1. Comment #95285 by sillysighbean on December 7, 2007 at 9:28 pm

D.J. Grothe has a podcast on iTunes, he has terrific guests on a regular basis. It is worthwhile to check out.

Other Comments by sillysighbean

2. Comment #95292 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Also check out the Point of Inquiry interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=137

It includes some comments about Richard Dawkins and the "New Atheists" movement in general near the end of the interview.

Other Comments by Riley

3. Comment #95311 by logical on December 8, 2007 at 1:20 am

RD: Minute 30: I DO complain to be born, because I am the product of rape and an existing abortionforbidding law.
I am also in bad health and have always been, now that I am old it is accepted that children can already have the very painful illness of rheumatism, but I have been getting my regular daily dose of painkillers for ten years only!
In my youth the nuns said that I had to thank their god for "life" which meant pain and abuse (not only by them), now I am very cross with you just because what you say sounds so similar.

I am an atheist because the very few atheists I met in the course of my escaping religious dumbth accepted my fight against the abortionforbidding law and there is still a close connection between atheists and the euthanasia movement.

I do recognize that most people who endorse selfdetermination are still atheists, and that your argumentation of the theoretical combination of genes is something different, but only a few of these combinations feel good!
We the others, born or not, are better off without existence.

CETERUM CENSEO VATICANEM ESSE DELENDAM

Other Comments by logical

4. Comment #95312 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 1:23 am

So Dawins has an uneasy conscience about eating meat. Maybe my spoof in an earlier post, on another thread, about the slaughter of turkeys at thanksgiving and Christmas making the holocaust pale into significance was not as much of a straw-man as some people said it was. Dawkins' and Singer's arguments require one to believe that there is, ontologically and morally, no difference between taking the life of a fellow sentient creature and taking the life of another human being. Therefore canabalism, and killing a human being to satisfy whatever physical, territorial, surval or supremacy need, is actually no more abhorrent than sitting down to a turkey dinner. At the most, it is wrong because protectiveness towards and empathy with members of our own species is somehow wired into us, and therefore it seems unfitting to fly in the face of that. But there are no moral categories left whereby we can condemn such behaviour, any more than there are any moral categories whereby we can condemn wild animals for killing members of their own species in defense of their territory, or over who gets the female they both want!

Other Comments by ADH

5. Comment #95316 by Goldy on December 8, 2007 at 1:51 am

Aaah, but ADH, you appear to be assuming all athiests are unthinking examples of automatic inhumanity. We aren't. Neither are we very rational. We are all....human :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

6. Comment #95321 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 2:08 am

"Aaah, but ADH, you appear to be assuming all athiests are unthinking examples of automatic inhumanity. We aren't. Neither are we very rational. We are all....human :-)"

In that case, God save us from rationalists! The hypothetical (potential??) root of much evil.

Other Comments by ADH

7. Comment #95325 by the great teapot on December 8, 2007 at 2:21 am

ADH
As a vegeterian atheist I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
I didn't check moral categories before i decided I didn't want to cause unnecessary pain to sentient beings. I stopped doing it because it seems like a cruel thing to do.
You clearly couldn't care less. I have no respect for you.

Other Comments by the great teapot

8. Comment #95327 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 2:29 am

Dawkins' and Singer's arguments require one to believe that there is, ontologically and morally, no difference between taking the life of a fellow sentient creature and taking the life of another human being.

Depends what you mean by sentient. A human is more sentient than a turkey, which is more sentient than a carrot.

Therefore canabalism, and killing a human being to satisfy whatever physical, territorial, surval or supremacy need, is actually no more abhorrent than sitting down to a turkey dinner.

No, because of the difference in sentience.

At the most, it is wrong because protectiveness towards and empathy with members of our own species is somehow wired into us, and therefore it seems unfitting to fly in the face of that.

That is far too simple. We are more protective towards close relatives than others because of kin selection. But there tend to be limits to what we allow ourselves to do to others, but those change due to other influences - we can interact with others and change our minds. For example, in the past few centuries most of us have realised that all races are equally human.

It is a combination of wiring and culture; nature and nurture. We see changes in ethical standards in all cultures, no matter which God-given book they believe in, assuming they believe in any.

Other Comments by steve99

9. Comment #95328 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 2:32 am

In that case, God save us from rationalists! The hypothetical (potential??) root of much evil.

Oh come on now. This is just silly!

