Image via WikipediaAskimet catches virtually all of the spam that hits this blog but sometimes I scan the logs just to see what’s coming through and to assure myself that nothing genuine is being flagged as spam. And what have I found lately? Well, sex. Lots of sex. And drugs– most of which concern sex. And ringtones.
Now, the sex I understand. Sex runs deep, like eating and breathing and otherwise not dying. Sex makes sense. Drugs that help make sex happen make sense. Drugs that make man parts swell to gargantuan proportions and stay that way for way too long are… well… complete and utter nonsense on several levels but insofar as they hook into male paranoia and male– yes, male– fantasy they make sense. Sex sells. That makes sense.
Ringtones make no sense. This bothers me deeply. Those stupid song clips that amuse you but make your friends, family, neighbors and strangers hate you like nuns hate sin… those rank up there with copulation? Really? That scares me. Given that the point of spammie keywords is to attract webtraffic, this must mean that there are comparable numbers of people looking to annoy their compatriots as there are people looking for breasts, buttocks and penis. That’s really just wrong.
Last summer, I wrote a three-part post series, "Why I Am Not a Libertarian", which explained my disagreement with this political philosophy. However, I've realized that despite writing an essay addressing the crimes of communist regimes as they reflect on atheists, I've never written a post on my differences with communism per se. This one will do that.
I have many objections to communism, not least of which is last year's news that, in Russia, the Communist party is now teaming up with the Russian Orthodox Church to outlaw homosexuality - a fitting illustration of the similar dogmatic, irrational attitudes that prevail in both ideologies. But my differences go deeper than that, and this post will outline three of the most serious.
Communism lacks a good mechanism to allocate resources to where they are most needed, resulting in waste, shortages and inefficiency. In a capitalist economy, price serves as both a vital signal of demand and also the means of meeting that demand. When a product or service is demanded in excess of current supply, the price rises, attracting people to produce that product or service in order to make a greater profit. Conversely, when demand outstrips supply, the price drops and people are naturally discouraged from producing more of the excess commodity until the imbalance resolves itself. This "invisible hand" of the market, an organizational force at the macro-level emerging from thousands of independent decisions, is often an extremely efficient way of balancing supply with demand and resulting in a society where there is neither wasteful excess nor shortage.
Communism, however, has no such balancing mechanism. In a communist society, the state sets the price of all commodities, and this decision can be completely arbitrary. In theory, if a shortage occurs, the state simply orders the appropriate entities to produce more, but this decision is insufficiently sensitive to price signals and has no necessary link to supply or demand. No group of centralized bureaucrats has the information or the intelligence to make such perfect decisions affecting the price of every transaction in society. This "top-down" approach will inevitably result in inefficiency and misallocation of resources, wasting commodities that are produced in excess of demand and causing shortages of commodities that are not produced in sufficient quantity to meet demand. The "bottom-up" approach of capitalism is a far superior means of dealing with this problem.
Communism discourages productive effort and innovation. In a communist society, no one is richer than anyone else; the state allocates goods to all people based only on need. This means that there are no material rewards for invention, innovation, or greater productivity. It also means that those who are less productive than the average have no incentive to work harder or increase their output.
What this inevitably leads to, in the real world, is a vicious spiral of decreased effort and decreased production, as people slacken their efforts so as to work no harder than the least hardworking member of society (whom they'll be paid the same as anyway, so why work any harder than them?). This is the classic Prisoner's Dilemma in action, and means that such a system cannot compete against a capitalist economy that tangibly rewards good ideas and hard work.
Communism necessarily denies the freedom of the individual. Of all the shortcomings of communism, I consider this one to be the most serious. A communist economy necessarily denies people the freedom to seek happiness in whatever career they choose. In such a system, decisions regarding what job a person will take must be made by the state. When the bureaucracy perceives a shortage, their only response is to order more people to join the effort of producing the desired commodity. Thus, a communist society is intrinsically a tyranny where people's lives must be controlled in minute and exacting detail by a faceless and distant central committee. This alone should make communism repugnant to all lovers of freedom and liberty, and bring us to the realization that no such system could ever succeed in reality without massive and widespread violations of the human right to choose our own destiny and pursue happiness as we see fit.
