1. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181358 by Dune010 on May 17, 2008 at 2:50 am

What we should do is criticise "unenlightenment" and "unenlightened organisations and regimes" as being the primary cause of problems. Then we can give "religions", "Nazism", "Maoism", and "Stalinism" as examples of "unenlightened organisations and regimes".

I agree in a sense, but prefer a different approach.

I do not believe that we can necessarily blame religion for all the things done in its name. It is inevitable that with certain people the opportunity to hold one opinion that is strongly opposed to another will lead to violence. I think it is best to start from this point. Any strong difference in opinion can lead to violence and this applies to atheism too. In such a case I would not hold the belief responsible.

The real issue is not whether a particular belief system has been fought for, it is whether the nature of the beliefs encourage violence.

Take the French Revolution. There was much injustice in the name of opposing religion, and this could fairly be equated with atheism. Was there something inherent in Jacobinism that encouraged this violence? Yes. Was there in atheism? No.

Take Stalin. I don't know but lets suppose that his atheism was a motivation for the killing of religious people. Is atheism to blame? No. Either he just believed so strongly in something that he came to hate the opposing position, or he held other beliefs which he combined with atheism to justify the killing of religious people (or any other people).

Take Christianity. While there almost certainly have been cases of Christians killing purely because they hate people who disagree, it is very difficult to disentangle the dogmatic element from this. Christianity does encourage violence. It singles out particular people to hate, and it encourages faith. This is something that atheism definitely does not do.

2. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178266 by Dune010 on May 11, 2008 at 4:00 am

how come these schools still exist in the "21st century"?

What's wrong with theology? Why is studying the history, philosophy, and writings of religion a bad thing? Certainly historians and philosophers can have their say, but is it not a good thing that there are people who focus their efforts on critical analysis of religious texts?

Considering they still say grace in Latin before dinner at Oxford and Cambridge...well, I don't think that the divinity schools and faculties of theology are going anywhere soon.

I wish they would get rid of grace. However, this is quite different from offering theology as a subject.

3. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178015 by Dune010 on May 10, 2008 at 8:46 am

If that is your opinion on what the only thing philosophers of religion contribute is, then (fortunately) you're wrong.

No, not at all. I was just trying to point out that textual analysis is useful. While it would be nice to just have to say that their book is irrelevant, often it is very useful to be able to attack the erroneous claims that they make about their book's content.

Obviously, if a philosopher of religion is just as well versed, then great. But being well versed is a matter of theology not philosophy.

I am not trying to belittle the importance of philosophy. It's just that often their reasoning is incompatible with a philosopher's. Their reasoning is the reasoning of "my book says this".

4. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177940 by Dune010 on May 10, 2008 at 2:50 am

A theologian might be an ally, but he is still confessionally bound. A philosopher of religion still makes the most formidable ally and opponent in a debate.

In a perfect world you would probably be right. Unfortunately, in my experience at least, the comments of philosophers do little to reach our opponents. When dealing with people who believe that their book is the most important thing ever, having someone who can take apart claims based on certain passages can be much more useful.

Obviously, it would be nice to be able to just say that their book is irrelevant.

5. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #177933 by Dune010 on May 10, 2008 at 2:08 am

I think people here are unnecessarily hard on theology as a subject. Yes, it is not the same as philosophy of religion, but the two overlap more than you think. From my experience, theology seems a lot like an English literature degree crossed with a history degree. It involves a lot of critical analysis of the texts. However, in the course at my university at least, they deal with the psychology of religion and the philosophy of religion as well.

In my opinion, a theologian can be one of the most formidable allies in any religious debate.

6. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177370 by Dune010 on May 9, 2008 at 1:46 am

The last time he last time he talked to the religious broadcasters, in 2003, he focused on his faith-based initiative.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg appears to have a stutter. Would it be wrong to fix this when it is also in the original?

7. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #162891 by Dune010 on April 17, 2008 at 4:14 pm

It's ridiculous to think that something as complicated as the eye just develops out of nowhere after people have Sex. I makes much more sense to believe that it is Brought fully formed by the Stork.

And besides, I think we all know what the second law of thermodynamics does to the Sex Theory.

8. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159207 by Dune010 on April 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Rep. Davis wasn't speaking as an individual, she is a representative of the government, speaking in a government setting. It was completely inappropriate, and she should be fired, just as any person who works a retail would be if they were incredibly rude to a customer. You bet your ass a clerk will be fired if he hands someone their purchase and says something bigoted/threatening - freedom of speech won't protect them. Same issue. She violated her position and the trust of those who elected her, and all those she represents.

If the waitress at a restaurant said "get the hell out, you aren't christian, and this is a christian nation. Your kind believes only in Jihad and bombing innocents!" to a Muslim she'd be fired on the spot. This is EVEN WORSE. This isn't some shmo, it's the representative of government. She has even MORE of a duty to watch her mouth. If she isn't fired outright it's a joke. Replace the atheist with ANY minority religious or ethnic group pretty much and she'd already be on the curb.

I agree. Occupations make certain demands of employees. She is certainly free to say what she likes, but I think that what she said is enough to justify firing her.

9. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159059 by Dune010 on April 11, 2008 at 11:42 am

Hell Yes. What does her opinion on any matter have to do with her performance in public office?

Ummm, what?

10. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #158751 by Dune010 on April 11, 2008 at 2:21 am

yes, i value potential in a human foetus (yes, in the womb). obviously there're degrees of fulfilling that potential. the 11 week old fetus hasn't got the same 'value' compared to a seven month gestation.

I'm afraid I am still unconvinced of the importance of potential. In fact, it sounds to me as if you are not really talking about potential at all. I agree that there are degrees of fulfilling potential, but the difference between the foetus of 11 weeks and the foetus of 7 months is a matter of their development, not their potential. Does the potential change between the two? I don't think it does. Both the newly fertilised ovum and the foetus of 7 months have the potential to grow into adult human beings. Can you explain why potential is important? If you think that there is something innate in humanity that makes it wrong to kill humans even in the early stages of development (except in certain circumstances of conflict with the mother) then I would like an explanation of what this is. If, however, you were to subscribe to my position of considering it a social issue then the matter of potential is clearly irrelevant.

i haven't touched the question of a clear line between a fetus of nonviable age vs a fetus of viable age. i wonder if the discussion would change if there is a way of growing fetuses independent of their mother's wombs so as to take that issue out of the equation. i suspect it would.

I'm sorry for missing this the first time, it is an interesting point. Obviously in this scenario there would be fewer reasons for an abortion, but someone would still have to be able to raise the child. Would you agree with abortions even if gestation took place outside of the uterus? I think I would. As I have said, unless there is an innate quality of humanity that makes killing unacceptable, I see no reason why abortion for convenience should be disliked while the killing of other animals is accepted. As for where to draw the line, it would probably still have to be before "birth" (whatever that would mean) for social reasons.

11. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #156079 by Dune010 on April 6, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Hello aquilacane. It would appear that I am the "idiot" to whom you refer.

I think I should start by questioning why you consider me to be an idiot for what I have said. Do you think that I ought to believe that there is a difference between these three without any evidence? Do you believe in anything without evidence? Is not such a frame of mind the very thing we criticise in theists?

I think that without evidence I should abstain from drawing any line based on innate differences. One of the quotes from your signature aptly sums it up for me: "An ignorant person thinks they know the answer, an intelligent person knows they don't."

So maybe you think that the evidence is obvious, and that this is what makes me an idiot. You cite an ability to form memories in early infancy:

I actually remember being born, and I can tell you there is a big difference 1 day after birth. I can remember exact sentences and words from before I was 6 months old. I can totally recall a vacation to Quebec at three months and can still see the lobster we ate, and I remember crying because I didn't get any.

I am truly amazed to hear that you remember your own birth (I certainly do not), but we shall assume for the sake of argument that this is the case for all. Why is this important? Does the ability to form long-term memories in infants provide the definitive reason not to kill them? Is it the lack of this ability in foetuses that makes aborting them acceptable? If you believe this to be the case, can you substantiate this belief?

That's a huge difference in levels of cognition and intelligence with a pig.

You clearly know more about pigs than I do. I certainly do not know how intelligent they are and how capable they are or forming memories (supposing this is important). That is why I asked for evidence. Do you have any evidence? You must forgive me for not simply accepting your testimony as science does not make use of such evidence. However, even if it were acceptable evidence, it says nothing of pigs. To settle this matter, I would need good evidence of the cognitive superiority of human infants over adult pigs as well as good reason why these superior attributes make it unacceptable to kill them.