Other Comments by steve99

10. Comment #95333 by jaf on December 8, 2007 at 2:56 am

[...]the question of whether science and religion are really at war.

I thought that one was solved when they started putting lightning conductors on churches. . .

Other Comments by jaf

11. Comment #95342 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 3:44 am

Therefore canabalism, and killing a human being to satisfy whatever physical, territorial, surval or supremacy need, is actually no more abhorrent than sitting down to a turkey dinner.

That is, in a very real sense, quite correct. That is why the idea of eating dead relatives makes you and I feel physically ill, and yet there where humans doing that as little as a hundred years ago, who considered it not only perfectly reasonable behaviour, but sacred ritual. A common greeting among these people, considered especially flattering, was "I eat you.".

Morality is simply what culture says it is, what we collectivley agree. The bedrock which you are desperate to find, does exist, but it is not provided by "God", but by the evolutionary advantageous impulse to protect, love and do good to kin. Most readily summed up by "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.". Sometimes, that means "Eat me when I've died.". The trick will be to extend that golden rule to all humans equally, erasing the artificial barriers of race, religion and nationality. The good news is we seem to be stumbling along the right track, and may even make it:-)

However, what now seems certain, is that we don't benefit from the contradictory 10th hand hearsay of a very nasty God, filtered through notoriously unreliable acolytes, telling us what is right or wrong. That simply breeds unjustified pious certainity and rage, as evidenced by the entire span of religious history to the present day. It also puts Teddy bears and teachers at terribly risk.

It seems to me that 6,000 years of "revelation", has simply led to the same kind of manipulative assholes (albeit with different headgear) lying and killing for basically the same bad reasons.

Yet, people in simple dialouge with each other, rejecting anything as especially sacred do a far better job of reaching rational conclusions, conclusions that do much better justice to the spirit of the golden rule, than religion EVER has.

So lets dump all the holy books and do that. Talk, argue, consult and come to agreement.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

12. Comment #95345 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 4:08 am

"You clearly couldn't care less. I have no respect for you."

Then neither do you have any respect for meat-eaters who are also atheists, or at least those atheists who eat meat with an easy conscience.

Other Comments by ADH

13. Comment #95360 by eXcommunicate on December 8, 2007 at 6:21 am

Eddie Tabash's interview is a good too.

Other Comments by eXcommunicate

14. Comment #95363 by TheHardProblem on December 8, 2007 at 6:42 am

at around 15 minutes: (on the subject of atheist style of rhetoric in politics)
RD:"and I guess i'm not a very good seducer, because uhm, I find it very hard to.. to do that. If somebody is talking palpable nonsense, uhm, then I find it's just not quite my style to say "well, Very interesting point you make there, but have you considered... "(laughs from public)

Hmm, now who could prof. Dawkins have lampooned there? ;)

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

15. Comment #95367 by OhioAtheist on December 8, 2007 at 7:04 am

Dawkins' and Singer's arguments require one to believe that there is, ontologically and morally, no difference between taking the life of a fellow sentient creature and taking the life of another human being.

If you had any familiarity with Singer you would know that this is bullshit. He makes quite clear that he considers the taking of a human life more wrong than the taking of, say, a cow's, on the preference-utilitarian grounds that, as a person (a being with a conception of a "self" persisting over time), the human is more able to value his own life than the cow, a non-person, is. In other words, you wrong the human you kill more than the cow you kill. He does believe that it wrong to place human interests, by default, above animal interests of comparable value (say, their interest in avoiding the torment inflicted upon them in the billions by the modern meat industry); but this is quite a different matter from what you allege. Animals unable to consciously value their own lives simply have no interest in staying alive, Singer implies, which is why he has, as Joey Kurtzman of Jewcy says, "left many of us with the understanding that death has no value whatsoever in Singer's utilitarian calculations, and is undesirable only to the extent that it comes with associated suffering. If Charles Eisenstein were to detonate a neutron bomb on a small island full of chocolate labrador puppies, I don't know that Singer would find this of any great concern."

In the future please deign to stay away from straw men.

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

16. Comment #95379 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 7:49 am

I think there's a strong ethical case for vegetarianism regardless of your religious views, or lack of them.

It avoids the taking of life on an enormous scale, it avoids the hideousness of intensive farming methods and the horrors of the slaughterhouse, it is dramatically less extravagant with limited resources such as land and water and, when pursued with a modicum of attention to nutrition, can be healthier than a non-vegetarian diet, leading to less human suffering too.