It’s official. You have to show me more deep respect. The Roman Catholic Archbishop has said so!
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor called for more understanding and appreciation between believers and non-believers, urging Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with “deep esteem”. In a lecture given at Westminster Cathedral, which comes after a spate of public clashes with secularists over issues such as stem-cell research, gay adoption and faith schools, it appears that the Cardinal is trying to build bridges.
There are two reasons why you should esteem me:
The first point is a welcome self-awareness that is blindingly obvious to many outside of the Church. The second point is a statement that is so general as to have no substantial meaning. I might just as well claim that everyone has a ‘hidden dog’ inside them. If you ask me for evidence I can find a few of your more pleasing attributes and say that the hidden dog has caused them. Such a claim would be as valid as the Cardinal’s. Neither of us could point to any proof other than our sincere beliefs that it was really, really so.
It would seem that the Cardinal has some awareness of the difficulty of his position. He seems to know that it just won’t wash for many people using their brains that have either evolved or been given them by god. That organ helps us detect hogwash. We look for evidence. We use reason. In every other area of our lives we can smell a rat a mile off. Knowing that he cannot pass those tests, the Cardinal has to change the rules and create a special universe (cloud-cuckoo-land?) where you accept big things because someone says so and you cannot apply the normal verification rules.
He claimed that God is not a “fact in the world” as though God could be treated as “one thing among other things to be empirically investigated” and affirmed or denied on the “basis of observation … If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative.” Doubt is the great unifying factor that can help Catholics embrace atheists and agnostics. So we are united by ignorance because the great proclaimer of truth admits that it is uncertain (while he continues to propagate life-restricting practices emanating from apparent certainty).
So, as I was saying, there is a dog, and a hidden dog in all of us, even those who don’t believe in dog. And you can’t really dispute that because it is a great mystery that you have to believe. (You may not be able to prove me wrong, but on the balance of probability - you know, that kind of judgement you normally use all the time - you know I’m crazy! Really, you do!)
I am saddened by many things about Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. I am saddened that while Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, he moved a priest who had been a paedophile since 1959 and committed over 20 known offences rather than remove his license. The priest continued to abuse boys until 1985 (see Structural and Moral Failure). I am saddened by his attempts to subvert the British Medical Associations Code of Ethics in a Roman Catholic hospital (see Divided Loyalty). I am saddened by many other things too - his attempts to increase sectarianism by the promotion of faith schools, his views on abortion and gays etc. However, I am sure that like all of us, he is a talented, significant, creative and fallible human being, and because of that I am willing to give him my respect. If he wants my esteem, he has to earn it, and he hasn’t done that yet. If he ever manages that, it will be because of qualities he displays that I value, rather than because of any mythical notion of a hidden god.
The thing that really gets my goat is his attempt to move the debate into another dimension - to change the rules of discourse, to move the goalposts. It really, really isn’t good enough to claim mystery and then expect belief. Historically that has got people into all sorts of trouble and is an affront to my dignity as a human being.
In fact, it is very, very disrespectful!
(Source: BBC)
I've posted a new essay over on Dangerous Intersection, a review of Glenn Greenwald's latest book, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics.
This is an open thread. Comments and discussion are welcome.
It’s going beyond boring to keep plugging this “1984 in the 21st century” stuff, so I’ve been willfully blanking lots of it, but this story is too chilling to ignore.
Just think of every shitty boss you’ve ever worked for. Every dishonest co-worker. Every work dispute you’ve ever had. Every manager who’s made you take the rap for their own corruption or stupidity.
Now, just imagine that the aforementioned shitty bosses could get a lifelong revenge on you at no inconvenience or risk to themselves.
The BBC story says:
Workers accused of theft or damage could soon find themselves blacklisted on a register to be shared among employers. It will be good for profits but campaigners say innocent people could find it impossible to get another job.To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare.
An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty, regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime, which bosses can access when vetting potential employees.
But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.
Note that you don’t get on this database by being convicted of a crime. That would see you on the Criminal Records Bureau computer, which - for all its shortcomings - requires there to have been a prosecution before you find yourself unable to work ever again.
