Taps in that area have been flammable since at least 1973.
Fracking has nothing to do with it.
eidmarcellus.org/blog/extinquishing-the-flaming-faucet-exploding-the-myth/2845/
(
Lord Keeps meaning to procrastinate., Wed 23 May 2012, 15:02,
Reply)
That's quite a slapdown
And a really interesting read. Ta.
(
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:39,
Reply)
Major logical fallacy ahoy.
Just because fracking wasn't to blame for the handful of cases mentioned there doesn't magically mean that fracking doesn't also cause or even increase methane migration!
So then I thought "hmmm, I wonder who is behind this blog" and found this:
"What’s EID? - Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)"
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 23 May 2012, 18:43,
Reply)
Ha ha
a perfectly sensible rebuttal. It is true that fracking is at such a depth that it is unlikely to increase surface migration directly. However, the same cannot be said for the small seismic events it can trigger.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 20:25, Reply)
Zane Lowe being quite amusing for once (feat Teh Quo)
Oh dear God...
(
SauronWibble I'll hold it, you lick it..., Wed 23 May 2012, 14:16,
Reply)
scooter
that band did more damage to german techno than dj bobo ever could
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 18:10, Reply)
Dinosaur Sandpit
I made this!
The tutu-wearing dinosaurs are back!
(
Butters All aboard the electric jug!, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:35,
Reply)
Well that cheered me RIGHT up and no mistake...
(
The magic of chutney in a state of "not", Wed 23 May 2012, 13:38,
Reply)
Good to be of some service
:D
(
Butters All aboard the electric jug!, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:58,
Reply)
There is a specific reason that I clicked 'I like this'.
I like this.
(
TheSundaeLunch, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:43,
Reply)
Wonderful!
(
Herb Alpert's Taxi Driver is about to throw a marmalade hand grenade, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:56,
Reply)
I like the last one
and I like this one too : )
(
Fartfurter in the facefurter, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:58,
Reply)
Both adorable and educational.
*Click*
(
sir_spicious2000 Old crap I've watched: www.filmplop.blogspot.com/, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:58,
Reply)
Lovely :)
Nice music too, good job!
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier wearing my Protective Cloak of Apathy, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:03,
Reply)
Wow! That's a lot of kind words!
Cheers guys :)
(
Butters All aboard the electric jug!, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:22,
Reply)
70% of them
are just trying to groom you
(
Mster Johnny Ekstrom, now that's a name, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:26,
Reply)
It's like my maths teacher all over again!
(
Butters All aboard the electric jug!, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:29,
Reply)
I wasn't grooming you
Would you like to see my puppies?
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:40,
Reply)
Its the middle of the afternoon
Bloody students...
(
evil_andy : devilish rogue, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:42,
Reply)
Genuinely shit
j/k
(
redazril pcmechanic 4ver in ar harts, goodnite sweet angle,, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:12,
Reply)
Aww poor little mites.... however their loss was our gain.
No big toothy lizards to hamper our evolution.
And the survivors ended up becoming delicious chicken as well.
(
Amadeus So long and thanks for all the phish, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:24,
Reply)
i see ourselves going down the same path.
History dictates that we will be a future species fried take away.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 18:25, Reply)
Aw Lully, I must check pop page more often, first a new Sheep film then this, we are spoilt!
I love your style, the sketchiness and little animation loops remind me of old style B&W cartoons, but designed by kids!
Perfect music btw! Loved it! :D
(
WiL Pantheist Bi Polar Polyamoric Pansexual, Thu 24 May 2012, 9:35,
Reply)
That was totally great.
I'm so glad I saw this.
(
atomic A-bomb-a-nation, Fri 25 May 2012, 18:03,
Reply)
I wish I could spend my time doing stuff like this.
(
Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:51,
Reply)
Brilliant
Just don't try that on Tottenham Court Road.
(
evil_andy : devilish rogue, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:36,
Reply)
Wooden squid.
(
redazril pcmechanic 4ver in ar harts, goodnite sweet angle,, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:14,
Reply)
haha.................interesting...like it :D
(
E Dubya thought she was sixteen ffs, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:54,
Reply)
Why is London in flames (that was last summer) .....
do they really think the Reapers attacked :)
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:32, Reply)
EPIC
Could also pass as an artists impression of what the olympics will look like. No surprise at the Shaolin soccer style goals
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:35, Reply)
My Chinese isn't so good
are they trying to say that Euro 2012 will trigger WWIII ? And if so, then Sweden will win ?
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:03, Reply)
I guess they're predicting the London riots will be back again this year
...AND BETTER THAN EVER!!
(
Butters All aboard the electric jug!, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:34,
Reply)
Some lovely aerial footage of London
Put it on full screen and enjoy.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:38, Reply)
One thing
One thing that strikes me is how much cleaner and better London looks without all of that street furniture/railings and walls etc at major points like Oxford circus and Piccadilly.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:49, Reply)
"That's funny, the damage doesn't look as bad from up here."
Good stuff that.
(
presferatu, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:54,
Reply)
hehe
If only TubeDubber worked on Vimeo
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST2H8FWDvEA
(
zacherynuk Floccinaucinihilipilification, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:20,
Reply)
Fullscreen?
Vimeo embedded videos have never wanted to go full screen for me.
I've just looked into it, the embed tag needs a allowfullscreen="true" part, then it works fine.
If cr3 or robtoo or whoever can do that stuff happen to read this, then I'd like it if they could consider adding that.
--
As for the video, 'tis nice
(
Antubis right round, like a record, lion, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:17,
Reply)
Tony Parsons - Cock
I made this!
He really is. SFW - no actual cocks. Apart from Tony that is.
(
Fat Boab of dailyreckless.com fame, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:04,
Reply)
Excellent......
....but I still cant help liking him.
(
atdotslash is pushing things forward, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:23,
Reply)
how could anybody possibly like Tony Parsons???
I mean, there's a lot of things people like that I'll never understand, like coprophilia, sticking pins in genitals etc, but TONY PARSONS???
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:32, Reply)
A review of Dawkins' God Delusion.
I detest Dawkins and his hypocrisy, but this chap is way better than I am at it.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:51,
Reply)
He misses the point.
As AC Grayling says in the letter at the end: "Terry Eagleton charges Richard Dawkins with failing to read theology in formulating his objection to religious belief, and thereby misses the point that when one rejects the premises of a set of views, it is a waste of one’s time to address what is built on those premises ."
Also, Eagleton is a big-headed tosspot of the highest order who will pick an intellectual fight over absolutely anything (I say this having read quite a lot of him, attended his lectures, and having met him several times).
EDIT: And why exactly do you think Dawkins is a hypocrite, by the way?
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:01, Reply)
^That^
.