And despite Richard's remark in the interview, veggie food can be absolutely delightful - though I do agree with him that a horrible number of chefs haven't cottoned on to this yet!

Christianity gives meat-eaters some wiggle-room, of course, by claiming that man has dominion over the rest of the animal kingdom. Not one of Christianity's finest pronouncements. But there's no obvious reason why it should outweigh the ethical considerations I've suggested above. The case for vegetarianism is strong on its own merits - no need to bring religion into it either way.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

17. Comment #95382 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 8:17 am

yet another thread of comments muddied up with ADH and Steve. Boring!

If the consensus is that it is boring, then I am happy to stop. However, I thought that one of the purposes of the site should be to engage with people of different views. Even if we don't change their minds, surely it is an educational experience for both sides, and is a positive message about the nature of this site.

ADH is not a nutter - he represents mainstream Christian opinion. And as for uninvited, where does it say "atheists only" regarding membership here?

We could resort to a mutual admiration group; nothing more than patting each other on the back and praising each other for how rational and sane we are regarding religion. But that surely be behaving in precisely the way we have been stereotyped as behaving, wouldn't it? And wouldn't it be just a bit dull?

Other Comments by steve99

18. Comment #95384 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 8:19 am

Some of us just enjoy the debate, coretemprising! What a dull place RD.net would be if we all just sat around agreeing with each other. I have yet to read a post by steve99 that I have found boring, and there haven't been many of them that I haven't learned something from either so Steve, please keep them coming.

I do agree that very few people are likely to change their minds about anything by reading what other people write - but don't you find that the very process of gathering your own thoughts to respond to someone else makes you question and challenge them, identify areas of them that aren't strong and that you therefore need to explore more deeply?

As an example, if I hadn't started engaging in debates with theists on a different forum about a year ago, I doubt very much whether I'd have felt the need to understand evolution better, or cosmology. Has my learning more about evolution and cosmology in the last year transformed those theists' views in any way? No, of course not. But it has transformed and strengthened mine and opened up whole new areas of interest to me. If I'd just decided those theists weren't worth debating with and walked away, they wouldn't be any the poorer now. But I would be.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

19. Comment #95386 by Polydactyl on December 8, 2007 at 8:24 am

I agree with Northern Bright: steve99 is always interesting to read.
Surely, surely, atheists have to engage with others who disagree--and communication is hard work: fatally easy to misunderstand each other. Lots of the debates here show that people are not really understanding the position of the other side at all.

And it would be powerfully boring to read only atheists' comments congratulating each other on their insight.
Please carry on, Steve99 (and all those other tireless folk who keep up the rational arguments).

Other Comments by Polydactyl

20. Comment #95388 by jimbob on December 8, 2007 at 8:45 am

...and then there's always the point about it being unlikely that a human brain could have evolved without meat-eating ancestors.

Other Comments by jimbob

21. Comment #95389 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 8:49 am

Forgive me if I have misrepresented Singer. So it seems that what distinguishes humans from other sentient beings is self-awareness. OK, I need ti read a few more things written by Singer. I've just read some articles, in on of which he states that a new-born babby is actually of less value (until they acquire consciousness) than a sentient and conscious animal. But is the distinguishing trait "consciousness", as I understood from the article, or "self-consciousness", which is the faculty that allows the human to value his or her life and therefore be aware of what they are losing? I'm just trying to get my head around this one.

If it is "self" awareness, then that is a big difference indeed. Have any animals (the higher primates for example) bee shown to be self aware? How do they react when they look at themselves in a mirror? Dogs and cats show no sign of such awareness.

Other Comments by ADH

22. Comment #95394 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 9:11 am

18. Comment #95380 by coretemprising on December 8, 2007 at 7:58 am

I think I'll go back to just reading the articles. Having ADH here is like having an UNINVITED annoying stranger in your house who's intent to challenge and make wrong everything you say.

I'm bemused by this attitude I have to say. I've seen some fairly deranged theists, and ADH just doesn't qualify. Are you threatened by alternate points of view? If not then whats the problem?

No one is forcing anyone here to participate or contribute, it's entirely voluntary. However, wouldn't it be sterile if the only people we ever spoke to where those that agreed with us?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

23. Comment #95396 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 9:16 am

23. Comment #95389 by ADH on December 8, 2007 at 8:49 am

If it is "self" awareness, then that is a big difference indeed. Have any animals (the higher primates for example) bee shown to be self aware? How do they react when they look at themselves in a mirror? Dogs and cats show no sign of such awareness.