You can get on this database just because someone suspects you of doing something untoward in their employment. Or, obviously, just hates you for any number of reasons.
The Trades Union Congress spokesperson said:
Individuals would be treated as criminals, even though the police have never been contacted
Precisely, thus overturning centuries of law based on the “innocent till proven guilty” premise.
For once, the comments on this story on the BBC website aren’t dominated by the “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear” battalion. Most commenters were understandably horrified and made some cogent arguments against it.
I’m still going to hammer a few of the arguments home.
On a social - but also very selfish level - who wants to live in a world where one mistake - or one falsely attributed mistake - dooms people to a life in which legitimate earnings are just a pipe-dream? That is the way to turn the country into a crime-ridden wasteland. As the UK goes under ever more extreme lock down, life gets ever more desperate for the people outside of Daily-Mail world.
Boycotts are generally feeble tools for achieving anything. All the same, as far as I can see, the only possible recourse against this sort of thing - in the absence of any organised public concern - is to just refuse to buy any goods or services from the offending companies.
So I’m starting my own blacklist.
The BBC mentions Harrods, Selfridges and Reed Managed Services. They’ll do for a start, although that’s too easy. Never having used the services of any of these companies, it won’t make much of a dint in their balance sheets if I decide to boycott them. All the same great oaks, small acorns etc.
When I find out the names of more participants, I’ll post them here.
Now, given that this blog has an amazingly technical readership (who often put Heather and me to shame) it will probably come as no surprise to most of you that Ebay is actually a more expensive way of buying things. However, it was a bit of a shock to me.
Today, I was looking around for books on the CISSP course and out of idle curiosity I did a search for CISSP for dummies (yeah, yeah). On ebay today, the cheapest I could find was £13.99 plus £2.75 postage (visit auction page - auction ends 12 May 08 so the link might die).
Compare against Amazon.co.uk where the same book costs £13.49 plus £2.75 postage (here).
Now this is a trivial example, and most people wouldn’t bat an eyelid over saving 50p (I would but that is because no one ever makes donations here and I am poor). However, if we look at it a bit further…
Ebay has the CISSP Exam Cram 2 book available as a Buy It Now for the discounted price of £21.37 plus £2.75 postage. Can Amazon beat that?
Well, yes. On Amazon, the CISSP Exam Cram 2 is £14.99 (postage seems to be a grey area here but I think it will be £2.75). That is no mere £0.50 saving, that is a whopping £6.38.
There is a change in the balance of power over the CISSP all in one exam guide (Ebay, Amazon) where Ebay is actually about £3 cheaper, but by and large you actually pay for the privilege of using Ebay. It strikes me, from talking to all the ebayers I know, that people have a strange attitude towards Ebay. When people go to shop there, the idea of checking prices becomes alien.
For some reason, people seem to get caught in some weird mindset when they are faced with an auction and apparently regularly pay prices close to, or in excess of, the market rate for an item. I have experienced this a bit in the past when I’ve been bidding on cameras or camera parts - I have never won a single auction because almost every one of them has gone over the price you could buy it from a camera shop.
Why on Earth does Ebay have this effect on people? Great for sellers but, methinks, not so good for the buyer…
Blimey. The subtitle “Archbishop sees sense, sort of” was tempting here, but I resisted it. A news item on the BBC today is titled ‘Respect Atheists’ says Cardinal. Basically, the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, has called for more understanding of atheists! Wonderful. He also reportedly said: “Believers may be partly responsible for the decline in faith by losing sense of the mystery and treating God as a “fact in the world.‘” Strangely, I agree.
Manifestos have been popping up on varying modern movements for dozens of years now. Even Humanists created one in 1933. Now, Evangelicals have one, too.
An Evangelical Manifesto, established by a committee led by Samford University (not to be mistaken for Stanford University in California) theology professor Timothy George, was released to the public yesterday. It was created to “take back the term ‘evangelical’ from politics and return it to its theological roots,’” according to USA Today.
So far, there are over 80 signers, including Princeton professor Sam Moffett, and Sojournors magazine founder Jim Wallis. (There is also a mysterious signer known as “Greg,” a “Minister” at a “Baptist church.” For what reason would he choose not to fully identify himself?)
