Seriously , what stupidity…. The only doubt in the mind of peer reviewed scientists is the font type and size they print their findings in. That’s “Scientists” not denial Zealot Journalists trying to further their career and get the mug in the media.. http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o310/rickypann/Peerreviwe.png

    Maaateee…. Is an empty appeal to authority the best that you can come up with? This is a very poor and shallow way to argue this issue and it just makes you look really intellectually feeble. As we are talking about religion here need I remind you about the thousands and thousands of books on theology written by very learned scholars, their works undoubtably outnumber those volumes that advocate atheism so by the logic of your pie chart that has to prove that God exists mustn’t it? Consensus has NO standing on matters of science

  31. Mo, those near death experiences we often hear about are quite puzzling. Are they biological, ie, the brains little tricks to help us cope at the time of death, or are they spiritual?

  32. If there really is a God,…. then how come Tony Abbott 😕
    That there is a Tony Abbott is more ‘proof’ that there is no God .. 😉
    …. though that may ‘prove’ the existence of the Devil…..thats where my musing falls down…….. damn you Tony and to Hell with the LNP 😀

  33. Migs, from memory of a doco from a while ago it’s all to do with a dying brain, a reduction in oxygen to the brain and some parts shutting down before others, for example a part being fed from the optical nerves still being active whilst the optical nerves themselves are dead.

    I can’t remember the explanation for the tunnel and feeling like you are heading towards a light at the end of it and then suddenly get pulled back when you revive, but there was a sound biological reason for it.

    The weight loss is interesting for it if were an matter to energy transfer or loss of energy then animals would also exhibit it.

    From a biology blog:

    Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts attempted to weigh the human soul. In 1907, he placed 6 dying patients on a homemade scale, which also acted as a bed for the patients. He then recorded their weights before and after death. According to Dr. MacDougall, there was a difference of 21 grams between the heavier, living patients and their dead bodies.

    He also experimented on 15 dogs and found no loss of weight between the living dogs and their dead bodies. He believed this was because animals do not have souls.

    His experiments were criticized since of the six patients, two tests had to be discarded and the level of error was very high. Obviously, it was not a very scientific study.

    In addition, no one has ever been able to repeat the result of these experiments. Basically, there is still no physiological evidence of the soul. It’s an urban legend propagated by a guy who did bad science – looking for an answer he already believed was true. Real science doesn’t have attachments to pre-existing beliefs and values.

    Reading up on it there have been instances of bodies putting on weight after death and those who have lost weight have been put down to the expelling of CO².

    So you die and contribute to global warming, so it was OK to bring it up in this thread.

  34. I go to first principles of science and ask for the proof of the theory

    Actually, you display your ignorance of science here, rather than go to “first principles” 🙄

    A theory in science can never be proved, only disproved:

    The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. ( 😆 ) Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

    That link is also relevant to this thread in other ways 😉

  35. Consensus has NO standing on matters of science

    Once again, demonstrating that same ignorance of science 🙄

  36. I know anthropogenic climate change has nothing to do with god but it’s one of the areas I know a bit about so I’ll reply to Iain!

    Iain- I’m not sure but I think you are using the term “theory” in the broad sense, not the narrow sense of a scientific theory. Compare it with evolution: you have the facts of changing populations or changing climate, and you have theories to explain that change: natural selection or anthropogenic climate change. These “theories” are backed up by a lot of evidence: they aren’t just hypotheses or thought bubbles. They could easily be falsified (for example by fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian as J.B.S Haldane once grumbled). Evolution can be tested: it has important implications for what type of organisms we expect to find (nested phylogenic trees for example). The scientific method can test hypotheses of vast scope and long time scales. Think about cosmology: there is nothing vaster in scope or longer in time scale!
    The uncertainty I mentioned is a result of the types of investigation that is done. Basically, scientists can’t measure everything relevant to a hypotheses. Hence we carefully design experiments to provide representative samples and use statistical methods to decide if the results are significant. That is very different to ambiguity: ambiguity suggests interpretation. If a result is ambiguous about a scientific hypotheses, the hypotheses isn’t accepted. Most scientists won’t accept a hypothesis if there is greater than a one-in-twenty chance that the results could have occurred by chance. For many of the results that climate change science depends on, the probability that the results could be due to chance are much smaller.
    I completely disagree that both religion and science seek to ‘understand the world around us, to provide a social template for a “good” society and to explain the inexplicable’.
    Religion doesn’t seek to understand the world around us: when it does it fails spectacularly (look at creationism and intelligent design). It starts from a position that god exists, and ignores or shapes the evidence to fit that position. It’s true that science doesn’t simply begin from observations, but it is open to challenge and debate.
    Science doesn’t provide a template for a good society. If we don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science informs us what may happen. Strictly speaking, that doesn’t apply a value judgement: those are ethical decisions. We may decide we don’t have a problem with falling species biodiversity and a changing climate. Science does not tell us if that is good or bad. Most scientists would argue it is bad, but that is an ethical judgement, not a scientific result.
    Science doesn’t assume any part of our physical reality is inexplicable. I can’t think of a field of science where this has been shown to be incorrect: scientific progress has been made in every imaginable area in the past five hundred years (although our knowledge is incomplete). Religion however starts from the point that there is something inexplicable and that is god. God is inexplicable by definition.
    You seem to confuse a caricature of environmentalism, with worship of Gaia, with science as a human endeavour to explore and explain our physical reality. Environmentalism is a political and ethical ideology, and in some ways it is similar to religion, in that it can’t be “proven” wrong. Science is not environmentalism, although many scientists are environmentalists.