ADH ... several animals have passed the test you mention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Ready to join the atheist legions now;-)? If not, why not?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

24. Comment #95397 by Jayday on December 8, 2007 at 9:16 am

It is interesting that the conversation has focused on human animals eating non-human animals. Other non-human animals who eat their prey do it because they have evolved to do so. Isn't that also true of humans? In my mind it is more about eating animals for food (survival and nutrients) and not inflicting unnecessary cruelty in the process, or killing for the prize sport of it.

Other Comments by Jayday

25. Comment #95398 by Vaal on December 8, 2007 at 9:17 am

Saw my cat plucking her eyebrows in the mirror this morning...

Other Comments by Vaal

26. Comment #95399 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 9:21 am

...and then there's always the point about it being unlikely that a human brain could have evolved without meat-eating ancestors.

Interesting point! Even if it's true, though (and sorry, I'm not intentionally doubting you - I just genuinely don't have the knowledge on this score), wouldn't that still leave the question of whether meat-eating is ethical NOW?

Also, I can well imagine that meat would have been required at earlier stages of our evolutionary development, not least because our ancestors wouldn't have had the access to the wide range of vegetables, fruits and grains that we have these days. Meat is undoubtedly a very concentrated source of all kinds of essential nutrients, so "back then" it was probably an excellent solution. But whether it would still have been essential if they'd had the array of alternatives we have today is perhaps another question.

I suspect I'm sounding more hardline on this question than I actually am - I occasionally eat meat and fish myself. But I do see vegetarianism as the preferable option, for the reasons I gave before. Even if most of us just made a point of eating less meat and avoiding buying the factory-farmed stuff, there'd be a big reduction in animal suffering and extravagant use of resources.

EDIT: OK, in the interests of scrupulous honesty, I have to acknowledge that there may be an element of post-rationalisation in what I've written: I do think vegetarianism is the more ethical option ... but that's not actually the reason I choose to eat veggie food most of the time: it's simply that I prefer it! And I also find having lumps of dead animal in my fridge rather nauseating.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

27. Comment #95400 by Diacanu on December 8, 2007 at 9:26 am

coretemprising-

yet another thread of comments muddied up with ADH and Steve. Boring!

Hey look, it's the world's smallest violin playing the world's saddest song just for you.
*Eyerolls*
*Jack-off gesture*

Other Comments by Diacanu

28. Comment #95401 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 9:28 am

Northern Bright:

There is an interesting theory that human brains require certain fats that are present in seafood for full development, which is highly suggestive of an aquatic, or at least seaside phase in our ancestry. Of course, with our current knowledge of nutrition, vegetarians need not suffer from this deficiency.

Other Comments by steve99

29. Comment #95402 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 8, 2007 at 9:30 am

But I do see vegetarianism as the preferable option, for the reasons I gave before. Even if most of us just made a point of eating less meat and avoiding buying the factory-farmed stuff, there'd be a big reduction in animal suffering and extravagant use of resources.

Sigh. I thought giving up that religion stuff would allow me to live exactly as I pleased with no regrets. So this morality business is independent of religion. Who knew?

Maybe when we can grow meat in the lab ... we'll finally be in the clear. In the meantime, eating mammals strikes me as a kind of cannibalism, but I still do it because :

a) I like meat.
b) I have yet to have explained to me why eating humans (who have consented to it) is "wrong". The only coherent case that can be made against it is based on health issues, rather than morality.

Let me quickly add, I don't actually want to eat humans :-), I simply find cannibalism a fascinating context to discuss morality and ethics in.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

30. Comment #95409 by Diacanu on December 8, 2007 at 9:39 am

krisking-

for health reasons....e.g. circumcision

And know what a simpler solution to the "health reasons", for circumcision is?

Wash your dirty pecker!

(I use "your", in the global sense not personal)

Other Comments by Diacanu

31. Comment #95411 by BaronOchs on December 8, 2007 at 9:42 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7132124.stm

"The gods have been asked to appear before the court on Tuesday, after the judge said that letters addressed to them had gone unanswered."

Lol this is gold!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

32. Comment #95416 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 9:49 am

Sigh. I thought giving up that religion stuff would allow me to live exactly as I pleased with no regrets. So this morality business is independent of religion. Who knew?