Never mind the fact that as a human baby the potential for far greater cognition and intelligence is present.

As I said to joshie in post #154276:

"So we are valuing potential now are we? Isn't that what "Pro-Life" advocates say about the issue of abortion as a whole? Do you oppose abortion? What about contraception? Or is the right to potential only developed after birth?"

Who ever thinks it's ok to snuff a kid because they are not aware enough or smart enough is a timing thing. It's like saying kill everyone as they just wake-up because they're not very aware or smart at that hour of the morning.

This makes me suspicious that you haven't been reading the previous posts.

Are you suggesting that I have been arguing in favour of differentiating based on levels of intelligence? If you read what I have written, you will find that this is not the case. I have consistently argued that this is a social issue. In fact, the section of text that you have quoted from my post (#153766) is taken from the end of a paragraph emphasising my advocacy of a social interpretation. In the section that you quote from me I ask for "evidence that there is a line that can be drawn". I in no way suggest that I believe that the line should be drawn based on such criteria. However, you do. While you mock the idea that intelligence should be the deciding factor, you propose that memory should fill that very role.

12. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #154276 by Dune010 on April 3, 2008 at 3:06 am

mmurray,

I was taking it as given that we don't want to kill other humans. I know that is probably what you want to justify. I would do it with `do unto others as you would have them do unto you' or the effect on society if we allow killing.

Exactly. I agree entirely. The effect of extending the time in which it is acceptable to kill a child until after birth would, in my opinion, have a serious impact on society. Having a blurry line within the womb is much safer than a blurry line outside of it. Furthermore, there is no demand for it. We need to kill pigs for food, but there is no reason why all abortions cannot be carried out in a period of several months during pregnancy. Were a persuasive reason for legalising the killing of one-year-olds to arise, it would have to be carefully be weighed against the impact this would have on society.

If you want a more general discussion then it would be interesting to consider what we would do if our biology was different. What if women knew exactly when they ovulated or could prevent conception or prevent embryos from growing after conception? Or if we were marsupials so the foetus left the vagina when it was a few cm long and crawled up to the pouch. During that time a self abortion would be really easy. Would we allow that ?

Well, if we could prevent conception, condom sales would plummet. I honestly cannot think of any problems that would arise from such an ability, except maybe for the latex industry. Although, no doubt certain religious groups would object as they do to our current methods.

Abortion in marsupials is much more difficult. If we are judging this by the impact on society then it is quite possible that the abortion of a much younger, yet external child would set a dangerous precedent. Perhaps the society of such a species, having had abortion as an easy option without requiring advanced technologies, would have developed differently from ours so that abortion was acceptable up until another arbitrary point.

joshie,

what about the fact that a human baby has the potential to develop into a being that is capable of memory, logical reasoning, having wishes/dreams for the future, artistical appreciation, and emotional attachment to other humans?

So we are valuing potential now are we? Isn't that what "Pro-Life" advocates say about the issue of abortion as a whole? Do you oppose abortion? What about contraception? Or is the right to potential only developed after birth?

theantitheist,

I'm sure the 'Doctors' in Nazi Germany felt that they were benefitting humanity in there experimentations. Those experimentations started in discussion which was nothing more then logical and rational I'm sure.

Perhaps. But something tells me that they didn't weigh up the social impact as we have been doing.

Carry on with the discussion but I advise you against simply using rational and logical thinking.... Being logical and rational takes all the fun out of life, sometimes you need to lead with your gut and not your head.

Thank you for the advise. However, I maintain that when trying to get to the bottom of things as you say scientists, philosophers and intellectuals ought, it is best to be rational. Furthermore, what is fun for you is not necessarily fun for everyone else. I enjoy understanding things, and most of the time our guts get us nowhere.

When someone posts comments like "What is wrong then with parents deciding to kill their child moments after it comes out of the womb? How about days after? 15 months after?", am I to assume they are just asking the question for the sake of argument, or am I to believe they really believe it is OK somewhere in that time frame. I think FF's frustration and mine is that we'd like them to say exactly what they do believe, and then if it really is as ridiculous for us as it sounds, back it up with "why" you believe that bullshit, not say "this is not really what I believe, but for the sake of debate or argument". I think I've been beating a dead fucking horse, but that better than killing a live one!