  37. I believe that there might be another truism that we ignore. When we demand that people prove their innocence.

    That is nearly impossible to do in most cases. It is much easier to prove guilt, or even infer guilt.

    I believe that is why our legal system might be built on the premise of proving someone guilty, not having one prove their innocence.

  38. The experiments that I saw were performed under lab conditions and filmed as a documentary , maybe replicating Dr MacDougalls. experiments, using very sensitive commercial scales, I think in the late eighties, but not sure.
    the results however were verified.
    My wife spent ten years as a palliative care nurse and witnessed first hand the moment of death on numerous occasions, commenting many times to me on the difference between the living and the dead body, and the transition from a living organism to literally dead meat as the spark of life deserts the body.

  39. Search for “soul weighs 1/3,000th of an ounce” TS/S – there’s lots to find. Not sure about the scientific credibility of some of these sites though, (when you have a supposed scientist making claims like,”The only possible explanation is that we were measuring the loss of the human soul or some kind of life force”, you’ve got to question the scientific credibility…)

    Have some fun anyway 🙂

  40. Bacchus, discenting opinions are the essence of science, as witnessed in the climate debate, conspiracy theories etc etc.
    I do have a true story about the death of my best mate soon after we moved to QLD which has nothing to do with science, but which defies logic and scientific reasoning.
    I may relate it when I have more time later, as it has some relevance to some comments on this particular thread WRT whether the soul leaves the body at the time of death.

    Cheers 😀

  41. “the loss of the human soul or some kind of life force”

    I wonder whether other primates have been tested for loss of soul?

  42. Drunk Slag

    Iain- I’m not sure but I think you are using the term “theory” in the broad sense, not the narrow sense of a scientific theory.

    Yes

    Compare it with evolution: you have the facts of changing populations or changing climate, and you have theories to explain that change: natural selection or anthropogenic climate change. These “theories” are backed up by a lot of evidence: they aren’t just hypotheses or thought bubbles.

    I would suggest that evolution is backed up bay far more substantive empirical data than Climate theory and it is more amenable to testing by the scientific method for example the understanding of DNA and studies animal and plant diversity are consistent with the theory,

    They could easily be falsified (for example by fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian as J.B.S Haldane once grumbled). Evolution can be tested: it has important implications for what type of organisms we expect to find (nested phylogenic trees for example). The scientific method can test hypotheses of vast scope and long time scales.

    Yes I can see that when it comes to evolution where we have fossil evidence and even ancient DNA for comparison. What do we have for ancient climate? substantially less than that apart from some very vague proxies that may or may not give a good reading of Paleo climatology

    Think about cosmology: there is nothing vaster in scope or longer in time scale!
    The uncertainty I mentioned is a result of the types of investigation that is done. Basically, scientists can’t measure everything relevant to a hypotheses. Hence we carefully design experiments to provide representative samples and use statistical methods to decide if the results are significant.

    There is also nothing that requires more faith in theory and speculation any small part of which can be very wrong and make vast tracts of that which are treated as FACT (like the “big bang”) when we can just never know one way ore another how valid that theory actually is. My trouble is not that which can be measured but that which can not and the way that those significant gaps are papered over and then that assumed surface is presumed to be far more solid than it actually is.

    That is very different to ambiguity: ambiguity suggests interpretation. If a result is ambiguous about a scientific hypotheses, the hypotheses isn’t accepted. Most scientists won’t accept a hypothesis if there is greater than a one-in-twenty chance that the results could have occurred by chance.

    You know I could live with those odds but the simple and sad fact is that the laity tend to ignore such caveats and then suggest that the case is stronger (“beyond debate” anyone) than it is especially when it concerns millenarian predictions of our impending doom.

