1. Back from the grave

Comment #253966 by dj2baduk on September 25, 2008 at 4:53 am

Comment 250375 by etny:
"One can't say that the questions of "God" and "Religion" are amenable to scientific inquiry and be dismissive of any serious scientific endeavor on the subject"

I'm surprised constantly by the association of 'conscious identity outwith a physical body' with 'god' or 'religion'.

Religion - and through it, god, do concern themselves with the 'soul' but this does not make such a thing the 'sole' property of god or religion (sorry about that). It's an interesting field of research, even if it only leads to the conclusion that such an idea is in fact a pile of betty swollocks. If, on the other hand, there's some truth to the notion - well that's really interesting. It doesn't however validate either god or religion, any more than morality does.

2. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238314 by dj2baduk on August 28, 2008 at 1:29 am

That's an awful lot of words to say absolutely nothing. What a waste of time, paper, electricity and language.

3. Faith is not the answer

Comment #221739 by dj2baduk on July 30, 2008 at 3:53 am

Comment #:221281 by Steve Zara; "People will sit at home and have pizzas delivered on nuclear-powered motorcycles" :o)

I like it! In fact, I like it so much... 'Dave's Atomic Pizza' is open for business in Q4 2008. I've also nabbed the web real estate in anticipation ;o)

4. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #217164 by dj2baduk on July 24, 2008 at 2:17 am

Comment #215055 by Mitchell Gilks

If you are 'presumed innocent until proven guilty' i.e. innocence is the default position until such time as a court proves otherwise - and they find you 'not guilty' then aren't you in fact still innocent?

5. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #216371 by dj2baduk on July 23, 2008 at 4:07 am

I'd just like to echo the many comments that frame this as rather infantile and pointless. Of course cracker worship is absurd. So why go to the trouble of getting hold of a 'blessed' one and purposefully advertising your disrespect for it? Death threats and mindless abuse are uncalled for, but I can't fault anyone for putting forward a good rational argument for why Meyers should get a grip on this occasion. It's just deliberately antagonistic. Or am I missing some subtle point here?

6. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #214867 by dj2baduk on July 21, 2008 at 1:54 am

b0ltzm0n wrote:"Does "how" someone is put to death by the state determine the civility of that state?"

I'd say quite definitely yes. You could argue about the death penalty being barbaric and not actually a deterrant, not to mention uncivilised, full stop and I'd agree, however if you are going to end something's life; animals for food, animals to end suffering, animals as pests for example, you do it as quickly and painlessly as possible. That is 'civilized'. It's utterly stomach turning to witness any life ended slowly and painfully, watching the panic on the victim's face. More so when it's a member of your own species! We are talking about a theocracy here; a fascist gang of blood thirsty misogynistic supertituous barbarians, not civilized people trying to balance their society with justice.

It's uncivilised to take pleasure in the ending of a life and more so to turn it into a public spectacle.

7. Teen's death blamed on faith healing

Comment #196448 by dj2baduk on June 20, 2008 at 1:55 am

Just to ditto the child-abuse comments; No parent should be allowed to adversely affect the mental or physical health of their child under any circumstances, regardless of religion or anything else. It should be illegal for a parent not to seek medical treatment should their child become ill. It should also be illegal for a parent to so warp their child's mind that they refuse treatment themselves when they become ill.

This makes me sick. I hope they kick the legal shit out of these amoral backwards fucktards!

8. Prayer to feed the hungry

Comment #190479 by dj2baduk on June 9, 2008 at 7:14 am

What I hate about this kind of diatribe is that Love and Compassion are admirable qualities without doubt. They do inspire people to act selflessly and to do good unto others. The religious minded though, manage to tangle Love up with all the baggage of the god of the book so that, if you criticise the one, they accuse you of criticising the other.

I also hate the language used, but that said:

Most of this article isn't about 'praying for food' as I read it. There's a sub text that is appealing to congregations (who already pray for food - and donate) not to limit their prayers (and donations) to - say - only white americans. In turn, the politicians who pay attention to these congregations - effectively lobby groups - may actually consider spending on those in need further from home as well. In short, I think this is a well intended piece, albeit in the rather annoying and sanctimonious language of prayer and godliness, but hey, who's to say that's not what's going to get the job done when you're talking to religious people. After all, this was posted on a religious web site.