(
sir_spicious2000 Old crap I've watched: www.filmplop.blogspot.com/, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:06,
Reply)
^Your name is suspiciously like my name^
*shreds bills*
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:17,
Reply)
So it was YOU
in my bins last night!
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:45,
Reply)
*reports fadgebadger to RSPB for beak abuse*
(
admiral crunch pfffffted on, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:49,
Reply)
I dint do nuffin guv'nor
dem ducks was asking for it they was
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:59,
Reply)
Good luck getting an explanation of that
The hypocrisy charge is regularly wheeled out by those that wish to discredit Dawkins.
Aside from being a blatant strawman argument, I've not seen anyone ever attempt to justify it.
(
wheresthefish This div will be replaced, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:27,
Reply)
I believe there are those who argue...
that Dawkins' position, and belief in science, is a matter of faith, and therefore he is a hypocrite.
I believe that argument is fallacious.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:30, Reply)
Rationalism and science are not the same.
Science is not the same as faith, but gnostic atheism is.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:36,
Reply)
How are you defining "gnostic atheism"?
I assume that Dawkins hasn't said that he wouldn't change his mind if presented with enough evidence.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:48,
Reply)
Nobody says that.
Dawkins says that there is no God - he uses that 'fact' as the basis of his dismissal of religion.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:50,
Reply)
He's not just going "there is no God because I personally have no faith".
He is at least giving reasons for his lack of faith, the individual points of which can be debated.
He is not just restating the question.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:56,
Reply)
He is saying 'there is no God'
that, in itself, is an act of faith.
Science could not take a gnostic position on such an argument as yet.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:00,
Reply)
I think he's saying
There is no evidence for the existence of a god, therefore I accept the null hypothesis that there is no god.
It's certainly possible to state "there is no god" without it being a position of faith.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:11,
Reply)
No it is not.
To believe that God does not exist is fine - anyone can believe that and it is the rational position. To believe that there is an absence of any deity is not okay, that is an act of faith and is not a scientific position.
The example below (mediums) is different - it is reasonable to say that mediums do not talk to the dead - we have plenty of evidence that medium cannot so do - it would, however, not be reasonable to state as fact that the dead do not exist.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:19,
Reply)
Is it then reasonable to
say that prayer does not work? There is as much evidence for that being the case as for mediums not talking to the dead.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:26,
Reply)
I think so
it is fairly probable, based on available scientific data, if we ignore any anecdotal reports.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:28,
Reply)
But by that logic...
I can't state "there is no invisible dog in this room that doesn't interact with matter" without it being a position of faith.
In which case, everything is a statement of faith.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:29,
Reply)
Well, since you go that far, I am an epistemological nihilist, so yes.
But this is not about what I believe - if asked the question 'is there an invisible dog in this room which does not interact with matter' then no scientist would respond 'no' without doing some research and even then they would only respond 'absolutely and categorically not' if they had some understanding of the nature of the supposed dog in order to test for it.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:35,
Reply)
Science doesnt work like that.
All research is ultimately based on the work of other scientists. No scientist wakes up in the morning and says to himself 'today I will investigate the possibility of the existence of an invisible dog' without some sort of clue that there might be an invisible dog.
When confronted with the question 'is there an invisible dog', a scientist would look for existing evidence, see there is none, and discount the hypothesis.
No further investigation would be necessary, or justifiable, until evidence to the contrary were provided.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:54, Reply)
I agree.
But the statement 'there are no invisible dogs' can and should be discounted by the same principle.
Discounting God is fine until there is evidence of God, but discounting gnostic atheism is also fine.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:28,
Reply)
that's fine,
you may go on believing in the possibility of the existence of an invisible dog.
I hope that it brings you some comfort but people probably have been sectioned for less.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:20, Reply)
That is the opposite of what I mean and the sort of method Dawkins uses.
I do not need to believe in invisible dogs to dismiss your theory that there are no invisible dogs.
I do not need to believe there is life on other planets to siscount anyone who states as fact that there is none.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:24,
Reply)
I didnt say you believed in invisible dogs,
I said you believed in the possibility of invisible dogs which you must do. Maybe you should start your own religion. You could call it dogmatism?
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:37, Reply)
The point is that if what you're measuring (existance of something) has no physical effects either way, then why bother?
Your whole rejection of Dawkins seems to be able to be rectified if he inserted the words "it's overwhelmingly likely" before "there is no god".
It's overwhelmingly likely, as as close to certainty as makes no difference; so why are you so hung up about the infinitesimal distance between the two positions of certainty and as-near-to-certain-as-makes-no-difference-but-not-exactly-certain?
Conversely: Describe to me a god, any god, and I shall invent a thousand more, each as likely as the next. Must I disprove the existence of all of them (impossible, since you can't prove a negative) or simply note that since I can invent as many as I like then their individual likelihood is virtually zero. In this situation, the sensible man would declare this a fool's errand and simply say "there are no gods, there is no god" and move on.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:55, Reply)
No, I really think you're taking it too far
It's as logical a statement to say "there is no god" as it is to say "carbohydrates are not the mechanism for inheritance in mammals". Both are negatives, so are unproveable, and there is, of course, a faint chance that both are wrong, but the weight of scientific evidence falls on your side.
And if everything is just a statement of faith, then he's clearly talking about a specific context; that of religious faith, which lifts him free of the hypocrisy charge.
Edit - there are a lot of commas in this post. Apologies.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:59,
Reply)
No,
There is no evidence at all for gnostic atheism.
Gnostic atheism is not the discounting of theist positions, it is the introduction of a theory with no basis.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:26,
Reply)
Well, technically, he needs
a "probably", but that's the case with most science. The "probably" is dropped because all science is "probably". It may be 99.99999% probably, but still there is always room for counter-evidence.
Can scientists say "mediums do not speak to the dead", or do they have to say "mediums probably do not speak to the dead"?
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:12,
Reply)
He bloomin' isn't
He maintians, as the recent bus campaign states: "There's probably no God".
(
Tab Hunter, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:50,
Reply)
He maintains that on occasion, when it suits him,
but he is a gnostic atheist and has stated that there is no God on numerous occasions.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:29,
Reply)
All of which you resisted referencing
in this HUGE /links shit-fling.
(
Tab Hunter, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:20,
Reply)
I thought I listed a load of his quotes?
Yes, I did.
'Religion is a mental illness' is a good one though - it oozes with his bile.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:27,
Reply)
That would be misquotation of this presumably?
"[It] is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness."
(
Gregor Lenko There's a tree..., Wed 23 May 2012, 15:38,
Reply)
"religion is a mental illness" (even if you're misquoting)
does NOT back-up your assertion that he states "there is no god" & your further assertion that that is then a matter of (his) faith & his hypocrasy.