    For many of the results that climate change science depends on, the probability that the results could be due to chance are much smaller.

    the major problem with “climate change science” is the huge disparity in the quality of climate data over the time-span of human civilisation and beyond. We have a fairly Hi definition picture of global climate now but that picture for even 100 years a go was orders of magnitude less extensive and less accurate and go back even a thousand years and that is orders of magnitude worse again, yet the Climate Profits insist with great certainty that they are comparing like with like…

    I completely disagree that both religion and science seek to ‘understand the world around us, to provide a social template for a “good” society and to explain the inexplicable’.

    Religion doesn’t seek to understand the world around us: when it does it fails spectacularly (look at creationism and intelligent design). It starts from a position that god exists, and ignores or shapes the evidence to fit that position. It’s true that science doesn’t simply begin from observations, but it is open to challenge and debate.

    Religion is likewise open to “challenge and debate” DS which is sort of the point of this thread as “ignores or shapes the evidence to fit that position” I can think of no better example than Michael Mann’s Hockey stick graph where he sought to “hide the decline” when his tree rings were inconsistent with the actual climate data of the current epoch

    Science doesn’t provide a template for a good society. If we don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science informs us what may happen.

    I think that you split hairs here science has provided the technology that underpins our entire culture and without that what would we see around us?

    Strictly speaking, that doesn’t apply a value judgement: those are ethical decisions.

    Of course it provides a value judgement and it seeks to control human activity for the sake of some rather abstract nations about the planet.

    We may decide we don’t have a problem with falling species biodiversity and a changing climate. Science does not tell us if that is good or bad. Most scientists would argue it is bad, but that is an ethical judgement, not a scientific result.

    You know what I am not against either science or technology and I would rather see the energy and treasure directly focused on things like the waste plastic in our oceans than trying to change the climate because the former has a chance to do some good where as the latter is bound to be pointless. It is just pain hubris to attempt to control the climate.

    Science doesn’t assume any part of our physical reality is inexplicable. I can’t think of a field of science where this has been shown to be incorrect: scientific progress has been made in every imaginable area in the past five hundred years (although our knowledge is incomplete). Religion however starts from the point that there is something inexplicable and that is god. God is inexplicable by definition.

    I would have to disagree with that because many is the time I’ve heard scientists tell us that there are things that we can never truly know, just as we can never truly know the nature of the deity.

    You seem to confuse a caricature of environmentalism, with worship of Gaia, with science as a human endeavour to explore and explain our physical reality. Environmentalism is a political and ethical ideology, and in some ways it is similar to religion, in that it can’t be “proven” wrong. Science is not environmentalism, although many scientists are environmentalists.

    Well I see a great deal of similarity between environmentalism and the ideology of AGW proponents

  43. Burying our morals and burying our dead
    Burying our head in the sand
    E equals MC squared, you can’t relate
    How we made God with our hands

  44. The troll is so devoid of actual evidence available to support its fallacious reasoning that it seeks to revive the discredited lies and smears of the infamous “climategate” beatup in order to make it’s point 🙄

    Personally, i have no particular respect for the delusions of religion, nor its proponents, although I had a religious early education, and was a conscientous altar boy at daily mass before school. I think the “rot” sunk in at my confirmation (catholic sacrament), when the promised “tongues of the flame of faith ” failed to materialise 😕

    That religion serves as a convenient sop to wilful ignorance can be seen in the reluctance to engage with evidence conflicting with the “faith”, readiness in assigning hard questions(and answers) to god’s will, rather than attempting to meet such challenges through appropriate research and studies. Funnily enough, the denialism meme shares many of these attributes with religion, leading to such idiotic statements as

    as the latter is bound to be pointless. It is just pain hubris to attempt to control the climate.

    – which of course ignores the reality that we are demonstrably able to affect the climate and rather than seeking to control the effects of AGW the aim is to minimise its potential (adverse) effects. A far cry from (even attempted) “control”.

    Hubris more properly, lies in the minds of the wilfully ignorant as they seek to smear, and misrepresent the work of those who have devoted their lives to understanding the scope and nature of reality and who have attempted to convey inconvenient truths from their studies, about the affect and effects of our civilisation upon this, our only planet.

    Religion seems to me to represent the ultimate abdication of responsibility to it’s god(s), rather than dealing with the reality(ies) of the world we create.

  45. @CU 12:10 pm

    Another interesting fact, is what the mentally ill manifest over time changes. There appears to a hidden conscious that these people hook into.

    You might be interested in this bloke who’s had some interesting thoughts on this topic – as does this one.

  46. What pterosaur1 says in spades! Spot on in so many ways.

    But technically not … “in order to make it’s (sic) point

    Sorry for being a pedant.