I'm with Afraidtodie on this other point, you all seem to be arguing a point you don't believe in for the sake of the principle of discussion.

It depends what you mean by "for the sake of argument". I don't believe anyone is using this just for the practice in rhetoric.

AfraidToDie, when you ask "or am I to believe they really believe it is OK somewhere in that time frame", the answer depends entirely on what you mean by "OK". Do I advocate it? No. I have made that clear from the start. Do I think that it is morally wrong? No. I don't believe that morals exist outside of being a subjective human construct.

And I for one have told you what I believe. I have done it again just above. If you think that this has just been an issue of "do we or do we not want to start killing babies?" then you have missed the point, or my point at least.

Asking whether or not I am arguing about something I believe in or just for the sake of the principle of discussion completely misses the point. The principle of discussion IS what I believe in and I have made that very clear.

I have been arguing the whole time against the position of saying "killing something outside of the womb is innately wrong, while killing a four-month-old foetus or a pig is perfectly acceptable". Socially, yes. Morally, no. Nobody has provided me an adequate means for differentiation, bar keeping it all in the womb for social reasons - a position with which I agree.

Please AfraidToDie, do tell me, what "bullshit"?

13. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #154111 by Dune010 on April 2, 2008 at 4:57 pm

There are certain things that are no where near the grey fuzzy area that need to be defined and discussed.

I'm sorry, but I do not agree. I think it is important that we understand why some things are undesirable. For me, simply saying that something is wrong and that's that is not good enough. That kind of attitude prevents us from having useful discussions when it is really necessary. Like you, I have no desire for the killing of humans to be made legal. However, I cannot agree with this:

Certain things are wrong no matter how you look at it in todays society.

If something is wrong, then it should be possible to say WHY it is wrong. That is all I ask. If absolute morals are not the answer, then we need to consider what it is that makes one thing acceptable and another unacceptable.


I don't think it makes much difference whether we are discussing abortion, cannibalism, necrophilia or anything else for that matter. The point is that, as a rule, it is best to understand things. I don't like religious faith for that very reason. Questioning and understanding help us to realise when we are wrong in our assumptions, and while we may not be wrong about any of the above issues, that doesn't mean that we should take it for granted that it will always be so.

As I have said, many people will say what you have said about abortion or stem cell research - they will say that it does not need to be discussed. This sort of thing needs to be avoided. The principle here is very important.

14. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #154090 by Dune010 on April 2, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Why are you expecting to see a clear line ?

I'm not. I was saying that it would require a clear line for us to say that killing the child at one point is acceptable, but at another reprehensible.

Morality is a human construct which we layer over the top of the world and in this case it is difficult. You are always going to have a conflict between the mothers right to control what is happening to her body and the foetuses right to a life. When the foetus is a few cells I think it is sensible to resolve this in the mother's favour and a few days before full term it is similarly clear that the decision goes in the babies favour if the mother's life is not at risk in some way. In the middle it is more difficult.

I mostly agree. However, I have to ask: why is it clear that the decision ought to go "in the baby's favour" when it is a few days before full term? This is essentially the issue which we have been debating, not one of the mother's rights as opposed to that of the child. Is there something in particular that the child has gained by that point that sets it apart from its state a month beforehand, or two or three or four months? That is why I asked for a clear line. You say it is more difficult in the middle. Why? I agree that it is difficult, by why is it less difficult at the end?

I don't see the relevance of pigs. Except for Babe there is no sign of pigs having the kind of self awareness a human has.

So you think that self-awareness is the crucial factor? Well, first you would have to demonstrate for me that, in terms of this criterion, the new-born human infant actually surpasses the pig. I'm willing to accept that this may be the case, but I'm not going to assume. Then I think you have to justify why self-awareness is the important distinguishing factor. I don't know that it is. That is why I brought up pain - I was suggesting a possible criterion for distinguishing between that which we can acceptably kill, and that which we cannot. You are right to suggest that painless methods of killing would nullify this factor. Personally, I don't think pain or self-awareness provide a suitable guide. As I have said before, I see no reason to consider the killing of infants or foetuses morally wrong at one point, but acceptable at another. To my mind it is a social issue.

15. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153908 by Dune010 on April 2, 2008 at 7:46 am

Dune010,
I thought the article was relevant to this part of your post:

I see no reason to believe without evidence that there is something innately different between a 4 month old foetus, a 1 day old child and an adult pig. If someone can provided me with good scientific evidence that there is a line that can be drawn based on levels of cognition or intelligence then I would be interest to hear of it.

Right, well the article flirts with the issue, but it seems to take it for granted that upon achieving full humanity the child should not be killed. This may be because the issue presented by Shermer is one of murder - a legal term.

The article explains some of the developmental stages, but there does not appear to be a clear line after which the child is immediately and recognisably different. Furthermore, it doesn't address the issue in comparison to the killing of other animals.

The article says: "not until seven months does the fetus develop sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in full-term newborns".

If we could comfortably draw a line at seven months it would have to be shown that this level of neocortical complexity provides reason not to kill the child. I don't think that there is any stage after which we can say that it is self-evidently wrong to kill the child, but before which it is acceptable.

Like I said before, something to the effect of "foetuses can feel pain only after x months" would provide a useful guide, but we know that pigs feel pain and we still kill them. I maintain that it is essentially a social issue, although I would not object to setting the abortion time limit to a point before some threshold in the development of the nervous system, if such a thing were to exist. I would rather pigs didn't suffer as well.

16. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153814 by Dune010 on April 2, 2008 at 5:52 am

I won't debate the idea of killing babies outside of the womb. I'm sorry, but that's absolutely disgusting.

What is disgusting? Killing babies outside of the womb, or discussing it? The former certainly is "disgusting", or at least I believe that the vast majority of people would be disgusted by it. The discussion of such a subject may also disgust you, either through simply having to think about such an act, or because you are disgusted that people do not avoid the entire issue.

If you actually consider that to be acceptable, then you need some serious help.

If you are referring to the killing of babies, then I do not consider it acceptable. I have already said so. However, if you are referring to discussing the grounds upon which we must decide whether or not such an act is acceptable, then I must disagree. Such discussion is necessary to understand the issue. Were I a Christian I might equally argue that I though that the issue of abortion was beyond reasonable discussion. You might argue (and quite rightly in my opinion) that there are good reasons for abortion to be legal, and I might tell you that even suggesting such a thing is disgusting and that you needed help.

The same thing applies to many different issues. The Pope believes that embryonic stem cell research "shatters human dignity". He might say that it disgusts him. We could argue all we like about the potential benefits of such research, the lack of evidence for the soul, the inability of a blastocyst to feel pain, and he might just tell us that the issue was not up for discussion. I for one believe that the Pope's moral presuppositions should not stifle debate about stem cell research and I hope that you agree.

However, there is a difference here. While the hypothetical Christian would disagree with you or I about abortion (I'm assuming here), I essentially agree that killing infants should be illegal. But I am always open to being proved wrong (how nice would it be if theists subscribed to such a position?) and consequently I wish to understand the issue, as I do other issues of morality, rather than rely on theistic absolute morality.

If you can't distinguish between humans and pigs, then you need to re-evaluate your level of common sense.

If I were to take this comment literally then I would have to agree. Failure to notice the difference between a human infant and a pig would suggest some deficiency in one's mental faculties (although I suspect that your "common sense" is similar to your "morality"). However, you are implying that the difference between killing a pig and a human infant is obvious. I would agree that the social implications are clearly different, as I have already said, but this is not the same as saying that one is more deserving of life than another.

If you were to provide me with evidence that babies feel pain but pigs don't then it would be a different matter entirely. Perhaps the cognitive function of a baby is so far in advance of a pig that the former can contemplate its own death while the latter would be blissfully ignorant. I don't know, but I doubt it.

Either way, you are welcome to refuse to discuss this issue if it disgusts you. I have no wish to subject you to that. However, if you want to criticise me for my conclusions about this issue, then please provide an opposing argument, I would be glad to read it. If you want to criticise me for daring to even consider the issue then I would describe that as anti-intellectual.


SPS, I have read the article. Was there anything in particular that you thought was noteworthy?

17. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153766 by Dune010 on April 2, 2008 at 2:59 am

Oh dear.

theantitheist, first you accuse SweatyPalm Sunday of being unfit for this debate and then you say this:

If you really can't see why Infanticide is morally and legally wrong then it's fair to say it's out of your league, in the same way that i have trouble understanding Atomic logic puts it out of my leaugue.