There are a lot of people who find it's in their interests to keep this a well-kept secret, BCWC ;-)

...eating mammals strikes me as a kind of cannibalism, but I still do it because I have yet to have explained to me why eating humans (who have consented to it) is "wrong". The only coherent case that can be made against it is based on health issues, rather than morality.

I agree in that I find it hard to justify treating non-human animals by different standards than we apply to human ones. But that leads to two possible approaches: one, that we should treat both equally badly (i.e. no reason why we shouldn't kill and eat both) and the other, that we should treat both equally kindly (i.e. no reason why we should kill and eat EITHER of them).

Other Comments by Northern Bright

33. Comment #95419 by Diacanu on December 8, 2007 at 9:54 am

coretemprising-

Well, whaddya want? For the religionists to be banned?

Either ignore them, or roll up your sleeves, and use your wits against them in debate.

The world where everything is made of cozy cushions, and everyone agrees just doesn't exist.
Understand that, mourn it, and move on.

Other Comments by Diacanu

34. Comment #95425 by Bonzai on December 8, 2007 at 10:04 am

brian

Maybe when we can grow meat in the lab ... we'll finally be in the clear..

I have just the news for you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4148164.stm

Let me quickly add, I don't actually want to eat humans :-), I simply find cannibalism a fascinating context to discuss morality and ethics in.

Speaking of cannibalism and synthetic meat I read in the papers that some mysterious rich man offered some scientists a lot of money to grow a slice of human flesh in the lab because he wanted to find out what it tasted like. The offer was turned down because the scientists were too disgusted by the idea, so they said anyway. I read it a year or two ago, I don't remember enough details to do a easy google search, otherwise I would have given you a link.

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #95426 by Ole on December 8, 2007 at 10:06 am

There is an interesting theory that human brains require certain fats that are present in seafood for full development, which is highly suggestive of an aquatic, or at least seaside phase in our ancestry. Of course, with our current knowledge of nutrition, vegetarians need not suffer from this deficiency.

Funny you should mention this ;-)

When I heard what RD said about vegetarianism, I thought about AAH:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis)

I also thought about the history of diet:
Paleolithic style diets are based on the premise that natural selection had 2 million or
more years to genetically adapt the metabolism and physiology of the various human species
to such a diet, and that in the 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture
and its consequent major change in the human diet, natural selection has had too little time
to make the optimal genetic adaptations to the new diet.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet)

A question for you, RD and others:

What do we really know about our diet (in an evolutionary perspective)?

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

36. Comment #95427 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:12 am

36. Comment #95410 by coretemprising on December 8, 2007 at 9:42 am
Actually, I have a lot of sympathy with you, the way you've expressed your feelings here. There is something rather wonderful about being able to retreat from a world which is full of supernatural, superstitious beliefs and assumptions, and simply relishing being in the company of people who share our naturalistic, rationalistic approach to life. It comes as very welcome relief.

I also take your point that the arguments of the theists do tend to take a very predictable form. It's rare - well, it's never happened, so far as I can see! - that they come up with something really new, something that we genuinely haven't ever heard or considered before. And too many of them think that just repeating their dogmas and their Bible verses will be likely to convince us of the error of our ways. Such encounters are not very enlivening, it's true.

At the same time, I don't see any way of preventing theists from expressing their views here and nor, to be honest, can I see that it would be good to do it even if we could. Even with our Christian visitors, this forum is still more of a "clear-thinking oasis" than I've ever found anywhere else. And I do still think it's good to be challenged sometimes ...

Other Comments by Northern Bright

37. Comment #95428 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:14 am

Coretemprising, good stuff, and I agree completely. The atheists who indulge ad nauseam in polite 'debate' with theists can tickle themselves to death by DOING SO IN THE FORUMS. They should not derail these discussion threads on the front page.

As far as Steve goes, I find his worshiping politeness to be weird, and I skip (because there is no ignore button at this site) over his predictable, formulaic comments because, yes, surprise, surprise I find them boring.

BTW, coretemprising, there are many other excellent atheist sites that you can read and comment at (which I am doing). I am only breaking my moratorium on posting here to let you know that I agree with you. As you said, there are many different viewpoints from all the atheists posting from all over the world, and to think that we need 'fresh blood' from a bunch of tired, flatulent theists, is not appreciating the diversity that atheists are bringing to this site. And any 'debating' with theists can be done off the front page and in the forums which are set up for off-topic discussions.