But where are the bigwig Evangelicals—activists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and Chuck Colson, or media pundits like Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, or Rush Limbaugh?
Well, it looks like a few of them aren’t satisfied enough with it:
The Southern Baptist Convention’s policy chief, Dr. Richard Land, says he wasn’t asked to sign.
Focus on the Family’s Doctor James Dobson says he was asked, but his board of directors advised against it “due to myriad concerns,” including the lack of African-American involvement.
Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America worries the manifesto will confuse Christian voters about the issues that are most important: opposition to abortion and gay marriage.
It’s nice to see that Shaw thinks its more important for Christians to focus on negative, hurtful rhetoric than postively assert one’s beliefs and hopes for the future. Perhaps that’s the reason why such a manifesto is needed.
As a philosophical stance on the question of god(s), atheism is more than just the default position. There is a certain nobility in bucking tradition, appeals to authority, and the pressures of social conformity to permit reason and evidence to influence one's worldview. Even while recognizing that there are multiple paths to atheism, there is a certain shared joy that comes from living in accordance with reality.For reasons not easily understood, humans seem to have a basic need to want to believe that an invisible, omnipotent and omniscient deity -- one that is entirely responsible for everything and that demands our unquestioning devotion, obedience and respect for everything good that happens -- is watching over us.We can talk about the irrationality and sheer absurdity of such a belief system until we are blue in the face, but it does reveal a simple truth about humanity. Religious belief seems to have always been part of the human psyche. Some argue that we are hard-wired for it, but regardless of whether this is accurate, it is difficult to deny that religious belief is part of the human condition.
It’s about control, control, control! Why won’t they leave us alone?
It seems that almost everywhere you look religious authorities are trying to impose their conclusions about how they think people should behave, what they should say, how they should dress, what they should or should not do with their sexual desires on people who either do not wish to subscribe to their faith, or believers who do not subscribe to their strictures.
Let me give you two examples from the past few days.
Prince Fahd bin Badr, governor of the northern al-Jof region in Saudi Arabia, ordered police to punish men who flirt with women in public places by cutting their hair. The prince told a gathering at his palace in the northern town of Skaka on Sunday he has instructed police to apply the punishment to all youths guilty of flirting, including “the sons of senior military and civil officials”.
In Canberra, Australia’s Catholic church has taken a swipe at British chef Gordon Ramsay and demanded his reality television shows be either taken off air or shown at a later time because of his swearing and abusive language. (The programs went out at 20:30 and 21:30.)
Of course, religious authorities have a right to hold their own views and to express concerns about behaviour that they would disapprove of. And the authorities have a right to respond to complaints and intervene to protect women from being harassed or from children being exposed to material that their parents to guard them from. However, it is arguable that in both these cases they went beyond the boundaries of legitimacy by demanding the enforcement of their views on others. A religious authority (in the guise of a state authority) decided that flirting was wrong and should be punished in a very demeaning way. Another one decided that a particular form of entertainment should be taken off the air.
If I subscribe to a particular faith and to a particular set of rules I am acknowledging that leaders of that faith have some right to make pronouncements about my behaviour, and hopefully I am free to evaluate those judgements and make a decision about whether I accept them or not and whether I stay in the faith or not. But if I am outside of the faith, I really do object to being told what I can or cannot do or see by others who presume to know what is best for me.
There are alternative ways of responding to what you may dislike or disapprove of other than trying to get a blanket ban. If I disapprove of flirting in public places (and just for the record, I don’t ) I hope I would walk away, possibly tut-tutting, go home, and bemoan the behaviour of young people today. I wouldn’t want to argue that they have to make compulsory visits to the barbers. And if I seriously disapproved of Gordon Ramsay’s language or wanted any young children in my household to avoid it (just for the record, I don’t and wouldn’t ), I am free to turn off the set or change to any one of the other hundreds of channels available. I wouldn’t presume to want him banned.
The thought police are entitled to think whatever they want, but they have no legitimacy when it comes to enforcing a particular behaviour on people who have not signed up to their club.