Morally and legally wrong?

First, I would ask you to define morality. I'm going to assume that you do not accept absolute morality in the same way as the theists do, but if you do then I would like to know what you use as a basis for it.

If morality is not absolute, then it is well worth considering these issues. This is aimed at all of you who have been dismissive of this discussion, such as you, FightingFalcon. Why should we just assume that what we have grown to accept as socialy (or "morally") unacceptable is so? Is this much different from those who just accept the teachings of the Bible of the Qur'an? It is important to question our assumptions. Most of us are happy to live in a world where foetuses are aborted and pigs are killed for food. Tell me, why is killing babies worse? As I have said, I consider the necessary distinction to be a social issue. But to simply dismiss this all as abhorrent or absurd is, to my mind, quite childish.

As for "legally wrong" theantitheist, what does that even mean? The law is based on practicality and often a variety of "moral" judgements. If nobody attempts to justify moral positions, then how can we trust the law as a justification? If you want to argue that infanticide is a practical error then I agree.

theantitheist, you say that this issue is out of SweatyPalmSunday's league. How can you know this unless it is within your league? If you claim to know that it is out of his league but do not think that you are worthy either then I would suggest that you are in no position to judge the situation. If you do think that you are worthy of addressing the issue then please tell me why killing babies is "morally" wrong, while killing certain other animals is not. If you believe all killing to be "morally" wrong then I would still appreciate a justification for this belief.


Here is what I think of the issue:

I believe that killing, amongst other "moral" issues, is reprehensible because of society. A society in which the right to kill is valued above the right not to be killed would certainly fail. As evolutionary creatures, we want to survive, so cooperation is beneficial. This cooperation needn't extend to other animals, unless they are a sufficient threat and can be bargained with. Once a child has been born it is an independent human being (biologically speaking). To allow the killing of children would make the cut-off line hard to place and would endanger the cooperation that protects adults. I see no reason to believe without evidence that there is something innately different between a 4 month old foetus, a 1 day old child and an adult pig. If someone can provided me with good scientific evidence that there is a line that can be drawn based on levels of cognition or intelligence then I would be interest to hear of it.

18. Faith healing church parents charged over toddler's death

Comment #153610 by Dune010 on April 1, 2008 at 4:39 pm

What about a comparison with other animals?

Why is it okay to kill other animals (if indeed it is)? Usually the reasons cited are necessity and their lesser intelligence.

So, if it could be demonstrated that a baby of a certain age was no more intelligent than a pig, would it be acceptable to kill the baby?

I think this is a social issue. People have touched upon the issue of where we draw the line. For other animals, this is made relatively easy for us by the existence of different species. For the developing child there is no comparable cut-off point of which I am aware. Birth provides a convenient substitute. Some of you have commented on the idea of aborting a child one day before birth. If this is abhorrent, is it because we know that by that stage a child has surpassed pigs in some way?

I for one do not know how to judge these things. I do not know what would make a suitable criterion for judging whether a particular creature should be protected. However, I think the socially implications are relatively clear. If we extend the time in which the parent can kill the child until after birth, then the issue of where we ought to draw the line wields greater implications for society.

19. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150282 by Dune010 on March 26, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Happy Birthday Richard Dawkins.

When I first saw your "The Root of All Evil" documentary it was a great comfort to know that there was someone publicly standing up for what I believed in. I am very grateful.

Since then, one thing above all else has stood out for me: a quote from The God Delusion about how bleak our lives must be without religious purpose. As Dr Watson said to you, the pleasure of a good lunch (and of course many things besides) is well worth living for. The thought of this anecdote often makes me smile.

Best wishes.

I hope you had a good lunch.

20. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148747 by Dune010 on March 23, 2008 at 7:22 pm

I personally think that the tone of this article is justified. What these people are doing, and have done, deserves ridicule. However, that does not necessarily make it the best thing to do. I won't pretend that I know what the most profitable course of action is, but I would rather not see those who consider ridicule a poor method being attacked for their concern. I certainly don't think that they need to "wise up". Does a failure to ridicule Mathis, Stein and company really give them unnecessary credit?

From a purely aesthetic point of view, I would rather read an article that avoids taking shots at these people. I think they are stupid too, but I would much prefer to see Richard demonstrating composure. And besides, perhaps it is by investing so much attention on this PR blunder that we give them too much credit.