  47. … and on the 8th day God had Man Flu and was thusly laid low… and so it was that Man-flu was created in Gods own snotty nosed image….. and thus it was so, it was (ay)….. Man on the 7th day rested…. and on the 8th he had to take a sicky…… God realising he had blown a day….. and that the early followers had missed that 8th day completely, decided in recompense, to create a land down under, a land of sweeping plains, a land of etc…. a land in his own image….. a land that recognisers Gods commandments and that great institution ‘the sicky’ as ordained by God its self…… that great land of the long week-end….. Australia….. Gods country……. and so came down the ‘word’….. have fuck’n Monday off….. ( and I’m gunna 😉 )

  48. There are more commonalities between religion and science than most modern day secularists would be willing to admit.

    What kind of philosophical wankery is this?

  49. So between 1996 and 2023 their were 13950 peer reviewed papers on climate change just 24 of which rejected climate change as man made. Yet the factless troll wishes to argue otherwise ? Again as always not one reference…just cut and paste opinion

    . Consensus has NO standing on matters of science..

    What absolute dribble. So the concept of peer review, is now apparently redundant? maybe he should be running the csiro? Opinion on everything…even science, references?…. This guy is nothing more than the anti aunt troll…. No references, I think, it is apparent, factless antagonist. It is patently obvious that he has never read a scientific paper on climate change…he is just happy pasteing out of bolts blog. Pathetic really. If not for iimposing hiis idiocy upon cafe whispers , no one would read a word.of his trash.

  50. Here’s a thought to add to the mix. We all born with a spirit – when we die the spirit leaves the body. So where does it go back to – A Higher Power? Guess that this is what I really believe. So what does that make me when it comes to a religious belief?

    A type of theist.

  51. Mobius, one must equate the spirit with “life forces” or whatever one calls it, I believe.

    Is there any distinctions.

    I think this belief is called deism. It is fairly widespread, and often mistaken for a type of atheism. John Safran is another such person who believes in the life force – in fact he says he subscribes to Jediism – but he is better known for his TV documentaries as an athiest.

  52. Science has proven that at the time of death there is a very small but nevertheless unexplainable weight loss in humans.
    Attributed to the life force (soul) leaving the body.

    I have heard this furphy many times before by Christians. Can you cite the scientific journal it was published in? It is easily discredited. To begin with, “life force” or “soul” has no precise definition and is not a scientific concept.

  53. It is easily discredited?

    Like Climate science?

    Furphy?
    As I said I saw a doco many years ago.

    There are many things that are not precisely defined by science,

    There are also many things that are written up and accepted as fact, yet in reality are un-proven theories

    If you know of scientific evidence that disproves the existence of the Life force/soul that would be something millions would be interested in.

    But I won’t hold my breath for that one.

    There are more thing under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies!

    Cheers 😀

  54. silkworm @ 11:48 pm

    “What kind of philosophical wankery is this?”

    Couldn’t of said it better myself.

    They twist and contort basic notions to make their distorted points of view.

  55. I like to quote Mike Malloy on this. (Mike is an atheist, left-wing radio host in the US.).

    Before I was born, there was eternity.

    I was born, a brief flash of light in the darkness, then I died.

    After I died, eternity.

    http://www.mikemalloy.com/

  56. You certainly stirred up an interesting discussion this time Migs. Furthering the ‘spirit’ debate (from a ?theist). Has anyone ever looked at little children as they start their journey in life. Some little ones just seem to ‘have been around before’ and some don’t. Just ask any grandparent when they start to engage with their grandchild.
    After you get to around the ten grandkid mark, you could say that you have conducted your own small scientific proof on the matter.
    Everyone has to have a ‘faith’ of some sort and mine rests with the fact that we as human beings need to remember that to have peace in our lives we should perhaps use the ‘body, mind, spirit’ quotation that helps balance our lives.
    When I look at the news today from the middle east, yet again, I see so much anger, pain and suffering. The people from both sides try to blame a ‘God’ of their teachings, asking as to why ‘he’ lets this happen. They just don’t get it, that it is not ‘God’ that let wars begin – it is human beings who use religion to justify their actions.
    Boy, have I just strayed of my original topic or what. Sorry everyone. I just find that there are just so many innocent ‘souls’ being lost to humanity. I just wish that the leaders of both sides of this conflict would just back off.
    Enough is enough.

  57. The one thing more than anything else that Howard said which really vexed me was when coming out of a church after mass and in aping George W Bush Howard said, “this is a just war”, in defending the decision he had recently made to attack Iraq.

    The religious connotation behind the remark was unmistakable and was commented on at the time.

  58. silkworm
    NOVEMBER 18, 2012 @ 12:20 AM
    Science has proven that at the time of death there is a very small but nevertheless unexplainable weight loss in humans.
    Attributed to the life force (soul) leaving the body.

