1. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181018 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 16, 2008 at 9:52 am

Would the world be better without Religion?
Define Religion
OED:
religion

• noun
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Without 1 and 2 yes. Without 3 no.

At the end the woman says: "Self-transcendance"

Hitchens: "I do like his point that if you want to see something that's marvelous and awe inspiring, take a look through the Hubble telescope, once you have, you can't really be impressed by the 'burning bush'."

2. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180496 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 15, 2008 at 5:40 am

I think that framing is pandering, and soon we'll end up like that movie "Idiocracy" where all is superficiality, and ideologies and facts are both reduced to mere catch-phrases.

In what way is that not a perfect description of the state of affairs at present?

3. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #180495 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 15, 2008 at 5:32 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7401704.stm

West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have apologised for accusing the makers of a Channel 4 documentary of distortion.

The apology and the promise of £100,000 were made at the High Court on Thursday.

It follows comments made about a Dispatches programme, Undercover Mosque, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism in the West Midlands.

The police statement said the force was wrong to make the allegations.

A press release issued by the police and the CPS in August 2007 claimed the Dispatches programme, broadcast in January of that year, misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing.

One preacher was shown saying a homosexual should be thrown off a mountain, another that women were born deficient.

Police also reported Channel 4 to television watchdog Ofcom for "heavily editing" the words of Islamic imams.

But in November, Ofcom rejected the police and CPS claims, and Channel 4 said it was going to sue the CPS and police for libel.

4. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180144 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 14, 2008 at 9:14 am

Bonzai
These extremely intelligent people almost always use the argument from awe. This is not only insulting to someone who also experiences profound awe but doesn't have the audacity or unbelievable arrogance to suggest the universe was created so I could experience it, but it must also be ultimately dishonest. You have to ignore the reams and reams of cruelty, God-made ineptitude and wanton disregard for humanity and all other species, and the huge incomprehensible magnitude of the universe. The argument from awe is specious and ridiculously selective; As I have said before and will continue to say ultimately dishonest.

I usually cite in support of this an article by Jane Goodall , which I will quote again, because it still astounds me.

When I was a child, born into a Christian family, I accepted the reality of an unseen God without question. And now that I have lived almost three quarters of a century I still believe in a great spiritual power. I have described elsewhere the experience I had when I first visited Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. When, as I gazed at the great rose window, glowing in the morning sun, the air was suddenly filled with the glorious sound of an organ playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. It filled me with joy, brought tears to my eyes. How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time "the cathedral, the collective faith of those who had prayed and worshiped within, the genius of Bach, the emergence of a conscious mind that could, as mine did then, question the purpose of life on Earth. Was all the wonder and beauty simply the result of purposeless gyrations of bits of cosmic dust at the beginning of time? If not, then there must be some extra-cosmic power, the creator of the big bang. A purpose in the universe. Perhaps, one day, that purpose will be revealed.

"How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time". The whole universe was created so she could have that "moment". If that is not up for the most arrogant statement possible by a human being, then I don't know what is.

5. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179510 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 13, 2008 at 10:55 am

Office Space

Love that film

6. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #179463 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 13, 2008 at 9:37 am

Sickofgod
Sadaam Hussein? Saudi Arabia etc ...

7. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179115 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Quine
Thanks that did cheer me up.

8. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179108 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 3:47 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad, why is it such a hard decision? Why is it hard to decide to do the right thing?

Begging the question

i think I'll take your lead and get the answer from the Bible. Let's just have a flick through here.
In the Beginning ...
Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men ...
Incest ...
Lot gives his daughters over to be raped ...
Lot shags his daughters and they have his children ...
God threatens Genocide (he loves doing that but actually carrying them out whoa thats good killing)...

WHOA this is just getting dirty now, polgmamy incest, murder everywhere im going to skip a bit

Ah here we are

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

So what a baby has to be one month old to count hang on that can't be right

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

There it is again.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14
God kills newborns, nice!

Wow I missed something buried in all the incest and murder and torture

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24


There are many more but I'm getting bored and quite sick. God really is a nasty prick.

9. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179059 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Will parents also be getting into trouble for teaching their kids about the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of all human life from conception?

Can you please read your Bible. Are you even a Christian? I am starting to wonder.

10. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179056 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 1:10 pm

the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn children, even right up to birth, for no other reason than that the woman's right not to have the child outweighs the child's right to be born.