(
Tab Hunter, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:58,
Reply)
Too much credit is given to theist position
The assertion that the statement "there is no god" is itself an act of faith is only as valid as the assertion "there are no elves", "there are no fairies", "there is no Santa Claus" or "there is no x (where x is a fiction produced by humans) are also acts of faith. However ONLY theism gets on it's high horse and announces it's dismissal is an act of faith in a whiny petulant voice. Well sorry theists, it's as much an act of faith as my dismissal of fucking fairies, elves and Santa is and if that gets your epistemological goat then I don't give a fuck. Three thousand years of the best minds of theism have produced precisely jack shit to support any of their outlandish assertions. It's not hypocritical to dismiss it, it's the act of a grown up who's dismissed fairies, elves and Santa Claus because they are all equally fictitious, ancient holy books of desert addled Hebrews notwithstanding.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 18:09, Reply)
Well he certainly didn't wait to see evidence in either direction before he threw his hat in the ring
(
gronkpan, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:53,
Reply)
As an evolutionary biologist,
I'd imagine that he will have been aware of the "evidence" for creationism at least.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:59,
Reply)
Indeed.
I am in no way addressing that. Creationism is a lot further down the crazy road than 'there may be a deity'.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:00,
Reply)
I will.
He is a religious fundamentalist with a strong personal belief which he pursues at the utter dismissal of the personal beliefs of others.
I dislike religious nutters too, but at least they are not basing their position on not being a religious nutter.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:34,
Reply)
You didn't
Religious fundamentalist? That's an interesting charge to put on someone so outspoken against religion. It's also your opinion, one that (and you're welcome to prove me wrong here) he'd refute.
Also, that's another Strawman argument.
(
wheresthefish This div will be replaced, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:53,
Reply)
As an aside, I doubt anyone used the term "strawman argument" until the Internet came along
and it was thrown around during "debates" on the internet.
(
JamTallons Sokath, his eyes uncovered!, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:58,
Reply)
Which is why
logic should be taught in schools.
It's good to be able to recognise a fallacy.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:21,
Reply)
I was never tought it.
Just debating, which you play to win rather than to acquiesce on the truth.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:29,
Reply)
Indeed.
I successfully debated at the RBS digital forum last year on a topic I knew to be fallacious, simply because I was awarded that position to defend.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:36,
Reply)
No it is not.
I am addressing his hypocrisy and nothing else.
He is a gnostic atheist - he has stated that there is no God. He argues that other religious beliefs are wrong because there is no God and there is no proof that there is a God, but then he takes a fundamentalist position on religion with his belief that there is no God, with no proof to back it up.
His argument 'you are wrong to state your faith as fact without proof' is a valid one. His hypocrisy is that he states his own faith as truth without any evidence.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:58,
Reply)
Isn't this Russel's Teapot to some extent?
Dragons don't exist. I have no (negative) proof of this, but I have an extremely strong belief in this fact due to not being presented with credible evidence to the contrary. Not believing in something until evidence is seen is the baseline of most sensible philosophies.
Faith in a negative is usually seen as little stronger. He doesn't believe in the opposite of god, some sort of anti-god. He believes the absence of a god. Occam's Razor if you will. He's at the baseline.
He's smug, sure. But then again, so am I quite a lot of the time.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:22, Reply)
not believing in God
is NOT the same as believing in the absence of God.
If a Muslim wants me to believe in God then he must present some evidence to me. If an atheist wants me to believe in the absence of any god then he needs to present evidence too.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:37,
Reply)
Have you actually read The God Delusion?
If so, you may want to read it again, because none of the stuff you accuse him of claiming is correct.
(
Mex3, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:23,
Reply)
Yes.
My central point - the ONLY poiint I am making here, is that he states that "faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness" whilst having faith of his own.
If he was less unpleasant to people who demonstrate the same symptoms of religious nonsense as he does then that would be forgiveable, but he is like a closet gay man pouring scorn on lesbians.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:31,
Reply)
It's a
Tu quoque, not a Straw Man.
I think, anyway... still trying to lean my fallacies
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:46,
Reply)
It is indeed.
That said, it is not, because any anti-theist gnostic atheist is hypocritical (as is any anto theist or anti-atheist gnostic deist).
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:48,
Reply)
Eagleton is a cock, but the point you raise is not valid.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:35,
Reply)
It is.
If the premise you base an argument on is invalid then the argument itself is invalid.
The conclusions may be valid, but that would be coincidental and you couldn't know that unless you built a new argument on valid premises.
For the record I don't like Dawkins' style much, but I do agree with him on the non existence of fairies.
[edit] Also: Thanks for bringing the internets most tedious debate to b3ta links, and shame on me for adding to it.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:42, Reply)
Of course,
but the premise that there may be a deity is not invalid, if we are being objective and scientific about it.
I mean, I am not about to start arguing that there is a god here, but you have to accept that the position Dawkins takes is invalid.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:45,
Reply)
You are absolutely right here in your first sentence.
And in his book Dawkins accepts the premise and the investigates its validity in terms of the probability of such a deity.
You seem to misunderstand the position that Dawkins takes completely.
You should really read the book (again?).
(
Mex3, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:28,
Reply)
No,
You are arguing a different point than I am addressing. A point we will probably agree on. I personally feel that he does not investigate it at all, any more than creationalists really investigate evolution when providing their pseudo science bullshit, but let's put that aside.
The point here and now, being discussed is essentially this:
Dawkins vehemently condemns others for holding beliefs for which there is no proof, whilst simultaneously asking us to accept his position for which there is no truth.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:40,
Reply)
He devotes quite a few chapters to investigating the arguments for the existence of gods and refutes them on logically sound grounds.
He doesn't so much condemn the people themselves who believe in gods, but rather actual consequences of their faith, which can be very serious indeed.
As for your "proof" point: see Russell's teapot.
(
Mex3, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:57,
Reply)
No, you are quoting some excellent references, but wrongly.
Russell's teapot would be appropriate to apply to a theist who was arguing that you cannot prove that there is no deity.
It can be applied equally to an atheist who is asserting that there is an absence of deities.
"There is no proof that there is an absence of deity, therefore there is one".
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:31,
Reply)
Dawkins acknowledges that in his book
and says that he cannot disprove the existence of god any more than that he can disprove the existence of pink unicorns.
So logically that's not what he sets out to do, contrary to what you seem to think.
He is states that the existence of god(s) can be treated as a scientific question and then argues the likelihood/probability of it being true.
I think if you would read him carefully you would find you would agree with him a lot more than you try to make out here.
(
Mex3, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:01,
Reply)
Possibly his faith in his belief that Dawkins is hypocritical has made him delusional.
(
Gregor Lenko There's a tree..., Wed 23 May 2012, 15:17,
Reply)
If you take his book and substitute 'Jews' for religion
you will see him in prison and roundly hated.
He IS a gnostic atheist - even if he understands that this is a delusional position to be in.