    Yeah I think they call that decomposition 🙂

    Tom R
    NOVEMBER 17, 2012 @ 7:30 PM
    Cool track great Vid

    As an Atheist and a song writer I have approached this myself a few times in regard to spirituality… Here is one of my tracks from that period called “Circle of life”
    ” The more we think we understand, the less we really know”

    Food for trolls..I know I know I shouldn’t feed them, but I hear they choke on facts……
    The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
    From article an written by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle.

    A fascinating paper well worth reading is Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (Diethelm & McKee 2009) (H/T to Jeremy Kemp for the heads-up). While the focus is on public health issues, it nevertheless establishes some useful general principles on the phenomenon of scientific denialism. A vivid example is the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who argued against the scientific consensus that HIV caused AIDS. This led to policies preventing thousands of HIV positive mothers in South Africa from receiving anti-retrovirals. It’s estimated these policies led to the loss of more than 330,000 lives (Chigwedere 2008). Clearly the consequences of denying science can be dire, even fatal.

    The authors define denialism as “the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists”. They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism, first suggested by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle:

    Conspiracy theories
    When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won’t admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
    Fake experts
    These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research ‘junk science’.
    Cherry picking
    This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
    Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
    The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
    Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
    Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a ‘threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy’.
    Why is it important to define the tactics of denialism? Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science.

    This is not to say all global warming skeptic arguments employ denialist tactics. And it’s certainly not advocating attacking peoples’ motives. On the contrary, in most cases, focus on motives rather than methods is counterproductive. Here are some of the methods using denialist tactics in the climate debate:

    Conspiracy theories
    Conspiracy theories have been growing in strength in recent months as personal attacks on climate scientists have intensified. In particular, there has been accusations of manipulation of temperature data with the result that “the surface temperature record is unreliable” has been the most popular argument over the last month. This is distracting people from the physical realities of global warming manifesting themselves all over the world. Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. Spring is coming earlier each year. Animal breeding and migration are changing in response. Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations. Global sea level is rising. When one steps back to take in the full body of evidence, it overwhelmingly points to global warming.
    Fake experts
    A number of surveys and petitions have been published online, presenting lengthy numbers of scientists who reject man-made global warming. Close inspection of these lists show very few qualifications in climate science. On the contrary, a survey of climate scientists who actively publish climate research found that over 97% agree that human activity is significantly changing global temperature.
    Cherry picking
    This usually involves a focus on a single paper to the neglect of the rest of peer-review research. A recent example is the Lindzen-Choi paper that finds low climate sensitivity (around 0.5°C for doubled CO2). This neglects all the research using independent techniques studying different time periods that find our climate has high sensitivity (around 3°C for doubled CO2). This includes research using a similar approach to Lindzen-Choi but with more global coverage.
    Impossible expectations
    The uncertainties of climate models are often used as an excuse to reject any understanding that can come from climate models. Or worse, the uncertainty of climate models are used to reject all evidence of man-made global warming. This neglects the fact that there are multiple lines of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming .
    Logical fallacies
    Strawmen arguments abound in the climate debate. Often have I heard skeptics argue “CO2 is not the only driver of climate” which every climate scientist in the world would wholeheartedly agree with. A consideration of all the evidence tells us there are a number of factors that drive climate but currently, CO2 is the dominant forcing and also the fastest rising. Logical fallacies such as “climate has changed before therefore current climate change must be natural” are the equivalent of arguing that lightning has started bushfires in the past, therefore no modern bushfire is ever started by arsonists.

  59. What are we to make of those scientists that have just come back from spending many weeks in the Antarticia.

    They must be a poorly trained lot, as they say they have observed much evidence that man made global warming is occurring. How could they be so wrong?

  60. Maybe we burn a lot of energy when we die. Just a thought. What I fail to understand, why should spirit have any weight.

  61. Wonder what the weight differential for spirits/souls for the obese v’s the anorexia sufferers.. how one ways a ghost is beyond moi… 😀

  62. Another hypothesis – what volume(mass/weight) difference exists between air in dead (collapsed?) lungs and live (pressurised) lungs? Testable – and would perhaps account for observed weight differences pre- and post-mortem (or not 😀 )
    Perhaps such a consideration would include a determination of the existence and significance of any weight differences between oxygenated/deoxygenated blood which transition could well occur as part of the dying process ?

    I too believe in spirit, and agree there is plenty out there we don’t yet even comprehend, let alone understand.

    Science, so far has proved its worth in arriving at useful understandings of our reality, and remains one of the most useful, (if not the only) tools in doing so.

    Religion(s) tend to obscure reality rather than clarify, imho.

  63. pterosaur1, in the experiments that I saw, al those factors were taken into account in the final analysis using the most up to date methods and equipment for measurement, and there was still a small amount of weight loss unexplained.