One of the hardest moral decisions out there. However everyone agrees people should be allowed to scratch there nose, and that infanticide is wrong. We know the answer lies somewhere in between. The question is not answered by Christianity.

Lets look at the bible for the answer.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Oh shit!

11. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179020 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Artful_Dodger

But do you really believe that parents who sincerely transmit their faith in God to their kids, striving to embody and exemplify God's love and goodness towards them and towards other people (friends, guests in their home etc.) are guilty of indoctrination and mental torture? Naturally we hope that our children will embrace our beliefs. But (in my experience) there is not and cannot be any kind of manipulation or emotional pressure. I'm not denying that it happens in some cases, but it contradicts the whole thrust of Scripture, which is respectful of the will of every human being to orient his or her life towards God or away from Him. When we choose the latter we are choosing our own destiny. God does not force a relationship with Him on anyone, either in this life or beyond.

I like your God he sounds nice. Can you just do one thing for me? Can you re-read the bible and try to say that again with a straight face.

Thanks

12. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178977 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:31 am

MPhil
What do you think about Plato's world of ideal forms. I think we both agree about Beauty and Morality but what about Mathematical?

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178970 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

It has to be what else could it be?

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #178966 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:20 am

Speaking of the end times I came across this today
http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/

2008 - God's Final Witness

From now until the latter part of 2008, many prophecies are going to begin to be fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording. Those thunders are revealed in this book, as well as detailed accounts of the final three and one-half years of man's self-rule on earth, which are recorded in the account of the Seventh Seal of Revelation.

Some of these prophecies concern the demise of the United States over the next year, which will be followed by man's final world war. This last war will be the result of clashing religions and the governments they sway. Billions will die! This time will far exceed even the very worst times in all human history.

As these events unfold, the world will increasingly become aware of the authenticity of the words in this book and realize that Ronald Weinland has been sent by God as His end-time prophet.

This book is primarily directed to the people of the three major religions of the world (Islam, Judaism and Christianity), whose roots are in the God of Abraham. Ronald Weinland has been sent to all three.

15. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178963 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 10:16 am

scooternyc
How do you then explain Terri's Law and Jeb Bush. Is that not an infringement on those rights? Genuine question.

16. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178889 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 7:48 am

http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/

2008 - God's Final Witness

From now until the latter part of 2008, many prophecies are going to begin to be fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording. Those thunders are revealed in this book, as well as detailed accounts of the final three and one-half years of man's self-rule on earth, which are recorded in the account of the Seventh Seal of Revelation.

Some of these prophecies concern the demise of the United States over the next year, which will be followed by man's final world war. This last war will be the result of clashing religions and the governments they sway. Billions will die! This time will far exceed even the very worst times in all human history.

As these events unfold, the world will increasingly become aware of the authenticity of the words in this book and realize that Ronald Weinland has been sent by God as His end-time prophet.

This book is primarily directed to the people of the three major religions of the world (Islam, Judaism and Christianity), whose roots are in the God of Abraham. Ronald Weinland has been sent to all three.

17. Discussion on PZ Myers being expelled from Expelled

Comment #178859 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 12, 2008 at 6:56 am

Any idea when the full discussion will be up

Thanks

EDIT: just spotted the comment from Josh. A month or two dated 25th March.

18. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177536 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 9, 2008 at 8:58 am

If anyone is interested

I've uploaded Richard Dawkin's interview followed by the Cardinals interview at this link.

http://www.uploading.com/files/GCGDCZXI/dawkinsinterviewtodayshowradio4.mp3.html

Richard was brilliant, he showed up Humphrey's hyprocrisy.

I've also sent this to design@richarddawkins.net so hopefully it will be up on here aswell.

19. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177531 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 9, 2008 at 8:49 am

I've uploaded Richard Dawkin's Radio 4 interview followed by the Cardinals interview at this link.

http://www.uploading.com/files/GCGDCZXI/dawkinsinterviewtodayshowradio4.mp3.html

Richard was brilliant, he showed up Humphrey's hyprocrisy.

20. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176586 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm

ligfietser
Here's the link translated. It seems intelligible.

http://www.google.com/translate?u=http://www.volkskrant.nl/multimedia/article518532.ece/Moslimomroep_overweegt_uitzenden_film_Wilders&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=nl&tl=en

21. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176579 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 7, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Sorry to stir the pot again but Christopher Hitchens researched a couple of common accusations against Chomsky in this article

The gravamen of the bill against Noam Chomsky is this. That, first, he did euphemize and minimize the horrors of the Khmer Rouge. That, second, he did "endorse" or otherwise recommend a pamphlet or paper that sought to prove the Nazi Holocaust a fiction. That, third, he is an enemy of the Jewish state and a friend to footpads and terrorists of every stripe.