The thing is that, just as with religious twats who try to convince me that I should believe, he is foisting a position upon us without evidence and, as the article linked to highlights, he really hasn't bothered to read up on the theology of what he is 'disproving'.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:29,
Reply)
That's not an accurate comparison.
"Jew" generally means raised in a Jewish family. You can easily be an atheist Jew.
If he wrote a book explaining why he believes Judaism is factually wrong then that is attacking a philosophy, rather than attacking the people, which surely wouldn't be all that different.
However, singling out a single religion as wrong is where it becomes a theological rather than scientific debate.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:42,
Reply)
I would almost admire your tenacity
if it weren't for the sheer lack of logic in your arguments, which revolve around the false assumption that Dawkins is trying to disprove the existence of god(s).
He is not, nor does he have to, for logical reasons that seem to elude you.
Again: teapot.
(Or try Flying Spaghetti Monster).
Btw, I fail to see what the substitute Jews thing has to do with any of this.
(
Mex3, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:47,
Reply)
Absence of evidence is, contrary to popular belief, evidence of absence
Example: the lack of explosions in Colchester attributed to Serbian nationalists is evidence that there, in fact, no Serbian nationalist terrorists in Colchester who have planted bombs there.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 18:28, Reply)
Hmm...
"If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could."
But if they discovered in their reading that South Asia was fictional, with no evidence to support it's existence, they wouldn't read much further, would they?
Edit: Snowy seems to have made this point with more more eloquence than I.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:05,
Reply)
I think you said it better.
The thing is though that, were I to pass judgement on the writings of Star Wars fan fiction I would still need to read up on Star Wars.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:37,
Reply)
I don't know.
You don't need to be a trained chef to know your dinner is cold. I could definately say that no Star Wars fan fiction is actually true without reading any at all.
(
TheSundaeLunch, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:41,
Reply)
Of course, so would I.
I would however suggest that one needs to be a trained chef to say that the dinner is too cold.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:46,
Reply)
But with this point
What's cold to 1 person isn't to another. It's a personal thing (much like belief / religion)
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:11,
Reply)
Turns out you are!
Come back after a nice walk in the sun to see a load of awful arguments.
Well done at least for self awareness.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:28, Reply)
Some Richard Dawkins quotes to lighten the mood...
"There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist, and quite good reasons for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic."
"I am very hostile to religion because it is enormously dominant, especially in American life. And I don't buy the argument that, well, it's harmless. I think it is harmful, partly because I care passionately about what's true."
"Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant."
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
"Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
"Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument."
These last two are interesting in that face of...
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:35,
Reply)
Fucksake
I think you'd just be better off saying you don't like him. It's okay most people have someone they can't hack even if it's irrational.
Taking a small element of his position (that I don't think you understand properly btw) and relentlessly arguing about it. Something which is a trivial matter of semantics, until you're blue in the face is making you come across like a cock.
HTH
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:45, Reply)
There may well be no God,
but if you state that faith is a mental illness and then express your own faith, if you counter religious arguments by declaring there is no evidence, when you have none for your own argument, if you attack others for holding different beliefs then you are a prick.
Dawkins is a prick.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:31,
Reply)
You're still doing it...
...when you're in a hole stop digging dear.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:38, Reply)
Dunno much about Dawkins
I have skimmed a few of his books and watched some interviews; In what way is he hypocritical ?
I do know that Terry Eagleton writes like a pompous prick and if his writing style was the norm then literacy levels would plummet. Lot's of big words with very little reference.
He doesn't make points, does he ? He just seems to lash out with very little weight or examples and a lot of words. www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgH5x2AGuQE
They have competing agendas, it would seem, coupled with differing styles of debate makes for poor information delivery for us the consumer.
I think they both essentially agree on the following, just that Dawkins in trying to (perhaps using controversy) get people to think about it more.
Is religious faith completely wrong ? No.
Is lack of religious faith completely wrong ? No.
Is religious faith still required ? Probably.
Should people have a choice ? Yes.
(
zacherynuk Floccinaucinihilipilification, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:13,
Reply)
You summed that up well for me.
I get the impression that with Dawkins, although perhaps there are somethings to dislike about his character, he does genuinely want to get people thinking and actively discussing these things.
Eagleton on the other hand is a long-winded bore who likes himself a bit too much. Amis should have kicked his arse when they were in Manchester together.
Edit: And where's Enzyme when you need him? He's brilliant at all this thinking stuff.
(
Pig Bodine., Wed 23 May 2012, 12:23,
Reply)
Dawkins stated that people who believe in a deity are mentally ill.
As such I refute your first third and fourth points on his behalf.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:38,
Reply)
Well...
"...But it is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness"
The God 'Delusion.' - surely any form of delusion qualifies as 'a kind of mental illness' A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)
RD discusses evidence for and against and, indeed, discusses non-evidence as evidence.
The role of religion in shaping society, early tribal groups and it's role in allowing the forming of larger conurbations and political landscapes is not disputed. But in the absence of religion would another way of thinking worked? Absolutely.
In knowing that there are alternatives to faith; alternatives based on fact, science and experimental processes, alternatives which have the capability of allowing scientific understanding and human knowledge to grow unhindered, should we try that for a while ? Absolutely.
Do you wander through your life, never looking up (or too fearful to)? Do you follow direction and guidance without question? Do you believe everything you are told, no matter how fantastical? If so, you are a child; or you have a mental illness. Luckily for you, you will either grow up (if those around you will allow it) or, using the power of scientific discovery, you may have your illness cured. It may even be cured to the degree that you can retain your previously unquestioned beliefs, but be able to argue a case for them using the powers of fact, polite debate and with an open mind to those who disagree with you.
(
zacherynuk Floccinaucinihilipilification, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:12,
Reply)
Are you suggesting that non-evidence of an absence of a deity should be taken as evidence that there is one?
Of course not - non-evidence is not evidence and agnostic faith is fine.
For the purposes of this example, Man U will represent atheism and Exeter City will represent theism:
If Manchester United are playing Exeter City and you believe that Man U will win then that is a sensible position, where believing that Exeter will win is a bit daft.
Stating as fact, before the event, that Exeter City will win is wrong and fallacious. Arguing this would be sensible.
Arguing that those who believe that Exeter will win are wrong to do so, because you know that Man U will win is just as daft, but with added hypocrisy.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:24,
Reply)
No
I was only pointing out that the different definitions of evidence have been discussed at length. For example:
I have an eye; therefore god exists.
I have never seen god, therefore he doesn't exist.
I cannot prove there is no god, therefore he exists.
It reminds me of Russell's Teapot. (and a recent b3ta link) b3ta.com/links/753491
The football analogy makes little sense. Since 'belief' as a noun has several forms and one would not usually associate it's arguably most applicable form, a tenet, with a debate about a sporting event. Even an avid supporter who could be said to have confidence or 'faith' in his team, would, with little effort, be able to come by some hard facts to support his belief.