Francis of Assisi. Hmm, what does Wikipedia say about him? “…Francis was inspired to devote himself to a life of poverty…..” He founded the Franciscan order which is pretty well synonymous with the concept of monastic poverty, in the face of the incredible wealth amassed by the other medieval monastic orders.
So, it’s a mite odd to find that, according to the Times
Armed guards brought in to protect Assisi church from beggars
Armed security guards have been brought in for the first time to protect visitors to the Franciscan church of Santa Maria degli Angeli at Assisi from “beggars, tramps and gypsies” who “disturb the peace of a place of prayer”…..
Claudio Ricci, mayor of Assisi and a member of Forza Italia, the party led by Silvio Berlusconi, said the friars’ decision to employ guards was in line with a new local ordinance cracking down on illegal immigrants, many of them Roma gypsies….
After all, those irritating poor people might be benefitting from the charitable impulses of the faithful, before they’ve unburdened themselves of worldly wealth in the church’s collection boxes. Leaving that much less to give to the Church. Even when the church in question is supposedly founded on concern for the poor.
(Some of which donated wealth is clearly going to be spent on paying armed security guards to drive away the irritatingly poor….. It’s almost pleasingly circular)
New Franciscan rule: Give to the wealthy.
And here’s a further story, which may seem slightly reminiscent of the above news item to anyone familiar with the history of the British Labour Party.
The Times Rich List shows that:
The richest 1,000 people in Britain have seen their wealth quadruple under Labour, according to The Sunday Times Rich List published today. Even under Gordon Brown’s brief premiership their fortunes have soared by 15%, just as the financial squeeze and faltering house prices have hit ordinary people.
Or, perhaps more pertinently for “ordinary people,” rising costs for food, utilities and local taxes. At the same time, the tax system has been changed to take more income tax from the lowest-paid, while everyone else pays less. (The government has promised rebellious Labour MPs that it will put this tax thing right but not yet explained how it’s going to work)
A new candidate for the Beatitudes: Blessed are the rich for they shall always get more.
(From the department of tastelessly picking on the distraught and clueless)
The ever comical Sunday Times has picked up on Kate McCann showing that, despite all the evidence of human history and the immediate evidence of the last year of her life, she still has faith…
In an article titled “‘Pray like mad,’ begs tearful Kate McCann” she apparently broke down in tears at a church and urged the congregation to pray for her daughter’s return. Now, I haven’t lived on another planet this last year, so I am aware that barely has a week gone by without something from the McCann PR Machine alternately proclaiming their innocence while begging everyone pray for the return of Maddie. It is a regular occurrence.
Despite all this, despite the prayers of almost every Christian (and lots of other faiths), despite the intercession of the Pope himself, Maddie McCann is not back.
What does this tell us? For the rational it is obvious. Prayer does not work. I am sure most sane people did not need the McCann tragedy to realise that, the evidence of cripples is a good start. The same is not true of the “faithful.” These seems to be a batch of people who will deliberately fight against the evidence of their senses. For them, a years worth of praying hasn’t worked just means “pray more” and “pray harder.” Is God deaf? Has old age made him hard of hearing? Does he have a Prayer-ometer and he only acts when it gets to a certain level?
On a more general note, maybe the McCanns just have it wrong. Millions of children die or go missing the world over. Why should God listen to their selfish whining for more prayers over the prayers of (insert random other child here)?
Still, it isn’t just their belief in magic that seems weird to the sane. Look at this:
In an interview before the anniversary the couple revealed they had been given
new hope in the search by the “massive” response to their appeal for fresh
information last week.Their team of private investigators are combing hundreds of recorded calls and
e-mails for further leads.Gerry said: “The lines have been overwhelmed; we’ve had to call additional
operators in.
What? Despite this massive response and huge amount of expenditure (they are approaching the financial turn over of a reasonable company now), they are no closer to catching the killer than they were a year ago. They spend more money on private eyes (and mediums but that is another story) than a normal police force. Yet they are still no closer.
Kate recently viewed footage from last year and said she could not recognise
herself.
Yeah, interesting. I wonder if coaching has anything to do with it.