Here is a couple of relevant quotes about the Faurisson Affair:

In the early stages of this process, Chomsky received a request, from his friend Serge Thion, that he add his name to a petition upholding Faurisson's right to free expression. This, on standard First Amendment grounds and in company with many others, he did. The resulting uproar, in which he was accused of defending Faurisson's theses, led to another request from Thion. Would Chomsky write a statement asserting the right to free speech even in the case of the most loathsome extremist? To this he also assented, pointing out that it was precisely such cases that tested the adherence of a society to such principles and adding in a covering letter that Thion could make what use of it he wished. At this stage, only the conservative Alfred Grosser among French intellectuals had been prepared to say that Faurisson's suspension by the University of Lyons set a bad example of academic courage and independence. Chomsky's pedantic recitation of Voltairean principles would probably have aroused no comment at all had Thion not taker rather promiscuous advantage of the permission to use it as he wished. Without notification to Chomsky, he added the little essay as an avis to Faurisson's pretrial Memiore en defense.

...
Chomsky can be faulted here on three grounds only. First, for giving a power of attorney to Serge Thion, who seems rather a protean and quicksilvery fellow. Second, for once unguardedly describing Faurisson as "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal." Admittedly, this came in the context of an assertion that Faurisson's opinions were a closed book to him; still, all the more reason not to speculate. The whole point is that Faurisson's opinions are not the point. Third, for attempting at the last minute, when he discovered too late that he was being bound into the same volume as a work he had not read, to have his commentary excised. He writes of this that "in the climate of hysteria among Paris intellectuals it would be impossible to distinguish defense of the man's right to express his views from endorsement of these views." Maybe. But Voltairean precepts involve precisely the running of that risk.

And if I could add: Thanks for your kind words Al I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions.

Has Chomsky been wrong, of course, and his constant twisting of anything into a chance to retell a tail of American Imperial barbarism becomes nauseating. I find I have to put his books down and read something else for a while.

22. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #176471 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Holocaust denial anti-semitism

Sorry to butt in but it is obviously not automatically anti-semitism to deny the Holocaust, that's surely easy to see. Chomsky's own example is a bit stupid, he says something like if you told a child, or someone ignorant of the holocaust, what happened and he denied it, saying humans are not capable of such depravity, he wouldn't be anti-semitic. There are however many other plausible denials that wouldn't be anti-semitic in nature.

23. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175507 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 5, 2008 at 2:17 pm

*Eats a handful of blue pills*

That is the perfect analogy.

Morpheus:
You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Remember, all I am offering is the truth, nothing more.

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174884 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:53 pm

This is a paradox the theists don't seem to realize.

According to you arguing logic with a believer is a futile exercise. Essentially belief in God is emotional and therefore genetically determined. I think that argument has some truth to it actually.

25. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174880 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:42 pm

But the dials are something rather than nothing, no?

I see what you mean.

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174877 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:36 pm

I don't think they are the same

The argument from order is that the universe seems to have the dials set just right for us to appear. This would mean if the dials were not set correctly then there would be either be no us, or no universe, so they regress to the same thing.

27. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174873 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm

The Vatican has joined forces with Shiite Muslims.

No doubt strengthened by their mutual hatred of the Jews.

28. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174865 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Tetaronis

I have no reason to fear what atheism does to, say, people like me. I'm about the same person I was when I believed in Jesus, in terms of obeying the law and so on.

You've answered your own question.

29. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174862 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Actually belief in god is the misappropriation of agency. The personification of nature. The conceit of awe. It's a human fallibility.

30. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174857 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:01 pm

I think that is because Paley was born long after Newton, Laplace etc. He could no longer point to the stars and argued that was evidence for God.

People do in a round about way. There is as far as I can see only two reasons to be religious. That is the argument from awe and the argument from order, the argument from design is obsolete althought order and design are often confalted.

The argument from awe is perhaps the single greatest conceit a human being can possibly have.

The argument from order, essentially why there is something rather than nothing which relates essentially regresses to the first cause argument, is, personally, not much evidence for god but the religious minded use it so I take it is an argument.

31. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174855 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm

I don't know many people who receive a good education in High School. I think ultimately everyone is a autodidact.

32. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174854 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm

The frivolous reproting of science by the media leads to a "what now" responce by average joe.