9. New Way To Think About Earth's First Cells

Comment #190450 by dj2baduk on June 9, 2008 at 5:55 am

This is really fascinating stuff, but sadly, won't budge IDiots one inch. I've just spent a fruitless couple of weeks debating IDers, Creationists and Bible/Koran Bashers in general and one thing I've learned is that there's simply no limit to the logical somersaults most believers will make to avoid accepting anything that undermines their chosen book's version of the origins of life. I mean, you can just hear them already with this article can't you; "Well, man 'designed' the cell so you've proved that the cell was 'designed' by a 'designer'".

I'm going to take a week off from my debating because I'm actually starting to feel less intelligent as a result of over exposure to the blind leading the ignorant.

10. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167620 by dj2baduk on April 24, 2008 at 8:07 am

How on earth was a 'faculty of divinity' ever conceived of anyway?

11. Investigating Atheism

Comment #167412 by dj2baduk on April 24, 2008 at 2:30 am

I just read the 'definition of Atheism' on this site and immediately I started to get annoyed. To start with, their very first statement is that Atheism is a 'belief' that God does not exist. True, they then explore some further possible meanings, but they chose this one first. That suggests an agenda to me.

Secondly, they picked on Dawky stating that: 'Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian'[5] suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief'

WTF!? It suggests that he doesn't see the need to label a child full stop (point A) and that a default position of every uncorrupted child i.e. no belief in gods, does not require ANY label (point B).

I confess at this point the red mist descended and I stopped making any sense of what I was reading. This is a site with an agenda, pretending to be a site for reasoned debate on the subject, based on what I have read.

12. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167391 by dj2baduk on April 24, 2008 at 1:39 am

fides_et_ratio wrote in comment 93:
'68. Comment #166305 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 5:39 am

You'd be stuck with Lord Winston and the like carping on in a whiny voice "weeee told you sooooooo" for all eternity... OK OK I believe!! ;o) '

Come on, that was just a joke about what hell would be like. Get a humour gland transplant already :o.

13. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166485 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 9:12 am

On MMR vaccine; the evidence for the link with autism was what they term 'anecdotal', which is not the same as irrelevant. The fact is, they have never scientifically proved any link between the vaccine and ASDs, nor have they specifically disproved them. The argument in the end came down to pros and cons. The pros of the vaccine (ie. preventing disease for millions) won out over the - even if true - highly unlikely autism inducing side effects.

14. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166464 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 9:01 am

Quetz wrote:'dj2baduk- my final word on this before it disappears to Steve's blog :) I'm not disagreeing with you, but there are many who forecast hurricanes instead of storms.'

Quite true - but it is better to be prepared for a hurricane when the storm arrives than to be prepared for a storm when the hurrican arrives (hmmm feel like I should adopt an ageing Chinese drawl and tweak my long narrow moustache when saying that)

15. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166387 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 8:03 am

OK I know it's a subject you're trying to get off this thread but I'm just gonna say; "You fix the roof when the sun is shining". You don't wait until it rains. My granny understands this concept and she can barely read.

16. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166370 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 am

In case you don't already know, the motion was defeated:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2275634,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews

17. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166335 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 6:47 am

Steve, couldn't agree more: where life altering decisions are being made, in-depth education on the subject being considered is absolutely crucial.

When it comes to general open discussions of this nature - I am very much of the 'better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt' school of thought. That said; I have jumped in with both feet in the past (and paid the price) - at some point I had my consciousness raised even about knowing whereof I speak... or the 'Find out, don't think' approach. It was actually in a debate about the bible. What that highlighted though, was the problem of too much information or pseudo information, especially on the internet and especially on such devisive subjects as the bible or the origins of life and the universe. Sadly, that means we're never likely to be rid of ill-informed as well as ill-judged remarks. All the more reason for the people in power to have the very best advice (does Bush still have a pastor?)

epeeist - it depends what you're trying to do - compute atomic electron configurations, represent the gravitational field, geoid, and magnetic field of planetary bodies or characterize the cosmic microwave background radiation. Or perhaps you're into 3D graphics.

See - isn't Wikipedia a wonderful thing ;o)

I'm making light but I do take your points

18. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166318 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 6:07 am

Steve Zara wrote: "Back to brain surgery. Someone average fellow simply would not even say "I know nothing about brain surgery, but I would say that you should cut somewhere about there." They would realise their ignorance and not even speculate."