However, we are losing sight of the real point; the chap you linked to is a pompous tosser with limited grasp of the skills of constructive debate.
(
zacherynuk Floccinaucinihilipilification, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:53,
Reply)
We do not disagree on this.
My point is that Dawkins is the same.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:36,
Reply)
I may have missed your point
But the real debate is not Man Utd vs Exeter City; It is Man Utd vs Fulchester Rovers. Arguing that Fulchester Rovers would win is indeed wrong, because they don't exist. Therefore not only can't they win, but there would never even be a match.
(
TheSundaeLunch, Wed 23 May 2012, 16:22,
Reply)
But...
Billy the fish ? He isn't... he doesn't....
Nooooooo~!
(
zacherynuk Floccinaucinihilipilification, Wed 23 May 2012, 16:36,
Reply)
For me,
...it boils down to Eagleton dealing in abstract opinions as a man of the Arts and Dawkins dealing in facts as a man of Science.
He seems to dislike the fact that Dawkins' argument is essentially a very simple one and not full of flowery allusions to yet-more flowery, irrelevant and entirely academic theories from years ago.
'Oh, if only you'd read as much as me, Richard.'
I hate smug literary critics.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:13, Reply)
Dawkins position as a gnostic atheist is not scientific.
That is the bit about Dawkins I hate, the bit where he says 'my gnostic atheism and rationalism is all science!' the man appeals to our pro-science natural position in the same way that a religious nutter appeals to our fears - it is shite.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:40,
Reply)
Do you agree with
Christopher Hitchens, then? He used to debate more theologically.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:44,
Reply)
Erm, I prefer his style of debate, yes
although I do still dislike his gnostic position. I find any scientist who takes a gnostic position, be that atheist or theist, embarrassingly hypocritical.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:49,
Reply)
Well,
It's scientific insofar as his opinion is informed by scientific evidence whereas Eagleton is essentially saying 'yeah, but religion might be true... you haven't read the Bible and highbrow analysis of the Bible enough to have an opinion mate.'
I completely disregard the idea that Dawkins is not unlike a religious nutter himself. His opinion is informed by fact based evidence. A religious nutter is not.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 17:00, Reply)
Every time I debate a christian, they claim
I obviously haven't read the bible. When I point out that I have, they say I can't have read it 'properly'.
Stupid christians.
(
TheSundaeLunch, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:19,
Reply)
Your Christian friends
are clearly dim.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:41,
Reply)
better at what?
Ignoring all the evidence? Taking comfort from fairy tales? Mistrusting scientific thought?
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:32, Reply)
No, highlighting Dawkin's flaws.
If you can show me one shred of evidence for gnostic atheism then I will be very surprised.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:42,
Reply)
THis is why I claim to be agnostic
All the evidence that I have seen from multiple sources have led me to conclude that there is not evidence to prove the existance of a diety but that doesn't mean that further evidence could prove it for certain either way, until then I'll keep my mind open.
As for religion. Everything I have learnt about religion seems to indicate that it is nothing more then a way to control the masses (it's in Roman Catholic cannon that Constantine, the "editor" of the Bible is quoted to say something to the same affect)
*EDIT. I'd like to point out that this is my view, reached from the information that I have received and I welcome any evidence from enough different, reliable sources that would change my mind.
(
Crap Little Monkey Deathstar, so good they built it twice, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:52,
Reply)
I welcome your beliefs
and only note that religion is simply believing in a supernatural entity, it is not the same as religious organisations.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:37,
Reply)
Both are wrong in more or less the same way.
Dawkins puts too much emphasis on the evils of religion, and this ignores them.
Also, "Faith, therefore I win" is not a debate, theological or scientific.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:39,
Reply)
I agree with all you say.
I am not sure that the evils of religion are relevant to the debate on its existance, but in this instance I am saying 'Dawkins argues badly and is a hypocritical dick' not 'there is / is not a deity'
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:43,
Reply)
The thing is
saying "Dawkins argues badly and is a hypocritical dick" is correct, and far more succinct than the article you linked to.
Therefore, you are a better writer.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:52,
Reply)
But the article I linked to
is such a great demonstration.
It takes Dawkins' style and turns it back on him. One is left thinking 'What a load of old shit' and then the realisation comes that it is the same shit Dawkins spouts.
I think it is (perhaps unintentionally) wondrously illustrative of the banality of gnosticism.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:55,
Reply)
I've never actually read the God Delusion,
but Dawkins always seems to make clear statements and explain them well in interviews.
Is that confused mess really a parody of his writing style?
And if so, doesn't that just make it an Ad Hominem attack rather than a good counter-point to the fundamental point of faith being delusional behaviour.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:08,
Reply)
Erm.
I am loathe to say it, but the argument that faith is delusional behaviour is a straw man - I agree that faith is delusional in many ways.
The point is that Dawkins states that faith is delusional, whilst exhibiting and denying his own faith.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:11,
Reply)
Again, not read it,
but from the title I'd kind of assumed the central argument of his book was about faith being delusional.
Hence, any argument not relevant to that may be a straw man.
I'd agree that "there is no God" is a pointless debate, not least because "God" is an axiom no one can agree on even when they both believe in it.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:19,
Reply)
My point is that he argues that faith is delusional whilst exhibiting faith.
I am not stating that he is wrong, merely hypocritical.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:41,
Reply)
Every time it seems like he's actually going to engage with one of Dawkins' points
he veers off into an entirely irrelevant three-paragraph sermon about how lovely Jesus was. It's not an argument, or even really a review, it's just another zealot trying to shout down his opponent - which is exactly what he accuses Dawkins of.
(
Zoroastermouse thinks therefore he am, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:42,
Reply)
YES!
Oh FUCK YES!
This is precisely it.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:51,
Reply)
I should point out
I still think Dawkins is better at arguing a logical point. That entire tedious article can be summed up as; 'Dawkins is wrong, because GOD"
(
Zoroastermouse thinks therefore he am, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:05,
Reply)
No.
It reads as "Dawkins says we are wrong because 'no God'".
If 'Because God' is invalid then 'because no God' is equally wank.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:42,
Reply)
2x no combo
That's his conclusion, not his reasoning. There's a big difference.
Dawkins: There is no reason to believe in a god, because there is no evidence to suggest his existence.
Eagleton: Dawkins is wrong, because there is a god.
Do you really not see which of these is failing to construct an cogent argument?
(
Zoroastermouse thinks therefore he am, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:23,
Reply)
No, if things were as simple as you present them then that would be fine, BUT . . .
Dawkins: People who believe there is a God are mentally ill. There is an absence of any deities and I can surmise this without further evidence because there is no God.