    Doesn’t energy have a weight component?

    Cheers

  64. Can’t resist it. 🙂 Anyone a wee bit precious about either religion or Tony Abbott should look away. **with thanks to Noelene F.

    An exceptionally good Catholic Joke

    A joke before I head off for the night…settle down all you christians..it’s only a joke lol

    The Pope and Tony Abbott are on the same stage in Sydney Stadium in front of a huge crowd.

    The Pope leans towards Abbott and said, “Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, but will go deep into their hearts and they’ll forever speak of this day and rejoice!”

    Abbott replied, “I seriously doubt that! With one little wave of your hand?….Show me!”
    So the Pope backhanded him and knocked him off the stage!

    AND THE CROWD ROARED & CHEERED WILDLY and there was happiness throughout the land!

    Kind of brings a tear to your eye, doesn’t it?

  65. The idea that anything exists beyond brain death is simply wishful thinking and is one of the underlying principles of religion – which among other things, allow people to believe they will exist in some kind of life-after-death and are therefore at liberty to inflict all kinds of carnage on their fellow humans – because the sky faeries told them.

  66. I have a little theory about all this. It may be complete bollocks, but {shrugs} it works for me.

    Man is a sentient animal. We have an acute sense of self awareness.

    At some time in the past, man’s self awareness prompted him to consider they “whys” and “wherefores” of the world and universe around him. Explanations were sought for the things he observed.

    From this were born the early gods – gods of thunder, gods of wine, gods of the harvest, gods of love, gods of war – you name it.

    The most pressing questions to engage man’s curious mind are the questions of origin – how it all began, how it all ends. The self-aware animal Homo sapiens demands to have explanations for how he got here. For many humans, the idea of mortality is deeply unsettling as it means the end, finito, of personal self-awareness.

    Out of these questions (to which no one definitively knows the answers), and man’s indomitable need FOR explanations – came what I call the core religious myths. The Creation myth to explain how it all began. The Immortality myth to ease the fear of dying – that tell people: When you die, you’re not really dead, something else awaits.

    Organised religion arose to enforce and prosletyse particular belief structures. Through the centuries organised religion has provided access to power and control for certain individuals who craved same.

  67. Johnny Apollo, and you base that ASSUMPTION on what?

    Stating personal opinion as fact Places YOU firmly in the realm of wishful thinking,

    The vast majority of Christians and in fact Jews and Muslims try very hard to be better people who only want to live in peace and see their families grow up safe and happy.

    It is the zealots, the power hungry, the greedy, the closed and narrow minded and the sociopaths of this world that cause the problems.
    And they exist both inside and outside of religion, ie; Pol pot, Adolf Hitler, Castro etc.

    You are obviously one of those people that do not believe in anything that you cannot see, touch, smell or taste.

    Be Happy, after all …Ignorance IS bliss.

  68. Cuppa, my theory involves the Man in the Moon, ugg, looking down over us all, ugg… the Moon has been moving away from Earth for geezs H. a bloody long time…ugg 😀 … so, ..long ago you could even see the crows-feet in his eyes, thats how bloody close was the Moon …. can you imagine what ‘they’, ugg, imagined back then…. this ‘face’ in the ‘firmament’…. and yes even back then there where RWingers… an oonga boonga here, an oonga boonga there and your on easy street….. IMO ..and so it evolved.

    …. and that simplictic evolutionary ‘projection’ has bought us the likes of Tony Abbott…. part Pope….. part PM ( the LOTO part )BUT(T) ALL oonga booga… ugg. :).

  69. For those who may be interested, here is a true story about the death of my best mate.
    I relate this story not to convince anyone of anything, but because it touches on some of the comments on this thread.
    Ivan was a man who knew what friendship meant.
    He was a Croatian Catholic, and certainly not your classic Catholic but strong in his own faith.
    He would never complain, and if there was work to be done he would just get in and help, even though he was very sick at times.
    He had Kidney disease and cancer and was very sick when my wife and I moved to QLD in 1998.
    We spoke on the phone regularly, but I had not spoken to him for a bit over a week as he was struggling with his dialysis and was getting worse.
    I am one who gets by on very little sleep and this particular night was no exception.
    I did however drift off just after 1.00 am and had a dream.
    I was working on something in a front yard (not mine), when a black stretched limo pulled up in the road behind me and a man in a black suit and sun glasses stepped out and stood by the car.
    As I got back to what I was working on, Ivan appeared beside me, knelt down and started working with me.
    I looked at him and he was as I remembered him when he was healthy, except that he seemed to be in shock.
    “How are you?” I asked him and he told me that he was alright.
    I said that it was good to see him looking so well. He smiled and then got back to the work that we were doing together, just as we always did.
    After a while working together, he got up and told me that he had to go.
    We said our goodbyes, he walked back to the limo and left.
    I promptly woke up.
    I didn’t get much sleep for the rest of the night, and when my wife woke up I told her about my dream.
    I have never dreamt of Ivan before or since that night, but I was left feeling confused by the dream, both grateful and saddened by it.