I know what you mean, but aren't you talking more about the practical application of knowledge? Whether it's flying a plane or brain surgery, you won't get many people uneducated in those fields trying to tell these guys how to do their jobs. Yet they may, for example, discuss with a pilot that they'd heard it was possible to save fuel on long haul flights by climbing into the jet stream, or with a brain surgeon that global frontal lobotomy was ineffective for curing Autism. These are probably not very good points and no doubt exhibit a real ignorance in both fields, but in the pursuit of discussion leading to consciousness raising - isn't that OK (as long as the guy's not flying/operating at the time). Sure the pilot may have to rebut this point with 10 different people all of whom read the same article in 'Wannabe Pilots Weekly', but exasperation aside, that's ten better educated wannabe pilots. Actually, to be fair, there'd probably be one or two arses who simply stated the point as fact ;o)

It's true science does seem to get this A LOT, but then it does encompass so many different subjects which are hard to understand/explain and have been simplified to try to engage the public. A victim of it's own success you could say.

19. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166305 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 5:39 am

Adam Morrison wrote:"For a Canadian, eternal fire doesn't sound so bad, plus I can hang with Socrates, Plato, Juilius Caesar, Spinoza, etc. "

No Adam, this is HELL remember! You'd be stuck with Lord Winston and the like carping on in a whiny voice "weeee told you sooooooo" for all eternity... OK OK I believe!! ;o)

20. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166291 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 5:12 am

On the whole elitism/scientific v folk wisdom debate:

I always understood that scientists were the guys who knew all the really 'tricky to get your head around' stuff that in turn enabled them to work out the other really 'tricky to get your head around stuff', but then once a scientific understanding was obtained, were able to convey their findings in not quite so 'tricky to get your head around' language and metaphor, thereby bringing the subject into the light of public understanding and discussion.

Steve, I understand your frustration at hearing ignorant people harp on with their bargain basement understanding. I'd make the distinction, as the previous poster suggests, that if they are actually trying to learn or gain an understanding of the subject - then speculation is OK no? Stating things as fact or as a 'gotcha' from a standpoint of ignorance on the other hand is to be stamped on and stamped out... by means of firm 're-education' you understand. My two pennies

21. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166256 by dj2baduk on April 23, 2008 at 3:53 am

Same old cod-shite for the most part. Why do some people think God is a better explanation than 'I just don't know yet'?

22. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150717 by dj2baduk on March 27, 2008 at 9:58 am

Many Happy Returns!

23. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146492 by dj2baduk on March 19, 2008 at 6:20 am

Arthur C Clarke was a brilliant man and a brilliant mind. Rational, reasonable but still with a sense of awe and wonder about the unexplained. I remember very fondly his 'Mysterious World' series where he brought various mysteries from around the world to our attention. My Mum actually stays at the foot of a hill that's home to one of these mysteries - 'Tap O Noth' - a vitrified hilltop fortress.

I'm sad he's no longer around but at the same time very glad he lived and gave us so many gifts.

24. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146459 by dj2baduk on March 19, 2008 at 5:38 am

Just as an after thought: Who's to say that the results shouldn't be interpreted the other way round. i.e. if you're blissfully ignorant then you're more likely to be religious?

25. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146389 by dj2baduk on March 19, 2008 at 3:10 am

I don't buy it. None of the past claims have been conclusive by a long shot and yet even here, the findings are taken as read. Even IF it is true, you have all provided the numerous reasons why it means nothing. That said, it is one more piece of ammunition I'd rather the 'deluded' didn't have to try to convince me their way is ther right way.

It's a headline and nothing more at this point though. People know there's a battle waging for and against religion and that this sort of headline will sell or at least spark interest. I want to know who did the study, why, who paid for it, what exactly were they asking, of whom etc. etc.

Even then, I'd be hesitant about drawing any conclusions just yet. We could conclude for example that underpants make you happy. After all, I'm willing to bet between 90 and 100% of those questioned (with religion) were wearing underpants. It's just dumb journalism.

26. The atheist delusion

Comment #145709 by dj2baduk on March 18, 2008 at 3:02 am

Well there you have it folks - free will is Biblical in origin - just read Genesis!

For the love of science!!

27. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143553 by dj2baduk on March 14, 2008 at 7:47 am

al-rawandi wrote:"You mean to tell me it wasn't the checkered man-skirts? "

GRRRRRRRRRRR

A'll chin you ya bam! How dare you confine us all to Scottish stereoty.... doh!