Manley: If you want me to believe that I will need evidence.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:40,
Reply)
Doesn't he *compare* it to a mental illness,
rather than say it is a mental illness, ie that it simply has similarities.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:28,
Reply)
Sadly not:
"faith seems to me to qualify as a kind of mental illness"
I do not disagree with that, I just feel that he is missing the fact that he is feeling the same.
It is a bit like 'The Pope is a paedophile' comments - it is popular, so nobody shouts it down, but someone should - if this sort of unscientific nonsense was coming out of the religious community (albeit hopefully with less personal attacks) then I'd understand it, but he is a scientist - he should know better.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:34,
Reply)
No one has seriously said the Pope is a paedophile,
they have said he has helped paedophiles cover up their crimes, for which there is plenty of evidence.
And "seems to me" hardly says "is". It is admitting that it is a personal opinion. It's a twattish attention grabbing opinion, but it doesn't make any of his other statements wrong.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:48,
Reply)
They really are that simple
Dawkins' argument isn't at all complicated.
He never once claims to be able to logically disprove the existence of God, simply that there is no reason to believe in his existence.
You main (only?) problem with Dawkins is that you seem to think his 'blind belief' in the non-existence of god is as illogical as blind faith in the supernatural. But it's not blind belief - it's not faith at all. No matter how you may wish to cast his views, they are still based entirely around an absence of faith rather than a faith in absence. Maybe you're being too literal?
I mean, do you expect him to replace every instance of the phrase 'there is no god,' with 'there is no evidence for the existence of god, so it's reasonable to assume that he doesn't exist.' ? Because in normal speech these two statements mean the exact same thing. We're not usually expected to qualify every statement we make with an explanation of the subjective nature of knowledge - it's implicit in any logical discourse. Also, it'd make his book even more tedious than it already is.
To use a less emotionally charged concept: I can state with certainty that there is not a monkey hiding in my house. Admittedly, I cannot prove the non-existence of this monkey, even if I searched the house for days, he could still just be really good at hiding. Or able to turn invisible. But the probability of a magical spy monkey existing and choosing my house to live in seems vanishingly small, and there is absolutely no logical reason for me to even vaguely suspect that he exists. So I say there is no monkey, without needing to qualify that statement. This does not make me guilty of intellectual hypocrisy, and it would be disingenuous pedantry to suggest otherwise.
(
Zoroastermouse thinks therefore he am, Wed 23 May 2012, 16:07,
Reply)
I do think that you're arguing with a disingenuous pedant.
Far worse than theists these days, whose position I can actually respect since they know what they believe in, are militant agnostics who like to erect a little molehill of supposed moral superiority which they then proceed to climb and announce that "hey guys, we're better than all of you because we don't claim to know anything"
To which the obvious reply is "well why don't you shut the fuck up if you have nothing to say?"
Something which none of them appear to have considered is the logical outcome of their position.
(, Thu 24 May 2012, 1:18, Reply)
There is no god
If there were, it certainly wouldn't be a god reduced to the trifling drivel found in the religions that spread across the globe like a plague and keep mankind pitted against each other. Religion is one step beyond mental illness. Those that cling to it and sob into it as they would a security blanket do not want to be cured of it and the rest of us have to deal with that childish nonsense.
(
blackhat was thrown from a fucking horse on, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:00,
Reply)
That is your belief and I have no problem with it.
Your faith is up to you, just do not expect me to accept it until you can back it up with evidence.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:02,
Reply)
I would venture to say
That there has been a suspicious lack of evidence IF the god we are thinking of is the one portrayed in the bible, and there is great evidence that the bible is in many parts, a work of fiction.
(
TheSundaeLunch, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:07,
Reply)
I am not saying that religions are not dicks,
I am just saying that Dawkins is too.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:43,
Reply)
Your point is clear
and well put. I'm not saying I agree, but I'm at work so can't join in anymore anyway.
(
TheSundaeLunch, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:28,
Reply)
They're both wrong
I don't believe a god exists. That's not to say that one doesn't, I just simply do not believe there is one / many. You cannot disprove something without evidence, just as you cannot prove it. God may or may not exist, but it doesn't matter as long as we're not blowing each other up over it.
Oh wait....!
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:09,
Reply)
This is my position.
Religion does not cause wars, religious intolerance causes wars.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:44,
Reply)
But with religion
comes religious intolerance
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:54,
Reply)
Dawkins is a religious intolerant.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:41,
Reply)
I wouldn't put it past him to set babies on fire either.
I'm not saying without religion no wars would exist, just they are a "good enough reason" for most to hit each other in the face with spiky planks...
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:45,
Reply)
I'd say that is not entirely true.
Organised religion causes wars.
Personal beliefs are less likely to.
Scientific belief is ultimately personal since it can change with new evidence, and people are free to prove their own theories and take their own sides on any open debates, whereas holy books can never change.
You can't change science with a war, and you can't change a country's religion with evidence.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:03,
Reply)
Organised religion does not cause war.
Wars do not start because a group have a belief in a deity, they start because they are intolerant of others who do not share their belief.
Also, you can change a country's religion with evidence. Rome is Catholic these days, for example.
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:37,
Reply)
Well, I'd expand to say organised religion is a tool used to promote war
if not the direct cause.
Wars start for political reasons. If they can then be justified by saying it's what God wants, then that can only help leaders control their people to fight.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:57,
Reply)
I'm not great on history but
I'm sure there are plenty of civil wars in history that have begun due to organised religion. The Spanish civil war being one such example. Religion had a massive power and wealth and was one of the main causes for the war beginning.
Again, I'm not great on history so someone might be able to set me straight
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 16:20,
Reply)
Long winded and vacuous
This guy is obviously not a scientist.
The definitions he gives of god (the christian one of course) are laughably void of meaning.
All people who firmly believe in some sort of glorious afterlife should do themselves and non believers a big favour and bugger off straight away.
It would solve a lot of problems.
Parking space for one...
(
Mex3, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:17,
Reply)
And yet so many people think he is so good.
I mean, seriously, he even looks evil:
(
Pedantichrist twitter.com/LordManley, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:42,
Reply)
Well this seems to have set the debate-turbines rumbling
Maybe I should read this...
*clicks link*
*scrolls down*
...nah.
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier wearing my Protective Cloak of Apathy, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:15,
Reply)
Enlightened humanism doesn't really need a discussion based on god at all
just another waste of serious education
Is his writing aimed at the US or something? Those religious nutters can make a 'good morning' include a prayer.
The soulless right-wing abyss that is eating Sweden at the moment are trying to turn the country into a mini-USA with public TV and radio airing christianity-shit every morning. Just what we need in Breivik-days, more focus on 'our prophet is better than your prophet'. Lunacy.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:19, Reply)
Have you just got religion or something?