The ultimate irony of this latest round of the McCann media train returns once more to poor old Robert Murat. Before you read on, remember the McCanns have a huge legal defence fund and are willing to sue at the slightest hint that they may have been involved…
Brian Kennedy, the home improvements tycoon backing the McCanns, admitted
yesterday that he flew to Portugal last November and spent an evening with
Robert Murat, apart from the McCanns the only other official suspect. A
source close to Kennedy said he was “gathering information”.Kennedy’s lawyer, Ed Smethurst, approached Murat through a mutual friend and
said that Kennedy wanted to offer him a job.But the job offer never transpired. Kennedy spent the evening with Murat and
his lawyers at his aunt’s house in Praia da Luz, discussing Madeleine’s
disappearance.He left with a “flea in his ear” after being confronted over reports that
Metodo 3, the McCanns’ private investigators, had suspicions about Murat.
By Thor’s ear! The Portuguese police suspicions of the McCanns aren’t enough to avoid a court case, but a PI having “suspicions” is enough to get a rich financier to stage a fake interview so he can put a “flea in the ear” of someone who has less evidence against him than the McCanns.
Wrong. This is just plain wrong. Who said money can’t buy you justice.
(Old news from the department of simple answers)
My time away has meant that some of the weird and wonderful nonsense over the last few weeks has escaped the harsh light of reality. Take this little blinder posted by Joanna Sugden to the Times Online on 2 May 08.
The article is titled: “Is the Bible science fiction?”
Simple answer: “Yes” (Or slight variation: “No, it is fantasy fiction”)
Why is there any need for more debate? Strangely, debate there is… As you can imagine, the article talks about “debate” as to the veracity of Noah’s Ark. It seems that some people over the age of six actually think that two of every species on Earth was crammed into the Ark to survive a world flood. Wonderfully, IMDB list a film about this under “Science Fiction Literature” which I think is a GoodThing™.
Equally great is the predictable response of the loonies.
The first to kick it off is Rick Beekman who is certainly a “person of faith” (and, I suspect with no real evidence, an American):
I believe the story of Noah’s Ark. I also believe all the stories in The Bible.
The ones who don’t believe it are the usual group of scoffers..Atheists..Secular Humanists.Those Who generally think everything has an Explanation based on their worldly but non-spiritual understanding of Events in the Bible they deem “Impossible”.
Word salad. This is nothing but an assertion of his belief with an appeal to ridicule against anyone who disagrees. The unusual capitalisation is always a good sign of a nutjob - I hope he doesn’t have access to firearms. After this start, he continues:
The reason for these stories is to teach we lowly humans what God has done..And what he can and will do.
Scary. I find myself agreeing with the insane. Dear Toutatis save me. Actually, the bit I agree with is the reason of the story. They are not supposed to be factual representations of the past. They are there to “teach” (for want of a better word) people about their belief system. This subtle fact is lost on Rick - despite the fact he worded it in quite a good way, I suppose that was just chance. (Monkeys, typewriters…) Anyway, after a bit more drivel he finishes off:
In Genesis 8 v 4 we read where the Ark rested upon Mt. Ararat as the waters receded.
Sattelite Photos confirm taken in 1972 that something very large is encased in Ice on top of that Mountain.
How could any large Ship get up there unless Water rested it there as The Bible says?
WTF? Seriously, what sort of insane leap of faith is this? How did “something” become a “large ship” in the space of a full stop? Quantum physics be damned! (Why is water capitalised?) Critically, why have none of the ultra rich evangelical groups over the world got a more recent ultra high res photograph to confirm - or just gone there on an expedition? Madness like this gives me a headache.
My faith in human nature is restored by a run of sensible comments, but then Rick returns:
John;
God our Creator can do whatever he pleases. He usually does things to suit his purposes not necessarily for what we think. He knows The end from the beginning. God could have chosen to just let everyone drop dead except the chosen animals etc and of course Noah and his family. There is no human now or past or in the future who is any match for the Wisdom and creator.