28. Out of the Blue

Comment #141134 by dj2baduk on March 10, 2008 at 5:14 am

I, like some of the others on here, am interested in the ethics of creating something with the computing power (and reasoning shortcuts) of a human brain or, come to that, a dog brain. Even that would be impressive.

I was going to say - 'I can't see any reason why they would want to inflict such a brain with any of the handicaps incumbent on biological thinking organisms', but the interesting question is then, what reason would it have to learn? In any case, I think we're a long long way off from having to think too hard about whether to pull the plug on the thing or not for ethical reasons. It will be a truly interesting development when that does become a truly difficult question. Then we'll be getting somewhere

29. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai

Comment #139180 by dj2baduk on March 5, 2008 at 9:00 am

This guy is called a researcher!? I may have missed something but the way I read it, the only 'research' he did was to personally use psychotropic plants.

Hell - I'm going to start calling myself an Atheist Researcher then because I've experimented with hallucinagens and other substances and I can tell you, I came up with some pretty fantastic ideas while I was at it. Can't remember much detail unfortunately but I can definitely see why someone would go through that and think up a religion!

30. A natural phenomenon

Comment #139140 by dj2baduk on March 5, 2008 at 7:51 am

I too grew up with David Attenborough either in print or on the television. I try to watch everything he does and will encourage my kids to do so too when they're old enough. He is one of a kind - the rare breed who manage to present and represent wondefully whilst remaining genuine massive fans of their chosen subject matter and I hope we get to hear and see him for a while longer yet, if not in quite such adventurous surroundings. Good on ya David.

31. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #134087 by dj2baduk on February 27, 2008 at 8:23 am

To al-rawandi and Geoff.

WTF?!? - we're only minutes into this new religion and you're already arguing about the nuances and technicalities of the winged beast. Maybe this is what it was like with the early church, though I still maintain that the messiah was referring to the manufacturers of any dairy products. Anyway, you're going to have to reach agreement soon or you'll have to include two divergent accounts of Vaals appearance to the Dawkianites for inclusion in the final book, which could lead to it's validity being questioned at some later date by non-believers!

32. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133324 by dj2baduk on February 26, 2008 at 4:14 am

I'd add....

5) Neither shalt thou preparest brussel sprouts within 1000 cubits of any believer

6) Thou shalt not watch any television program with the words 'Extreme', 'Reality', 'Big Brother', 'America's Next', 'Idol', 'Factor' or 'Top 100' in the title on pain of being forced to eat 10 score jammy dodgers without water

7) Thou shalt honour thy cousin above all others

8) Thou shalt not eat of the nads of any creature be they land, sky or water born

9) Thou shalt order thy popcorn sweet, not salty

10) Thou shalt communicate with thy brothers and sisters in any valid language, of which English-United States in not one (sorry couldn't resist)

33. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133306 by dj2baduk on February 26, 2008 at 3:45 am

Well they'd be worshipping a god called Vaal rather than Yaweh and stating that he landed in a winged horse that farted flames!

34. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133296 by dj2baduk on February 26, 2008 at 3:24 am

Steve Zara wrote: "I say it isn't."

I happen to agree.

Would a god by any other name be less omnipotent?

35. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133244 by dj2baduk on February 26, 2008 at 1:08 am

Steve Zara wrote:"Search me, I haven't a clue. As I have said, I am not even sure the term has a useful meaning.

I am not prepared to allow myself to believe in the supernatural when we have, as a species, barely begun to explore the natural."

OK - I was going to say (in order to avoid a pedantry loop) that you could substitute the 'moving earth for a little while' hypothesis with something you would consider worthy of a being powerful enough to set all that is in place - including the natural laws, however, you then went on to say (if I understand you correctly) that what you have a problem with is the term 'Supernatural'. I didn't ascribe that quality to this god being. As you rightly say, what would have defied the laws of nature as understood in Roman times, may be something we take for granted and learn about in primary school now. So I believe the term 'Supernatural' is eroded with time and understanding. In short - nothing is ultimately supernatural. This, I believe, was part of the author's badly made point. We seem to be saying that if it follows laws that can one day be understood by us, then it isn't god. What if god turns out to be a brane, or a collection of branes? Is it no longer God?

36. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132782 by dj2baduk on February 25, 2008 at 7:49 am

Steve Zara wrote:"Not me, sorry. That would just be the same as throwing a baseball around, but on a larger scale."

Tell me you're not serious Steve. Maintaining gravity, atmosphere, life supporting temperature, propelling something with the mass of earth over such a long distance, suspending it above the surface of Mars without adversely affecting either planet or any other in our solar system. All independently verified by the world's astronomers and physicists. That wouldn't at least get your attention? Wouldn't make you go "OK - I'm listening!". Even if this is just the alien's version of molecular manipluation or gene therapy in their petri-dish universe, it still points to something with the ability to suspend or at least control the laws of nature to an astounding degree. After all, what is the god we claim not to believe in?

37. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132744 by dj2baduk on February 25, 2008 at 7:15 am

"After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick â€" in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false."

No - an Atheist is simply someone who doesn't have a belief in a God or Gods. The interpretation of an Angel's appearance you describe could equally apply to any person with a modicum of skepticism, even a believer in God. I suspect though that people with certain mental illnesses would have no problem believing it was an angel of god.

Now if he appeared at an atheist conference and carried out the kind of feats the creator of all existence might permit one of his angels to be capable of - let's say... transport Earth - intact - to a low Mars orbit for say... 5 minutes, so that everyone in the world witnessed this. I'd say we'd all be convinced... but of course he doesn't do that. Nor does he in fact send angels. Even hypothetical ones. The point is entirely moot.

"(An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.)"

Errrrrm... nope. Well, we could nitpick and call such a person 'an agnostic who strongly leans towards atheism due to a complete lack of any evidence or logical reason to the contrary", but that's a bit wordy.

The whole argument here is just absolutely rubbish. Who is this clown?

38. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132707 by dj2baduk on February 25, 2008 at 6:36 am

I heard that some warlord or other was trying to get at this guy's brother because he reported them in a bad light. It seems it may be another case of corrupt politics using religious fanaticism for its own ends. I don't think they counted on quite so much international publicity though. I bet this guy is really glad he has a lot of friends in the journalism business. Just spare a moment's thought for the other poor souls who weren't so lucky. That said - I really do feel for him and I hope it ends well.

39. What would Darwin have made of the Human Genome Project?

Comment #126332 by dj2baduk on February 13, 2008 at 2:19 am

rod-the-farmer said: "Can anyone recommend some published research on what happens to a cult whose prime belief is suddenly and irrevocably struck down ? What do they DO with their time, assets, religious practices, etc. ? For example, what exactly was the reaction of those who claimed the world was flat, once it was proved wrong ?"

I would postulate that the believers of today are better armed against ever being proved errant. They have faced tough criticism for centuries now and survived and at least laterly, not through zeal alone. Because the holy books of the Abrahamic religions deal with such broad and sweeping concepts, the followers of these particular cults can now claim that, no matter what science uncovers, it ALL points to god the designer! I mean you just have to listen to any one of their definitions of god to see that whatever you come up with from science, theists have got it covered or it's in the realm of the 'unprovable'. Look at how the big discoveries of science have been dealt with thus far: Big Bang - who created that then? Evolution - how did life start? DNA - where did the first DNA come from? Conditions for the existence of life - who made it so that those conditions existed?

As logic goes - it's a load of absolute arse gravy, but arse gravy that's tough to argue against nonetheless.

Let's not forget too that, while flat earth thoery was a relatively weak and benign belief (even so, there are still some people today...) - the belief in a personal god offers eternal life as one of its benefits whilst at the same time telling people they do matter in a cosmological sense. That's a very tough spell to break.

I think believers will be around for a long long time to come. The positive side to this is that, soon their beliefs won't hold any sway over or alternative to science. Because of their own bizarre logic, they're only left with that small realm of the unproven or unprovable in which to dwell and it's getting smaller and smaller all the time.

40. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116984 by dj2baduk on January 28, 2008 at 12:56 am

Damn! I went to the godtube sight and signed up, then made my views clear in a respectful tone - except perhaps the bit at the end where I said if anyone pushed this on my kid I'd beat them within an insch of their life. Strangely, my comment's not there any more. 8o.

41. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116003 by dj2baduk on January 25, 2008 at 8:47 am

I'm dislcsik and you're nothing but a bunch of Santa worshippers is all!

42. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115930 by dj2baduk on January 25, 2008 at 4:22 am

That's a very good point Richard. I heard this on a TV program a while back and got the "Yes, that's so true, of course it's true...." feeling but of course that was recognition more than it was an epiphany ;o)

The general gist of the program was that people tend to form beliefs for irrational reasons in the first instance and then look for the rational to back them up. For me, Atheism was a realisation when I was a child. I mean, we got the bible story at school and all that but I kind of always thought it was just completely far fetched. I actually assumed nobody really took it literally. It just never occurred to me at that age that there was any need to take that position consciously. So it is fair to say that when I started to look into it in a more methodical (objective) manner my earlier conclusions were fairly easily confirmed.

That probably does have something to do with the conclusion being foregone, but there is another explanation - being that there is only one reasonable conclusion to come to. That said, I don't refute the possibility of a creator being absolutely. I just don't find any evidence of one. If there were such evidence, it certainly wouldn't be in the form of a book written by men. That is just laughable. I think the really interesting stories though are those of converts. I can image a non-believer converted by some sort of 'experience', but I can't image him/her converted through reason. Whereas, conversion the other way round (believer to non-believer) must surely always come from reason? I'd be interested in the convert stories

43. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #114930 by dj2baduk on January 23, 2008 at 7:41 am

I would argue that a scientific worldview, or rather an entirely science oriented world view, will indeed help to implement moral reform with great efficiency. But contrary to the opinions which predominate on this site, it will not and cannot offer suffiecient reasons for carrying out such reform in the first place. A moral climate which stands in need of reform is one where the weak are at the mercy of the strong, where they are left without a defense against the physical or economic, or indeed spiritual, "power" of those who would use them to their own advantage. Many atheists, I have no hesitation in saying, ight energetically in favour of the weak and defenceless. But they do not find their "grounding" for doing so within the parameters of a scientiic world view. Why do they do it? Common human decency is the reason most frequently advanced. Excellent. But "common human decency" does not arise out of the materialistic, evolutionary, survival-driven process.

Ah yes - the old "why do we need to be decent" debate. And of course the only logical conclusions is 'Jesus said so' or 'God said so' - even if you don't believe in either one(presumably then you're excluded from the decency clause). Oh hang on a minute, they're the same person aren't they? Aren't they? You know all this being your own father business is awfully confusing. No ADH or ADD or ADHD or whatever your handle is - I don't need the trinity explaining to me. After all I've only got about another 40 years if I'm lucky.

Where does the need to be decent come from? Intellect and Intellectual Societies. (There's also some empathy etc. that seems to be found in other animals as well and is attributable to evolution, but I'll stick to morality) Simple as that. Jesus may have talked about it in the Bible fable but he was in no way unique in doing so nor was he the first or even the most eloquent.

Now the reasons behind us having an intellect capable of grasping the concept of 'being decent makes the world a better place for everyone - INCLUDING ME AND MINE' is entirely scientific (thanks Charles). As you rightly point out though, just because we're capable of grasping such a concept doesn't mean we necessarily adhere to it. The weak ARE at the mercy of the strong - Thus it has always been and thus it will always be. I only hope that the strong continue to see the sense in a decent approach to their fellow human beings. That, though, has nothing whatsoever to do with non-existent entities. Never has and never will.

You know an ultra-christian friend of mine one day told me that if it weren't for his belief in heaven and hell, he'd have no qualms about robbing a bank and shooting anyone who got in his way. In fact he even told me he knew how to go about it and get away with it. I was somewhat gob-smacked and explained to him that I found it hard to believe because he seemed like such a decent person, but he was adamant. I pointed out that I, a non-deluded person, wouldn't ever consider doing anything like that. He asked me why and I said;"It just seems really obvious and self-explanatory to me that being decent to others makes the world a better place".

I suspect he was trying to make a point about belief in an imaginary big daddy with the mother of all belt buckles being linked to moral behaviour, but what he actually did was simply confirm that I am both a more reasonable and more moral person than my ultr-christian friend.

In case you missed the point ADD - the link between morality and non-existent entities is... do I even need to say it?...... Oh alright then - non-existent!

44. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109460 by dj2baduk on January 9, 2008 at 5:16 am

Steve Zara wrote: "I do apologise. I was not trying to steal your thunder. It is hard to follow everything that is going on."

No no please don't apologise. I wasn't having a go, merely noting with some surprise that we had made roughly the same point on the same day.

45. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109415 by dj2baduk on January 9, 2008 at 3:06 am

robotaholic wrote: "You people are not thanking The Professor Richard Dawkins enough."

I paid for the book. What am I supposed to be thanking him for on top of that?

46. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109402 by dj2baduk on January 9, 2008 at 2:25 am

Bad drivers and politicians ;o)

Steve Zara wrote: "There is much confusion in these discussions, because the religious assume that atheism and religion are either equivalent or opposite. That is false. They aren't even in the same category of thing. To put it simply... The opposite of atheism is not religion, but theism. Theism is not religion. It is simply a belief that a God or Gods exist. One can believe that and absolutely nothing else on that subject. In spite of what some religious argue, bare theism alone tells you nothing. Nothing about creation, morals, or the afterlife... nothing."

Hi Steve, I made roughly the same point yesterday. I'd like to add though that it is not just the religious who make comparisons between religion and atheism. I've seen many many posts by atheists on here where they've done exactly that. Indeed, I've done it myself!

We should all be careful when making comparisons. Atheism is the counterpart of Theism. Religion, I believe, does have a counterpart with Atheism at it's core. Perhaps we need to come up with a new all encompassing 'general' name for that, or should we all deal with more specifics? Either way I agree with your point but it is not just the religious who are guilty of these leaps in terminology, it is also the 'Areligious'.

47. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #109068 by dj2baduk on January 8, 2008 at 9:03 am

NON_PLUSSED wrote:"Theism can be held to account much more than atheism - they are not symmetrical concepts. Theisms contain values, rules and assertions that command or encourage particular behaviours. By contrast, the state of not being convinced of the existence of any gods has so little content it doesn't really qualify as an "ism"."

Thanks for making your point respectfully non_plussed.

I think the problem really has to do with labels. Take 'Theism' for example. I confess to having made the mistake myself of jumping from theism to religion in the same sentence, but they are not the same. Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. That in itself is absolutely harmless. Similarly, Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Again, totally harmless. We could leave it at that and say that neither theism or atheism have directly led to any attrocities being committed.

However, when we start getting into the body count/attrocities argument, we instantly make the leap from theism to religion which, as you rightly say, has a whole load of baggage (values, rules and assertions that command or encourage particular behaviours) attached. It is not, though, the belief in a deity which has led to the attrocities, but a human agenda. Yes, it may refer to a 'higher power' for justification, but madmen do that all the time.

It shouldn't be surprising then that when theists, who have committed no attrocities themselves and indeed may abhor the very idea in the name of their particular deity, are told that it is their belief itself which is to blame for past attrocities, then make the same leap against atheism. Atheism itself, as we know, has never been responsible for an attrocity, but there can be no doubt that people with beliefs which held at their core, that theism was evil, have committed attrocities. Whilst they may not refer to a 'higher power', they do often refer to the 'greater good'.

It is not the simple belief in a god or non-belief in any god that leads to bloodshed. It is a human agenda which may hold either belief or non-belief as a core principal. Either way, we can't blame the 'there is a god' position any more than we can blame the 'oh no there isn't' position. I think this is the one weak point of the God Delusion.

48. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #107104 by dj2baduk on January 4, 2008 at 4:39 am

There are a lot of good points well made in response to this letter. I must confess though that I too, when reading the God Delusion, found myself sticking on this point about religion being necessarily the greatest evil of our time. Sure, it has that potential as do any belief systems, but it is fanatics, whatever their beliefs, that are to blame for atrocities. Not atheism, not theism, not Marxism or Stalinism or Maoism or Catholisism or any other ideology or belief system. It's fanaticism.

True - religions tend to preach and practice in opposition to what I consider to be reason which is what I see as negative about them. However, I may find it unreasonable to believe in God, but I cannot disprove the existence of such an entity so the only reasonable position to take is that I'm unconvinced and that such a being seems highly unlikely based on what we know. Being reasonable, I remain open to evidence to the contrary which, I'm proud to say, seperates me, along with all reasoned human beings, from zealots and fanatics for or against religion.

I think the point Jonathan Morris was trying to make is that the whole body count argument really gets us nowhere. It doesn't hold any more water against theism than it does against atheism. People have used beliefs, causes, ideologies to suit their own ends since the beginning of history and will continue to do so. You can't blame an ideology, religion or philosophy for the acts committed in it's name. People, specifically fanatics, commit atrocities.