In Britain the Daily Mail's insidious campaign to discredit science (one suspects to further a Christian agenda) by selecting and quoting unashamedly out of context everything which has a link to causing cancer. And all you get is, next there going to tell us breathing is bad for you. It is an insidious campaign to generate mistrust of science. And it's incredibly effective.

33. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174851 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm

will young

If a student's religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student's incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory."

What is defined as religion; Can I just make my own up? And of course this means teachers will have to know for every single question what particular 'religious' viewpoints there are on the matter. You said this expects to get passed, surely that can't be true?

34. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174849 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:42 pm

This is America where we look down at propaganda.

My computer will never be the same I just sprayed my tea all over the screen.

35. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174846 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm

It takes one stupid journalist to spoil an otherwise excellent article.

The thing is if he had answered differently that would have been the lead. Don't you just hate our sound bite , superficial culture.

36. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174843 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Maybe it is just me, I don't think the apparent design of creatures is any stronger an argument for God than the order and harmony exhibited by celestial bodies. Indeed the ancients saw God in the stars, not in the chicken or the pig. Newton, Laplace, etc had shown that you don't need God to explain the stars. I think this site sometimes do demonstrate some bias in favour of biology over other sciences.

Yes I agree my atheism came from studying physics (although I never could actually bring myself to believe the nonsense anyway), and understanding basic things such as probability and logical fallacies etc. Comparative religion and the basic questions every child asks, Why are there so many religions? etc

Moreover, the belief in God is ultimately emotional rather than logical.

By that logic it is pointless debating the question.

37. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173337 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I have just recieved this debate about the Dennett v Winston debate

Hello,

Thank you all for your interest in the podcast of our final rethink debate on Science, Religion and Reason between Professor Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston. The response has been overwhelming and we were very much looking forward to launching our first podcast and taking Agora into the world of Web 2.0.

However, our efforts have been beset with problems, including illness amongst our staff and equipment failure, and so I regret to inform you that we have been unable to put together a full podcast of the debate.

I'm really sorry about this �" I know how keen many of you were to see how the debate panned out. There is some good news, however, in that the audio recording of Professor Dennett's contributions to the debate was successful. The recording has been incorporated into The Guardian's weekly science podcast, which can be accessed here.

Professor Dennett also appeared on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' on 21 April to discuss the issues raised in the debate with Andrew Marr. You can hear the programme in full here.

Unfortunately a faulty microphone prevented any of Lord Winston's remarks from being recorded, but you can listen to his appearance on 'Start the Week' in November 2005 through the BBC website, here. In this recording, he discusses his views on Science and Religion following the release of his book and TV series 'The Story of God'.

I hope these other recordings will be some compensation. Sincere apologies again, it is a great disappointment to us that this hasn't worked out. Given the string of problems, we have felt at times like victims of divine intervention!

We plan to run another event on this theme later in the year and we are keen to hear your thoughts about what we could organise. If you have any ideas or suggestions, then please email us. Thank you for your interest and support.



Best wishes,



Tom Bower

Here is the link to Dennett's parts
Dennett's parts

38. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173336 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I have just recieved this debate about the Dennett v Winston debate

Hello,

Thank you all for your interest in the podcast of our final rethink debate on Science, Religion and Reason between Professor Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston. The response has been overwhelming and we were very much looking forward to launching our first podcast and taking Agora into the world of Web 2.0.

However, our efforts have been beset with problems, including illness amongst our staff and equipment failure, and so I regret to inform you that we have been unable to put together a full podcast of the debate.

I'm really sorry about this �" I know how keen many of you were to see how the debate panned out. There is some good news, however, in that the audio recording of Professor Dennett's contributions to the debate was successful. The recording has been incorporated into The Guardian's weekly science podcast, which can be accessed here.

Professor Dennett also appeared on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' on 21 April to discuss the issues raised in the debate with Andrew Marr. You can hear the programme in full here.

Unfortunately a faulty microphone prevented any of Lord Winston's remarks from being recorded, but you can listen to his appearance on 'Start the Week' in November 2005 through the BBC website, here. In this recording, he discusses his views on Science and Religion following the release of his book and TV series 'The Story of God'.

I hope these other recordings will be some compensation. Sincere apologies again, it is a great disappointment to us that this hasn't worked out. Given the string of problems, we have felt at times like victims of divine intervention!