You're sounding like one of those butthurt religious people.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:29, Reply)
Much more relevant than a 6 year old book review
(
Mudface The web isn't callipygian, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:43,
Reply)
Trailer for Baz Luhrman's The Great Gatsby
(
HappyToast http://b3ta.com/calendar/event/25046, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:18,
Reply)
cracking version of Love is Blindness by Jack White, pissing all over Bonio's version
should also add, this film comes out 3 and a half months after Dredd, WHERE'S THE FUCKING DREDD TRAILER?! COME ON YOU BASTARDS!
(
HappyToast http://b3ta.com/calendar/event/25046, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:20,
Reply)
Dredd trailer will be attached to Prometheus or Batman Returneth I reckons
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:52, Reply)
.
The song was definately the best thing in that sack of mince.
White's voice often sounds gutless but that were rather good.
(
sir_spicious2000 Old crap I've watched: www.filmplop.blogspot.com/, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:35,
Reply)
didn't the producers sack the director of Dredd?
Wonder if it will be more of a turd fest than the Stallone one.
(
Mster Johnny Ekstrom, now that's a name, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:39,
Reply)
Isn't it going straight to DVD?
That's what I heard maybe.
(
Pig Bodine., Wed 23 May 2012, 14:11,
Reply)
That does look good.
Read the book at Uni but didn't enjoy it massively for such a highly regarded work woops... I can imagine somebody like Baz Lurham really bringing it to life though. His Romeo + Juliet was/is one of my favourite films of the 90s in terms of style.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:35, Reply)
That look lush!
I tell you what, the rest of this year is looking fucking great for AMAZING films...
(
Herb Alpert's Taxi Driver is about to throw a marmalade hand grenade, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:46,
Reply)
That's a bleak outlook
maybe try looking outside of your local muliplex.
(
Herb Alpert's Taxi Driver is about to throw a marmalade hand grenade, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:18,
Reply)
It is I know..
I guess it's because tired of these useless comic book films....How many have been pumped out of the last few years but yet the prols still lap it up and shout in capital letters on forums about late trailers ;)
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:20, Reply)
Wonders why films need remaking.....
re-imagining
2.0 ing
etc
(
Hummel Who died and made you....oh wait...., Wed 23 May 2012, 14:36,
Reply)
Me too
I cannot never work out if the remake is..
A reboot.
A prequel.
A sequel.
An event.
A worldwide cinema event.
Or just another useless bag of wank spunked out by the same cunts over and over again.
Yet cunts still go and watch these stinking bags of wank.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:26, Reply)
best com ever
Or just another useless bag of wank spunked out by the same cunts over and over again.
Yet cunts still go and watch these stinking bags of wank
(
Hummel Who died and made you....oh wait...., Fri 25 May 2012, 2:24,
Reply)
7 dead in Italy earthquake, thousands homeless. What does The Grauniad care about?
Fucking cheese
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:52, Reply)
Middle class cheese though.
They wouldn't give a fuck about mild cheddar.
[edit] and to be fair, neither would I.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:04, Reply)
"Price of Feta imports falls to historic low after Greek default"
Any other suggestions?
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:07, Reply)
"Cheesy does it"
Millions dead
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:14,
Reply)
*buys potential parma ham*
(
The magic of chutney in a state of "not", Wed 23 May 2012, 11:31,
Reply)
Fuck the Guardian up it's stupid self-righteous lefty arse.
in any case.
(
JamTallons Sokath, his eyes uncovered!, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:27,
Reply)
i never worked their be-fore.
(
JamTallons Sokath, his eyes uncovered!, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:43,
Reply)
you should of
it would be you're faverit plaice
(
wideeye slightly pickled, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:44,
Reply)
But I'm not from the middel classes or a hipster or someone who hates the goverment and militery and banks.
(
JamTallons Sokath, his eyes uncovered!, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:52,
Reply)
That's not a vein in your blue cheese Tristan...
...its a seismic fault.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:55, Reply)
Yeah, right on, those middle class tossers!
Ignore the fact that The Grauniad has reported extensively on the Italian earthquake already, including video reports. Of course, that wouldn't fit in with attacking them as if the only thing they were bothered about was the loss of parmesan for their Hampstead soirees. The fact that they are covering the destruction of a major industry in that region which will ruin huge numbers of small businesses and make thousands of people destitute is also irrelevant because, hey, it's all about the cheese so that makes it funny.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 13:56, Reply)
Google's big tent event on twitter
Discussing interwebz issues like spam, privacy and p0rn. Someone mentioned p0rnhub and the hastag #bigtentuk explodes into a stream of spam
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:50,
Reply)
am I the only one who finds it difficult to read twitter feeds?
I wouldn't say I'm a luddite at all (IT is my profession) but my eyes just glaze over at twitter feeds...
(
wideeye slightly pickled, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:54,
Reply)
They scroll the wrong way.
You have to read tweets from top to bottom, but the feed from bottom to top. That's silly.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:09,
Reply)
Yeah it's a ballache
If you're genuinely trying to follow something it can quite quickly get lost under all the noise, and a struggle to reverse back enough to find it
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:21,
Reply)
This^
With cheese on top.
(
Nutmeg Harpoon dry humped your sister on, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:46,
Reply)
Social Media Revolution (parody)
I made this!
I made this with Will Rolls of @madeupstats and thepoke.co.uk. It's a sideways swipe at all those stats that make Facebook seem so important!
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:38, Reply)
Brilliant.
I like the idea that if the plug was pulled on Facebook and all the data lost and destroyed in some freak accident, everyone would sort of wander outside dazed, realising they'd just lost the last 7 years of their lives...
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:56, Reply)
That's pretty good
Like the music as well.
Oh go on then, have a click..
(
Mex3, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:42,
Reply)
Excellent stuff
I had to present at a conference on social media recently, and was amazed by what a lot of nonsense people were talking.
Apparently my rather radical position of "I don't understand all this hashtag business, but how about let's not bore people?" was a startling idea.
(
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, Wed 23 May 2012, 14:37,
Reply)
Yeah, cos a lot of impressionable 15 yr olds go to see Ken Loach films
What an utterly pointless gesture from the increasingly pointless BBFC.
I thought they'd improved a lot over the last decade or so, but it seems they are still int he business of helping Hollywood as much as possible while restricting indie, and mainly British, productions
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:33,
Reply)
I think the BBFC now actually have quite clear rules,
so presumably they would have known that their script would get an 18 before filming it.
It seems like this fuss is simply a PR stunt (it worked for Made in Dagenham).
I personally agree with Ken that the rules seem a bit dated and don't see why swearing should be an issue in a 15 certificate film, but I guess they'd get complaints from the other side if they only censored swearing on 12 cert films and let anything go on a 15.
I'd rather have strictly upheld rules rather than vague ones executed on a whim like it used to be. Ken should perhaps have complained before making the film to try and change the rules, rather than to try and get an exception for himself.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:49,
Reply)
Agreed
The BBFC are a massively improved organisation from the opaque, closed-minded organisation of a few years ago. They're not censors, they're classifiers. If it fits the guidelines of an 18 film, its an 18 film. Its then up to the director whether he's willing to change the film to get a different certificate.
