1. Pascal's Wager

Comment #81783 by JoeK on October 25, 2007 at 7:10 am

You definitely have a real life. There is no guarantee of an afterlife.

Being religious wastes a large chunk of time and adds stress and worry to this real life that I know I have.

So the premises of the wager are incorrect. You are not gambling nothing against an infinite payoff, you are gambling a large chunk of your real life against a payoff which may not even exist. That is what is technically known as a mug's game.

2. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81780 by JoeK on October 25, 2007 at 7:01 am

The first too are prone to argument from lack of a counter example (or the "first show that things _could_ be otherwise" argument):

Why is there something rather than nothing?

You show me all the "nothing" universes out there that make this universe a special case that needs explaining, and then I'll answer that question. Until you can do that then what reason do you have to suspect that "nothing" is the natural state of things?

What about the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe (The "Goldie Locks" proposition)?

Show me all the universes with badly tuned constants and then I'll explain why this one is so well tuned. Until you do that then what reason do you have to suspect that the fundamental constants of the universe are independent, never mind "finely tuned".

First Cause?

The universe has limits in time and space. This does not imply that something exists outside those limits.

Actually this is an easy one to explain, but a really tricky one to explain simply. I'll think about it...

3. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48196 by JoeK on June 7, 2007 at 2:41 am

people are complicated. Truth is not.

So : "atheist good, believer bad" is false. And if anyone ever said that I would heartliy condemn them. But they don't.

However what people _do_ say is "rational enquiry good, belief bad" which leads to "atheism good, religion bad" specifically in the context of "things to build your world-view upon". Anyone who disagrees with that is wrong. Not bad or evil, just wrong.

4. Apocalypse Of The Honeybees

Comment #39279 by JoeK on May 10, 2007 at 8:52 am

that video is a bit offtopic but...

Wow. Orion. Wow.

5. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39158 by JoeK on May 10, 2007 at 5:29 am

Some quick points I hope Hitchins brings up in response.

1) Atheism is not a moral system or worldview. It is simply acknowledgement of the fact that god does not exist. It _allows_ us to then build up a worldview including science and moral philosophy that has all the good bits of religion and none of the bad, and allows us to discuss and work out why the good are good and the bad are bad. With religion we must take the baby with the bathwater and have no way of distinguishing them.

2) A moral system is one that works. The Israelite in question could think "Wouldn't it be better to have a world where we aren't all killing eachother and can sit around playing cards, tending our fields, writing poetry etc?". I.e. morality rewards us with a working society which we all benefit from - that is why god is not required.

3) Empathy and the ability to see beyond the end of your own nose - those are the only things required to advocate a strong moral code. Empathy because you can put yourself in someone else's place, and the ability to think ahead because it lets us see that co-operation is always the best way to proceed (given that empathy has ruled out you being at the head of a world-wide dictatorship).

4) In answer to the "why bother" questions - what makes an inifinite life worth living if a finite one isn't? What makes infinite pleasure worth striving for if finite pleasure isn't worth it? What makes infinite pain worth avoiding if finite pain is not worth avoiding? It's all a measure of extents - if existence is worth it then it is worth it regardless of the duration.

5) As for history looking back on us - at a more personal level all humanity wants to be part of a narrative, and most want a leading role. That is why people _do_ care what history thinks of them, because the story continues even if you dont.

Joe

6. Hitchens, Sharpton and Faith

Comment #38821 by JoeK on May 9, 2007 at 8:38 am

I'm sick of the constant moral relativism argument and the pathetic hand waving that most atheists do when faced with it (especially Hitchens in this case).

There are many ways of counting - base 10, base 16 base 2 (binary). They are all equivalent. No single way is the right way to count. However within a single system you can certainly say whether a sum is correct or not. Similarly the fact that there isn't a single "correct" language does not preclude me from pointing out someone's grammatical mistakes in their Spanish.

So it is with morality. A moral system is a set of rules which people follow in order to get along (minimise social friction, reduce individual cost and increase collective benefit). Within a certain system (arbitrary though it may be) you can certainly say whether most acts are moral or not. And you can certainly judge a moral system by it's practical effectiveness.

The only thing that is at all subjective about morality is the choice of in-group and out-group. The choice of people who the moral code is set up to benefit.

So the argument of moral relativism can be rephrased as "Without god why treat all people as equal". When you have found a religion that genuinely treats all people as equals then I'll answer that question!

I'm not sure I've made myself clear here, but I hope you get the point.

7. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38695 by JoeK on May 9, 2007 at 1:42 am

"too often, it is only the churches which bother to comfort the lonely and the dying"

Hm lets look at that then.

Secular:

Social services - active councelling and targeting the needy with resources.

The NHS (National Health Service for those not lucky enough to hail from the UK) - physical care for the sick

The Samaritans - councelling and help for those on the brink.

The scientific medical research establishment - development of actual physical solutions for the prevention and cure of sickness and suffering across the world.

Religious:

Priests - lie to the ill and dying and sometimes close their eyes and hope the sick get better. Oh and sing a few hymns.

Well, that's cleared that up for me - obviously the religious are the _only_ ones who care.

Joe

8. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12628 by JoeK on December 13, 2006 at 2:16 am

"he does not acknowledge that a perfectly self-consistent way of life, based purely upon reason and nothing but reason, is not possible."

???

This is a point I've heard a few times. On what basis is it made? I live my life based purely on reason and hence prove that it certainly is possible. I think what he means here is that you can not _currently_ explain _everything_ through reason alone, but as I don't need an explanation of _everything_ (some things - like my and the universe's existence I am quite happy to just accept as fact until a reasonable explanation comes along) I can live a perfectly functional happy life based solely on reason.

And I know I'm not the only one.

I think we need a list of the untrue claims that are constantly bandied about by the religious along with a set of refutations - claims like "you can't have morality without religion", "a consistent world-view requires an element of irrationality", "science is just a belief" etc. etc.

9. Intelligent Design teaching materials sent to UK schools

Comment #11738 by JoeK on December 7, 2006 at 1:46 am

There are two arguments here, both of which Paxman tried to help Prof Walpert bring up and both of which went sailing merrily over his head (another proof that brilliance in academic study and good communication abilities do not imply eachother).

1) There is a difference between a theory and a Scientific Theory.

2) What is discussed in the scientific literature and what is taught in the schoolroom are not the same.

So you can admit that ID is a theory and should be discussed (which is true if we still want to have freedom of speech etc.) but demand quite fairly that until it is a Scientific Theory it is kept out of the classroom.