Either way, I don't think I could blame Richard for taking this line. I can certainly empathise with the emotions involved. These people are ridiculous, but perhaps we could be magnanimous.

21. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139722 by Dune010 on March 6, 2008 at 12:37 pm

The phrase "Lords Approve Abolition of Blasphemy" is quite misleading. Doesn't the lack of the word "Law" on the end completely change the meaning?

22. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134629 by Dune010 on February 28, 2008 at 3:58 am

To add one vocabulary issue to your list (in the words of Eddie Izzard): Herbs is not pronounced 'erbs. Cause it has got a f*cking 'h' in it.

Does that mean that leisure has to be pronounced lie-zur-eye-ay?

23. Are they running for President or Pastor-in-Chief?

Comment #134590 by Dune010 on February 28, 2008 at 2:58 am

stronger connections with Russia

Ha. Good luck with that.

Politicians playing politicians' games.
So, what's new?
I LOVE AMERICA.
There - I've come out.

Why?
As far as countries go, I don't "love" anywhere. Plenty of places are okay, with the USA probably at the lower end of that list, owing to its religiosity. Britain is nice, but there is plenty wrong with it. You wouldn't find me loving a woman of similar quality: unhealthy, poorly educated, institutionally Christian... I don't know, littered?

I love my university, but that's only because it's a very pretty oasis of academia. I really don't understand patriotism.

24. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133963 by Dune010 on February 27, 2008 at 4:20 am

I too must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed watching these tales.

I would be brilliant to see a television series based on The Ancestor's Tale. As much as I do enjoy watching Richard talk about religion and science in the context of opposing religion, I would prefer this to be balanced, if not out-weighed, by science alone. Richard quite rightly says that science is wonderful, and I hope that greater emphasis on this would silence those who insist that he is motivated purely by hatred of religion. And, of course, it would be great to watch.

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

Comment #132567 by Dune010 on February 25, 2008 at 1:40 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.

Is it our fault that the claims religions make are so ridiculous? I could so easily come up with a set of beliefs which are so far fetched that even what appeared to be evidence for its reality would be difficult to take at face value.

26. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131266 by Dune010 on February 22, 2008 at 6:39 am

Lagomorph [sic]: Actually, you are right, and I was wrong.

I wish more conversations would lead to something like this. Too many people are more concerned with winning than with accuracy.

27. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120265 by Dune010 on February 1, 2008 at 11:21 am

I should clarify:

The idea of "human" dignity implies something that is universal amongst our kind.

If there is any such universal concept of what should and should not be respected, then this probably boils down to evolution. So I would argue that issues such as the maintenance of health (stem cell research) and the production of offspring (artificial insemination) are prime candidates for our respect.

28. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120252 by Dune010 on February 1, 2008 at 11:10 am

Steve Zara

I am not sure. But I know that being the toys of some superbeing doesn't fit the definition for me.

I would agree. If dignity is the state of being worthy of respect, then I would say that a belief in God is without dignity. Of course, the Pope clearly respects belief in God. If this is a good definition of dignity, then I would argue that the concept of a particular action or belief being an affront to dignity is meaningless. All the Pope has said is "I do not like stem cell research, artificial insemination and human cloning".

29. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120202 by Dune010 on February 1, 2008 at 10:31 am

What is "human dignity"?

30. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115897 by Dune010 on January 25, 2008 at 2:17 am

I have seen this before!!

I found it on GodTube a couple of months ago. The thing that really annoyed me was that the Star Wars style text near the beginning goes too quickly for the voice over.

What's more, this kid dies in a drink driving accident and they focus on some stupid letter??

Talk about priorities.

31. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114630 by Dune010 on January 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #114573 by dlitt on January 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm

"No need to maintain a level of intellectual snobbery - variety is good. Plenty of room here for all."

But variety in quality?

32. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112257 by Dune010 on January 16, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Re: Comment #111913 by YssiBoo

Woden is the name of the version of Odin worshiped in Britain. And the version of Thor worshiped here was called Thunor.

Wednesday is named after Woden, Thursday after Thunor, Friday after Fregg, and Tuesday after Tiw.

Many of these names are also found in place-names across England and Wales.

Try not to correct people if you don't know your stuff. :P


P.S. Huckabee scares me too.