Other Comments by Logicel

38. Comment #95429 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:18 am

And any 'debating' with theists can be done off the front page and in the forums which are set up for off-thread discussions.

You've lost me, Logicel. Why should debating with people who hold opposing views be off-thread in ANY thread?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

39. Comment #95431 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:28 am

Northern Bright, debating opposing views relevant to the topic at hand is fine regardless of their religious/secular nature; it is when the topic is no longer being discussed and is being derailed by an atheist/theist debate that has nothing to do with the discussion related to the posted article. That kind of discussion has a welcome home in the forums here--all the interested parties have to do is set up a forum topic and go for it.

Other Comments by Logicel

40. Comment #95432 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:33 am

53. Comment #95431 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:28 am
So it's really the issue of order, discipline and neatness that's bothering you? Are you sure? Forgive me, it just seems that tidiness is an odd thing to provoke such strong feelings.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

41. Comment #95433 by Diacanu on December 8, 2007 at 10:35 am

Logicel-

This is the internet, not a TV show, don't be passive and demand to be entertained. If the topic wanders off course, do something about it.

Other Comments by Diacanu

42. Comment #95434 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:39 am

Northern Bright Now it is your turn to have lost me. I am just reiterating what coretemprising said. My strong feelings are coming from the reality that atheists are encouraging the derailment of topics so they can dilly dally with theists. That is not the reason why I spend time here. Theists are a dime a dozen. The forums are there for such atheists to go the full hog with theists if they so desire.

Other Comments by Logicel

43. Comment #95435 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:41 am

Diacanu, Point taken, and some of us have tried and GAVE UP. I have been posting at this site for about a year, and I have seen and identified this pattern. If that is what the majority wants, then who am I to fight it almost single handedly? I got better things to do with my time.

Other Comments by Logicel

44. Comment #95437 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:43 am

The forums are there for such atheists to go the full hog with theists if they so desire.

Since the question of whether or not we should debate with theists has nothing to do with the thread topic of Science and the New Atheism, perhaps those who instigated it should have done so in the Forums instead? ;-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

45. Comment #95438 by steve99 on December 8, 2007 at 10:43 am

Logicel:

Forgive me. I had no intention of seeming boring to anyone. I guess I am somewhat self-indulgent in that I love debate, and I find psychology fascinating, even though I am no expert. I am using discussion to explore the boundaries of compartmentalisation that seems to go on in the religious when they face what seems to me to be unassailable logic.

As for 'workshipping politeness', I just can't agree - you need only read some of my posts to Dianelos in the past to realise I can get flat out rude when someone is being an idiot after having

But I just can't see any argument against being polite and showing considerable patience. Being rude and insulting may provide a feeling of instant satisfaction, but I am not sure what it is supposed to achieve other than polarize opinion even further.

But I guess that is just me.

Regarding the forums... perhaps that is a good idea, especially if the conversation has wandered off topic.

Anyway, I am sorry.

Other Comments by steve99

46. Comment #95440 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:45 am

Northern Bright, You beat me to the punch, and, yes, sometimes it is necessary to go OT to get back on topic (so to speak). But we all need to nudge each other when the topic is getting hijacked, for goodness sakes.

Other Comments by Logicel

47. Comment #95441 by Northern Bright on December 8, 2007 at 10:47 am

Anyway, I am sorry.

So far as I'm concerned you have nothing to apologise for AT ALL, steve99. To my mind your posts are always stimulating, reasonable and interesting. Lack of politeness is not a virtue, nor does it add anything to the quality of the debate. PLEASE don't change the way you post.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

48. Comment #95442 by Logicel on December 8, 2007 at 10:48 am

Steve, Apology accepted (thank goodness my trained eyes did not skip over your latest comment, teehee). I am not a polite person, and that's just me also.

Other Comments by Logicel

49. Comment #95443 by Bonzai on December 8, 2007 at 10:54 am

steve99 is a valuable contributor to this forum, I always find his opinions interesting and thoughtful.

On the other hand I find the knee jerk, more atheist than thou posts by Logicel invariably rude, predictable and boring and they all boil down to the theists=scumbags variety, most of them are strawman arguments.

I don't want to start a flame war so I never said anything, but since she has started it, let's roll.

End of Rant.

Other Comments by Bonzai

50. Comment #95444 by Diacanu on December 8, 2007 at 10:56 am

Re: post 61
Seconded.

Other Comments by Diacanu