Ah the way of the madness runs true in this one. This at least shows there is no science in the bible or in creationism. Basically this is Rick saying he doesn’t care what feeble evidence there is, he knows his Invisible Friend can do things other people can’t. Well done Rick. There are seven year olds kicking themselves in shame at this…
More sensible refutations are made - thank Heimdall for the human race - then someone called CESEELEY chimes up with their own brand of wisdom:
One of the main points of stories like Noah’s Ark is to help one from the Old Testament into the New Testament so that one will learn to walk in the Spirit after being Born Again, Baptized and given the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Ah, here come the erratic capital letters. Wonderful. Still it is all gibberish.
Our bodies were designed by God to be guided by the Holy Spirit. That is what those scripture about the Holy Temple imply.
Eh? Is this going anywhere? This is more drivel - why use 1 word to say something when eight hundred and ninety four will do… Comments on Times Online are moderated so a human actually decided this was relevant enough to the thread to let through (and about 50% of mine get knocked back… hmmm).
If you want to experience the more Abundant Life that Christ promised and have become Born Again and Baptized by immersion, then start taking Roman 12:1-2 seriously in your life so that you can prove what is God’s perfect will for your life as compared to His permissive will.
Ok, I’ll stop here. It doesn’t get any better. It is just a string of meaningless drivel with little relevance to the topic other than it seems to want every one to become a Born Again lunatic. I am a touch confused about his “perfect will” being different from his “permissive will” though…
Not to be out lunatic’d, Rick returns:
To All;
Seems I am the only one on this thread who believes the Story of Noah And His Ark.
God, I hope so…
I guess God Really did’nt ask Adam to name all the animals Either..(Genesis 2 verses 19 & 20).
Well done for taking a step in the right direction. Why did God let Adam name the echnida such a bloody awkward name? Oh right, he didn’t because Adam would never have seen one..
According to the “Experts” on this thread there is no possible way God could have brought all the animals to Adam from all over so Adam could name them.
Erm, yep. See, after a while everyone starts to agree with the lunatics.
Another one has stated the story of the flood is a Babylonian myth.
Yes, some one did state that. I thought they were being charitable instead of just calling Rick insane. Obviously Rick just likes using words, because he doesn’t even try to refute the claims any more - he just repeats them. He does, however, save the best till last:
I Just Wanted All Of You To Know All Of You Are Dead Wrong…But the Good News Is I’m Not Upset And Love All Of You!!
Wonderful. Don’t you just love the shift key… How would we spot lunatics without it.
You can’t make this sort of thing up. A substitute teacher in Land ‘O Lakes Florida has been sacked for wizardry. The exact brand of wizardry? He made a toothpick disappear for about half a minute and then made it magically reappear. For this he is fired.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that there are circumstances under which it would be acceptable to fire a teacher for wizardry. Maybe if he was trying to entice one of his students to enlist as a thief with a group of dwarves on a quest to reclaim their lost treasure from an ancient and fearsome dragon. That’s the sort of dangerous thing that middle school students probably aren’t ready to handle. Firing would be justified if if he was trying to kill one of the students to create a seventh horcrux that would make him an all-powerful immortal evil overlord. I’d even say firing was justified if he was using his magical powers to banish students to the magical land of Oz.
But for making a toothpick disappear? That’s just plain stupid. I’d be willing to bet that there is a fundamentalist Christian child at the bottom of this who complained about the magic trick in the first place because everyone knows sleight of hand is an abomination before the Lord their God, but for a school system to actually fire someone over a magic trick is just further proof of the downfall of reasonable civilization.
Saw this today on Planet Atheism and checked out The Barefoot Bum's blog and wanted to share.
It is all too easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion. I may well appear passionate when I defend evolution against a fundamentalist creationist, but this is not because of a rival fundamentalism of my own. It is because the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and I am passionately distressed that my opponent can't see it — or, more usually, refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book. My passion is increased when I think about how much the poor fundamentalists, and those whom they influence, are missing. The truths of evolution, along with many other scientific truths, are so engrossingly fascinating and beautiful; how truly tragic to die having missed out on all that! Of course that makes me passionate. How could it not? But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
If you would like your humanist blog featured on Planet Humanism, send an email to: planethumanism@nullifidian.net and let us know the addresses of your blog and news feed.