We plan to run another event on this theme later in the year and we are keen to hear your thoughts about what we could organise. If you have any ideas or suggestions, then please email us. Thank you for your interest and support.



Best wishes,



Tom Bower

Here is the link to Dennett's parts
Dennett's parts

39. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #173334 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I have just recieved this debate about the Dennett v Winston debate

Hello,

Thank you all for your interest in the podcast of our final rethink debate on Science, Religion and Reason between Professor Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston. The response has been overwhelming and we were very much looking forward to launching our first podcast and taking Agora into the world of Web 2.0.

However, our efforts have been beset with problems, including illness amongst our staff and equipment failure, and so I regret to inform you that we have been unable to put together a full podcast of the debate.

I'm really sorry about this �" I know how keen many of you were to see how the debate panned out. There is some good news, however, in that the audio recording of Professor Dennett's contributions to the debate was successful. The recording has been incorporated into The Guardian's weekly science podcast, which can be accessed here.

Professor Dennett also appeared on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' on 21 April to discuss the issues raised in the debate with Andrew Marr. You can hear the programme in full here.

Unfortunately a faulty microphone prevented any of Lord Winston's remarks from being recorded, but you can listen to his appearance on 'Start the Week' in November 2005 through the BBC website, here. In this recording, he discusses his views on Science and Religion following the release of his book and TV series 'The Story of God'.

I hope these other recordings will be some compensation. Sincere apologies again, it is a great disappointment to us that this hasn't worked out. Given the string of problems, we have felt at times like victims of divine intervention!

We plan to run another event on this theme later in the year and we are keen to hear your thoughts about what we could organise. If you have any ideas or suggestions, then please email us. Thank you for your interest and support.



Best wishes,



Tom Bower

Here is the link to Dennett's parts
Dennett's parts

40. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173325 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I placed an mp3 of this without advertisements on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/111602137/Richard-Dawkins_Bill-Good-Show.mp3

sane1 Thank you that rapidshare link works perfectly, I couldn't get the link to work either.

41. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170451 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm

unacceptable rather than just against faith period. The vast majority of believers in any religion don't use it as an excuse to kill someone.

The first argument is that it is irrational. That the surrender of the mind also brings about dangerous side-effects, actually direct-effects, makes it urgent.

42. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170408 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Without believing there is some objective morality there is no reason not to oppress/harm others when it serves your interest both long term and short term.

I don't see how that follows. You do it because it feels right. Notice that FEELS right. That comes from your evolutionary past in that performing those kinds of actions helped your ancestors survive.

43. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170405 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm

I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. Regardless of my views on God

So how do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be?

44. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170396 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:01 pm

why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?

Why do you? If you do.

45. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170391 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm

I can see what he's saying. How can you justify doing something against your self-interest, i.e something that would put you at risk of loss, if there is no reason to do so logically or rationally if and this is a big if, your premise is to increase you self-wealth as it were.

Well I can give you my reason. Because I care what happens to others. Others suffering cuts like a knife. Human solidarity, basically that elementary moral principle the golden rule, which is a fairly good rule of thumb.

46. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170387 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:54 pm

riandouglas Socrates gotta love the guy.

47. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170382 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:44 pm

I'm just arguing what is the rational action to take if you eliminate morality.

Could you clarify that statement, again: How do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be?
For example I assume you believe you get your morality from the bible. That is easily shown to be false but just a favourite quote of mine

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10."

48. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170374 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I don't mean this as a way to justify anything other than to say that to avoid conclusions that slavery, eugenics, involuntary euthanasia, are logical without appealing to some set of morality that is neither rational or logical. A kind of morality that, dare i say it, is faith based.

Morality is what has made it possible for the human species to survive. It seems crude but its a survival strategy. We all share the same morality broadly speaking.

I mean do you really think that before Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 commandments (which by the way don't deal with 'morality' very much) everyone thought murder and theft were ok? No they wouldnt have survived if they were seen as ok.

Can you tell me how you morality is faith based?

49. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170368 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm

smellhound

but there certainly is a darwinian justification for removing the weak from the herd so each individual in the herd doesnt have to waste its time caring for it.

The Theory of Natural selection is amoral. It doesn't justify anything it simply explains the natural order we see around us.

Now you seem to have a misguided view on the theory of natural selection. It merely says those that survive survive.

How do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be? I think you should call Darwinism the Theory of Natural Selection. It gets rid of the idea that its somehow a set of prescriptions on how to live.

50. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170363 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm

In case you missed it I posted a response to you Bonzai in post 156.