    Late that morning we received a phone call from Ivans wife, telling us that he had died just after 1.00 am that morning.

    He was 47 years old.

  70. Pip, popped in….. *waves*….. 😉 … miss your point of view….. just say’n 🙂 … my bad……. 😕 😳

  71. Pip, good to see you on the site. Hope everything is travelling well.

    Truth seeker, had the same type of experience when a young son of as friend drown in Darwin Harbour. Came into my room, stood at the side of the bed and asked me to take care of his mum., Took nearly a month to find his body. He fell from an American oil seeker boat at high tide, at the wharf.

    Never forgot that experience. His mother rang me a few hours later.

    Cannot explain it, I thought it was my younger brother, his mate at the time. Got out of bed to scream at him for coming home so late, but he was sound asleep, tucked up in bed.

    There are many things that one cannot explain. But the person standing beside that bed was no ghost. The words were clear.

    Whether it means there is life after death or not, I have no idea.

    Still, I do not believe in religion. Not as sure about a god.

  72. CU, yes indeed there are many things that can’t be explained, although most that heard about my dream, including his wife, agreed that he came to say goodbye.
    I never mentioned to his wife the one thing that I found somewhat odd, and that was that he seemed in shock, that he was struggling to come to terms with what was happening to him.
    Which was very unlike Ivan as he was always a very layback, Hippy, biker surfer type who took life very much as it came to him.
    The wonderful legacy of the dream was that I will always remember him as the healthy Ivan and not the sick and wasted human being that he became as a result of his illness.

  73. TS, I have just realise that young Ernie had never visit the house I was living in at the time.

    That is unless he came there with my brother.

    My only explanation is that it was just coincidence. Maybe he was on my mind. He was a mummy’s boy with three older sisters. He came home for Christmas, but spent most of his time on the boat. It was a childhod dream of his.

  74. Truth Seeker / Skeptical
    NOVEMBER 18, 2012 @ 12:36 PM
    Decomposition doesn’t happen at the instant of death.

    Sorry I strongly disagree, three examples that come to mind are of pre death decomposition:
    1. Anyone standing still waiting for “a god to appear”
    2: Tony Abbott’s leadership
    3: Any response to anything by the factless troll.

  75. Ricky, I will definitely concede your last two points, although you are talking pre or post not at time of.
    We have all experienced brain atrophy waiting for the LOTO or trolls to have an original thought. 😆 😆

    Johnny Johnny Johnny, unfortunately you have me at a disadvantage, as although I have a rudimentary knowledge of science, I have no knowledge of these creatures you refer to as sky fairies, which seem to be your own sad little obsession, (which I must admit I do find somewhat disturbing) but hey whatever gets you through the night.

    But I do hope that you and your fairies are very happy together! 🙄 🙄

    Cheers 😆 😆

  76. Pip. 🙂

    Too awesome seeing you here and thanks for the birthday greeting. 🙂

    It was the quietest birthday I’ve had in my 32 years on Earth, due solely to the fact that the previous night was, in a word, huge. So yesterday I laid around moaning and groaning with the hangover from hell.

    The hangover is now entering its second day. 😦

  77. Re,

    ..yesterday I laid around moaning and groaning with the hangover from hell.

    The hangover is now entering its second day. 😦

    . Yep……

  78. Min, it appears he needs looking after. Cannot have hangovers.

    One needs their wits to keep this site going.

  79. It was the quietest birthday I’ve had in my 32 years on Earth 😆 😆 😆 😆

    due solely to the fact that the previous night was, in a word, huge 😆 😆
    Nothing to do with old age and not being able to party like you could when you were 32? :mrgreen:

  80. Tony Burke is making an announcement. Re the giant fishing boat I believe.

    Kate Ellis has, re child care but up to now, unable to broadcast it. How come this never happens to Abbott.

    ABC 24

  81. Bacchus, plus more than just a little to do with just having recovered from pneumonia..however Migs did manage to eat 3 bowls of birthday ice cream cake. 😀

  82. Condescension is the refuge of fools TS.

    The church, under the direction of their invisible friend, was and is the enemy of reason, intellect and rationality. A woman died recently in Ireland because their invisible friend forbid abortion. People are killing each other in the Middle East in an effort to prove their invisible friend is greater than somebody else’s.

    The universe is already an intriguing and wondrous place without the need to bring forth mythical supernatural deities. Gods belong to the same fantasy realms as ghosts, goblins, werewolves and vampires.