As for the guidelines themselves, they're constantly up for review by consultation with the public. As tastes change so do the guidelines. Stuff released recently under the 18 certificate would certainly have just got a flat ban under previous regimes.
(
evil_andy : devilish rogue, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:11,
Reply)
I don't think there's rules on the number of cunts you can have for a 15 cert
One would automatically get you a 15, definately
But beyond that, the film would need to have very graphic sex or violence for an 18.
Language itself no longer warrants an 18
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:11,
Reply)
From the BBFC's own guidelines
www.bbfc.co.uk/classification/guidelines/
15 Certificate
Language
There may be frequent use of strong language (for example,‘fuck’). The strongest terms (for example, ‘cunt’) may be acceptable if justified by the context. Aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable.
I'd suggest you read up on how they arrived at that too. Just because something is acceptable to you doesn't mean its acceptable to everyone.
(
evil_andy : devilish rogue, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:28,
Reply)
The rules for a 15 are apparently...
"There may be frequent use of strong language (for example, ‘fuck’). The strongest terms (for example, ‘cunt’) may be acceptable if justified by the context. Aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable."
edit: beaten to it, I see!
It sounds like Ken was making a continuum fallacy by putting them on the spot to say exactly how many "cunts" they are allowed. If he has to ask, then this suggests it falls under "repeated".
I agree that they should be more worried about violence than swearing. Though, the fact they state the difference between aggressive swearing and casual swearing suggests they are going in the right way for that.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:32,
Reply)
Also: it would be interesting if the American censors followed the BBFC's
"Easily accessible weapons should not be glamorised" rule, with their rubbish gun control.
(
monkeon schmonkeon www.monkeon.co.uk, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:38,
Reply)
I remember a few years
ago some lobbyist was banging on about retro actively reclassifying some films. It was beaten down. It still baffles my wife why Watership Down is a U and The Simpsons is a PG.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:06, Reply)
google celebrate's Mr Moog's birthday
nice
(
HappyToast http://b3ta.com/calendar/event/25046, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:06,
Reply)
Check out this amazing review!
www.amazon.co.uk/review/R231U4ZG0YDNHD
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:09,
Reply)
eh? *scrolls down* ah, the previous guy did the google.au link
soz
(
HappyToast http://b3ta.com/calendar/event/25046, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:20,
Reply)
You can't switch off the portamento and the latency is shocking.
★★☆☆☆
(
Bela Lugosi's Dad, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:16,
Reply)
Yeah, I prefer Massive, or Absynth.
-Needs improvement.
(
Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:17,
Reply)
doesn't work for me :(
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:17,
Reply)
I got it working in Firefox
(
Joe Scaramanga with a G-double-O-D vibration, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:33,
Reply)
I have IE9
It's shit. But runs fine on it.
(
Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:35,
Reply)
we are all getting old
good morning! some classic Belgian electropop for each and every one of us...
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:48, Reply)
DJ Marky Fannies angry voicemail!
NSFW
I made this!
Hello, this is my pal DJ Marky Gee, he's plays vinyl on them pirate radio station thingys and is also oblivious to the fact that in the Republic of Ireland the name "Gee" stands for a womans vagina. This is an angry voicemail he sent me the other week, sticking a NSFW on it for swearys :-D
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:44, Reply)
not Not Safe For Work? Great!
*plays loud*
*gets fired*
*shakes fist*
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:00, Reply)
OMG are you trying to say my children hate Africa?
If so, your mum meh!
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:38, Reply)
I before e except after c, balls you got me there matey :(
In my defence though, I put this together rather quick and crudely, is all forgiven?
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 11:58, Reply)
yeah alright
knit me a yurt and tell me a traditional west african fairytale and we can put this one to bed
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 12:09, Reply)
B3ta party in Utah?
You lot really should lay off the sauce
As the side note, some comments are amusing
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:03,
Reply)
There's a lot of hate in those comments
This didn't make me laugh:
"Since race was not mentioned, we can infer that the perpetrators were black.
If white, news would have been national."
But the response did:
"infer and imnply are now used interchangably."
(
Extinct Jesus Dossier wearing my Protective Cloak of Apathy, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:32,
Reply)
Wacko, aren't they!
"Everyone wants to know were they Mormons or just morons? But the feminazi journos don't want us to know - they like to keep the most interesting information close to their feminazi journo breasts"
Feminazi?
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:57, Reply)
I've performed and search and found this
metabiblio.com/post/243340100/xtc-youmakemefeel
Possibly NSFW
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 10:13,
Reply)
Sadly, infer was used correctly in the original, racist comment.
(
Tab Hunter, Wed 23 May 2012, 15:15,
Reply)
As a pedant
They'd technically be classed as a wind band. Nice cover, except for the vocals. Oh, and they forgot their fancy dress outfits.
(
Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Wed 23 May 2012, 8:35,
Reply)
Weee-di-wooooo!! Weee-ooooo-waaaaaah!
*still playing with google organ*
(
Tab Hunter, Wed 23 May 2012, 8:46,
Reply)
Google organ? *inspects The Google*
ooh that's a bit ace that...
Look it's got a 4 track recorder with working VU meters!
(
Amadeus So long and thanks for all the phish, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:22,
Reply)
I'm currently trying to record a version of eye of the tiger
and failing miserably
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:34,
Reply)
Everything I do
sounds a bit 90s twee indie. I suppose that's a moog for you.
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:50, Reply)
as an uber pedant i'd like to point out that the song is called 'killing in the name'
no 'of'
(, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:33, Reply)
Pedants unite!
That'll bite me in the ass later.
(
Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:42,
Reply)
Just came across this as well!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GhO4TARUXo&feature=related
(
Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:27,
Reply)
That just reminds me of this
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZshZp-cxKg
(
Fadgebadger /links's pedantic bellend, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:31,
Reply)
My God
I haven't seen or heard that in about 24 years and yet I can still remember the tune. Cheers for posting :o)
(
Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:37,
Reply)
the descriptions on that site are a little disturbing
"The eight rocker arms of the 'Max Tattoo' move up and down one after the other and thereby provide a unique show. Eye candy for you and your guests!"... that just sounds like porn and/or a wife swap party
(
wideeye slightly pickled, Wed 23 May 2012, 8:11,
Reply)
"A vacuum motor that transports you back to the eighteenth century."
Awesome!
(
JamTallons Sokath, his eyes uncovered!, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:23,
Reply)
Ooh thats a bit porntastic.
I really need a workshop so I can make stuff.
(
Amadeus So long and thanks for all the phish, Wed 23 May 2012, 9:30,
Reply)
« Older links | Newer links »