  83. Invisible friends/ sky fairies / : the result is the same – irrational superstition creates mythical supernatural entities to explain the unknown / hide ignorance / control of the superstitious.

    One of the most fascinating superstitions came from the Catholic Church with their selling of ‘indulgences’ – that people are credulous is astounding.

    You TS are being a boorish troll.

    Bye.

  84. Johnny Johnny Johnny, not only are you an expert on on invisible friends and sky fairies but obviously an expert on the refuge of fools of which you are the prime resident.

    If you don’t like condescension, then stop talking shit like you know WTF you are talking about.
    You peddle your spurious and puerile arguments like you have something to contribute, and then get all precious when people call you out on it.

    You are entitled to your opinion, and I would defend your right to have that opinion, but don’t offer it up as fact, if you want to be taken seriously.

    I would not waste my time trying to educate one who has such an obviously closed mind so I made an effort to keep it light and have a bit of fun.
    Unfortunately not only are you closed minded but totally lacking in any ability to see anything but your own frankly sad and mindless hatred of anything other than your own pathetically infantile mindset.

    If you bothered to read what I wrote you would see that i said that the problem lies in mans interpretation of their respective books of law.
    The examples that you chose to cite only emphasise my point.
    But then your comprehension of language seems to be as lacking as your ability to recognise that there are things that we humans will never understand.
    Most scientists and people of reasonably intelligence know that the more that they know, the more they realise how little they really know.
    I do understand that you will struggle with this concept, as it appears that you live under the delusion that, like the errant teenager, you know everything.

    Never mind you will probably grow up one day… maybe!

    In the mean time, don’t waste your time replying again as I have wasted as much of my time as I intend to on your stupidity.

    Or to put it in Biblical terms… casting pearls before swine.

    Cheers 😆 🙄 😦 😆

  85. TS/S is a creationist. You have to wonder then why he/she includes the word “skeptical” in his/her name. Skeptical of what? Evolution? Global warming? Science in general?

  86. TS/S.. “Most scientists and people of reasonably intelligence know that the more that they know, the more they realise how little they really know.”
    …. funny you should say that…. one of my ‘sayings’ is …. ” Ya, gotta be smart enough to know how dumb you are…” … then work it from there :D… which is usually my point about LNP types that ‘think’ they are Alpha’s….. they just don’t know how dumb they are 😕 …and thus are not Alpha’s….. just Beta’s with a law/journalism degree 😆

  87. Migs, I would be honoured!
    Cheers

    Silkworm, My post earlier makes mention of my wife.
    My original name on CW was Skeptical, because of my responses to some of the comments predominantly from troll activity, and yes I am a Christian, but believe very strongly in the separation of church and state.
    I believe in climate change and mans contribution to it, and accept macro evolution but not the theory of evolution as fact, as the odds just don’t stack up IMO.
    And i do not believe that science and religion are necessarily mutually exclusive, i just don’t accept that science will ever have all the answers.
    Likewise i see many problems with denominational religion and the types of hypocrisy displayed by the likes of Abbott, Pell etc.
    In a few weeks I will drop the Skeptical tag and go by Truth Seeker, as I do on TPS.

    I chose that tag because I made a promise to myself many years ago that if I was shown “The Truth” I would act upon it and I try very hard to be honest and open enough to do just that, as I know that as LOVO has stated smart people are smart enough to know how dumb they are ( Nice one LOVO 😀 )

    LOVO, I am honoured to be counted among the smarter dumb arses. 😆 😆

    A somewhat exclusive lefty class.

    Hope that clears up any misconceptions.

    Love CW and its many and varied contributors, even if I don’t always agree with what is said.

    However as I get older I find my tolerance level for fools and trolls is diminishing so I usually scroll them but Hey I am only human and sometimes have to react.

    Cheers 😀

  88. ‘my tolerance level for fools and trolls is diminishing’

    Arrogance and ignorance is a nasty mix….groupthink is comforting.

  89. “However as I get older I find my tolerance level for fools and trolls is diminishing so I usually scroll them but Hey I am only human and sometimes have to react.”

    I wonder what the resident psychologist would have to say about that?

    Lumping fools and trolls in the same basket may well be the hallmark of a fool himself.

    “Certainly there is an element of personality involved with some psychologists hypothesizing that all beliefs, including political ones partly arise from an individual’s psychological fears and needs.”

  90. Heard a creationist bloke on the radio. He believes that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago but he doesn’t know how he did it. He just accepts that he did.

    The bloke then went on that he had no issues with evolution being taught at schools, but it should be pointed out to the class that evolution is only a theory. 😯 WTF!

    Oh yes, the bloke was American.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s