Comments by Electric Monk
1. God's cure for gays lost in sin
Comment #147055 by Electric Monk on March 19, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Pathfinder:
"Homosexuality is abnormal, it rules out procreation"
- not anymore it doesn't - surely that means that (under your own definition) that it's no longer a sin?
Comment #143281 by Electric Monk on March 13, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Ohhh yum... some new sins to commit! - the old ones were more fun though (i really LIKE my neighbour's ass)
- Looks like the Pope's going to hell then - his ban on condoms for Catholics is probably the single action that is most likely to result in huge numbers of people living in extreme poverty ever made by any person anywhere.
3. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?
Comment #141612 by Electric Monk on March 10, 2008 at 9:35 pm
"You offend God ... [by] carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments..."
They only have to be morally *debatable?* - Anything is debatable!
"Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included ... "the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few".
For instance the Vatican?
"He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of women" :
Ok... that is just too stupid for words - The CATHOLIC church DEFENDING the rights of women by banning abortions! - wow
4. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says
Comment #131028 by Electric Monk on February 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm
"It was Europeans who visited their 'world wars' twice upon the rest of the world -- two devastating global conflicts with no remote parallels in Islamic history."
One of the main protagonists in WWI was the Ottoman Empire. So this statement is pretty stupid. Although admittedly they didn't join in for religious reasons. But then, none of the other powers involved joined in because of their atheism (in fact none except france were, in theory, entirely secular anyway - they were monarchies supported by absurd 'divine right' dogma). - Russia pulled out when it became nominally atheist although this reigeme was eventually replaced by pseudo-religious Stalinist communism.
5. Sprinting down the evolutionary highway
Comment #122061 by Electric Monk on February 4, 2008 at 3:03 pm
"Another area of adaptation is likely to be the brain, as it responds to the pressures of pervasive technology. Brain size grew slowly over a long period of time, but an analysis of skulls by Hawks in a earlier study showed that size started diminishing about 10,000 years ago. Today, the brain is about an eighth of the size it once was. Evolution, Hawks theorized, was making it more compact and efficient"
Why more compact and efficient? - maybe we're just not as smart as our ancestors.
Yanco: "I'm skeptical about the conclusion that the Evolution of humans will go faster. Medicine and plentitude of food in modern countries must inevitably slow down the process, because most people will survive and reproduce even with serious health problems that would some 200 years ago prohibit them to even reach adulthood."
But that also means that negative consequences of otherwise beneficial genes will have less of an effect on fitness. Thus progress in combating these negative effects might allow genes to spread that might, in the 'natural state' have been on-balance, deleterious.
6. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights
Comment #119665 by Electric Monk on January 31, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The fact that this poor man is being killed for the sake of expressing an opinion is appaling - but so is the reactionary bloodlust being touted by agn and others on this site. I would never seek to have your views banned but i still consider them vile.
Comment #117833 by Electric Monk on January 29, 2008 at 6:54 pm
"Such obtuseness is shared by most liberals today, who merrily fuse opposition to capital punishment, support for abortion and doctor-assisted suicide, condemnation of racism, and a vaguely appreciative acquaintance with evolutionary theory—without the least sense of the impossible dilemmas entailed in these contradictory positions."
- Why do these people keep on insisting that morality either is, or should be derived from scientific fact. Evolutionary theory does not cantradict (indeed can not contradict) any of these poositions - "No aught from an is".
8. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?
Comment #117417 by Electric Monk on January 28, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Because it is religion that primarily advances dogma, faith etc. as a *positive* trait.
- Great article
9. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers
Comment #117408 by Electric Monk on January 28, 2008 at 6:46 pm
"He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God"
This has got to be close to the stupidest statement ever made about Dawkins!
10. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism
Comment #115211 by Electric Monk on January 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm
For a review of this crap go to:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/was_darwin_a_racist.php
11. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism
Comment #115199 by Electric Monk on January 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I have read The Origen of Species (havn't got to Descent yet though) and i can't remember any suggestion that Darwin proposed "the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples" (interesting how little he quotes) - I've just had a quick look for Darwin quotes from the web:
"This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."
"I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."
"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races."
(All from The Descent of Man)
In fact Darwin was well known for being opposed to slavery long before the mainstream churches - This article is a gross misrepresentation of Darwin's views!
12. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says
Comment #93338 by Electric Monk on December 2, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Here's my post:
The recent forced resignation of Chris Cormer, the Texas director of science curriculum over an e-mail which was taken to imply that she was criticising "intelligent design" will be seen around the world as confirmation of the lax scientific education available in Texas. It is entirely appropriate that a director of science curriculum should criticise intelligent design since the concept is deeply and fundamentally unscientific and has no basis either in fact or in theory.
13. In God we doubt
Comment #67246 by Electric Monk on September 3, 2007 at 12:40 am
I thought that the article was really... um.... nice kind of went out of his way not to offend anyone whilst (importantly) missing the point almost entirely.
We keep on hearing about liberal or progressive ministers who accuse fundies of misinterpreting the bible and i always want to ask them on what basis they are claiming that the fundies are misreading it? What are their criteria for assessing the way that the bible is to be interpreted? - The fact is that "faith" is a warm cuddly blanket that can be used to justify whatever belief you happen to hold (regardless of whether you are liberal or conservative etc.) without having to subject your beliefs to any kind of criticism or argument - you just *know* that they're right. I don't claim to be more intelligent than some theologians, but i do claim that i am more inclined to question my beliefs - not just my beliefs about the world and how it works (which are dependant on evidence) but also my beliefs about what is ethical and moral, than most religious people. A large part of the reason for this is (i think) that my belief system is not based on faith.
P.S. Please stop saying that god is love - it makes no sense! - unless you are prepared to say that *love* is intelligent. Is faith like love? Yes, in some ways, but people sometimes love things that hurt themselves, or others. Just slapping the metaphor of love on faith does not justify it, legitimise it or render it "good".
14. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion
Comment #67228 by Electric Monk on September 2, 2007 at 8:26 pm
"The seraph begins by politely nailing Dawkins's first sleight of hand which, as loads of people have now pointed out, dishonestly bundles all religious belief and practice into one crude bag that supposedly equals fanaticism."
No.. he doesn't equate them all with fanaticism, simply delusion - although the practice of raising "faith" onto a pedestal as something that is noble and good does enable fanatics to justify their fanaticism through an appeal to faith which, by definition is not open to question or debate.
"He overlooks the big theologians altogether in favour of some pretty low-key, unknown figures."
I've said it before... Who are these modern theologians? What proofs have they offered? Seriously, i'd like to know so that i can assess their arguments for myself. These reviewers always mention "modern theology" but NEVER give any further details. And since when are Aquinas, Kant and Paley "low-key, unknown figures"?
"distinguished between the fact of fact and the fact of fiction, a distinction that escapes Dawkins, who appears to have no concept of the "reality" of a thought, and only a very immature concept of the "reality" of a play, novel or poem. (As I used to ask students, is Hamlet real?)
I am (and I'm sure Dawkins would also) be happy to admit that the Bible is fiction - not very good fiction though, especially if used as a basis for morality and ethics. I'd tend to prefer Harry Potter or The Simpsons myself - much deeper, more relevant, more realistic and internally more consistent.
It gets so booring to keep reading reviews by people who have either not read the book or didn't understand it... sigh.
15. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet
Comment #66367 by Electric Monk on August 29, 2007 at 8:17 pm
... pity he didn't understand it.
"He brings out ancient proofs of the existence of God but leaves fresher and sharper arguments aside."
We keep on hearing about these more recent proofs but we're NEVER told what they are or who thought of them! - Maybe we should just have faith in their existence?
16. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles
Comment #65805 by Electric Monk on August 26, 2007 at 8:11 pm
"Because we believe that God created all this, when we are outdoors it is really a spiritual experience and we see how awesome it is. It makes being outdoors that much more meaningful," he said....
And then we blow the crap out of it.
17. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly
Comment #48428 by Electric Monk on June 7, 2007 at 11:24 pm
This is the best bit...
"I consider the atheist's desire to generalise about religion to be a case of intellectual cowardice"
yes... it'd be a shame to make gross generalisations wouldn't it.
Comment #43830 by Electric Monk on May 22, 2007 at 9:02 pm
See
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/heavensent-for-the-nonbelievers/2007/05/17/1178995321658.html
for a better review.
:)
19. Bible drawn into Hong Kong sex publication row
Comment #43214 by Electric Monk on May 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Debbie does Deuteronomy?
The Passion of the Christ?
20. The Paradoxical Hatred of Christopher Hitchens
Comment #43206 by Electric Monk on May 20, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Who would Jesus hate?
21. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens
Comment #39485 by Electric Monk on May 10, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Don't know how to post this so I'll put it here...
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/
Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great
A conversation about the apparent atheist backlash to the apparent rise in religious fundamentalism - the backlash indicated by several current books attacking what Richard Dawkins calls 'the god delusion'. In this program the celebrated writer and committed atheist, Christopher Hitchens tells Phillip he has put out a challenge to preachers across America to come out and debate him.
22. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'
Comment #36632 by Electric Monk on May 1, 2007 at 8:26 pm
"For Dawkins, to look for truth in religion is to fall prey to a delusion."
- No, for Dawkins, to say you've FOUND truth in religion is to fall prey to a delusion.
23. New Planet Could Be Earthlike, Scientists Say
Comment #35296 by Electric Monk on April 26, 2007 at 7:44 pm
What proportion of god-botherers would see this as evidence of god? - what proportion would see it as evidence that there's no such thing?
my guess - close to 100% would see it as evidence (on the other hand the proportion that would see the absence of life there as evidence of god - also 100% - thoughts?)
Comment #30789 by Electric Monk on April 9, 2007 at 8:14 pm
"As for me, Christianity is more a call to rebellion than an insistence on narrow conformity, more a challenge than a set of certainties."
Isn't it amazing how religion supports whatever stance on any issue you want it to!
25. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins
Comment #21159 by Electric Monk on February 7, 2007 at 7:56 pm
How did this guy get hired at Oxford? -
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900 poted by gimlibengloin above.
I'd just like him to do a few things...
Please show us some of this evidence he goes on about!
What do theologians actually study? - seriously i'd like to know.
26. Give us back our bones, pagans tell museums
Comment #20787 by Electric Monk on February 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm
If everyone on this site 'converts' to paganism we'll be able to speak for the bones too! - We could insit that they stay in the museum (that's what i'd want)
p.s. does the druid council engage in human sacrifice?
27. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion
Comment #20783 by Electric Monk on February 6, 2007 at 1:50 pm
"Pride, we are taught, goeth before a fall, and pride begins, I believe, when we start to think that we, and we alone, have it all figured out."
- Apparently it's more humble to believe that the universe was created specifically for human beings and that the otherwise inalterable laws which govern its workings can be put aside if you ask nicely (pray).
"we have no more reason to question the historicity of the major events of Jesus' life than we do, say, Agincourt."
- My religioous education teacher at school (a priest) used to say the same thing about the existance of Julius Caesar (actually said there was MORE evidence for Jeebas!). When you questioned this assertion he could never back it up, even slightly (more faith). I once got him to admit that the reason that he believed in Jesus' miracles and not 'faith healers' (even though FAR more people follow faith healers than ever followed jesus in his own time) was that the jesus thing happened 2000 years ago!
Why do religious types so often quote scripture at you during debates about the existance of god - surely they know that we don't consider it evidence - put down the stupid *&()^ing thing!
28. No stoning, Canada migrants told
Comment #20582 by Electric Monk on February 4, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Is it not already illegal to "kill women by stoning them in public, burning them alive, burning them with acid, circumcising them etc."
in Quebec?
29. Atheists in Jail
Comment #19892 by Electric Monk on January 30, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Maybe we should be Apathists instead of Atheists?
Comment #19086 by Electric Monk on January 24, 2007 at 6:39 pm
good point, well made...
- bad at typing / spelling (and i don't really care when i'm typing quickly), so sue me. Although it makes the term 'bright' amusingly ironic.
Comment #19080 by Electric Monk on January 24, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I think a poll would be a good idea,
godfrey vs. athiest vs. bright
- any other suggestions?
Comment #19058 by Electric Monk on January 24, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I hate the term bright - what's wrong with athiest? I've never heard of anyone making the assumption that athiests are amoral (or even immoral)except maybe from some really outspoken political god-botherers. Maybe it's different in the USA? Anyway brights is clearly a horrible term - arrogant and really lame!
Godfrey however is great! - I'm fine with Athiest but Godfrey is funny - take the piss out of stupid religious labels at the same time as asserting your belief.
GODFREY, and proud of it!
Comment #18161 by Electric Monk on January 18, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I define god as the truth therefore BY DEFINITION god is the truth
- what a load of shit!
34. False piety when Christianity claims the high moral ground
Comment #17956 by Electric Monk on January 17, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Even though we're generally pretty secular on these matters it is worrying that the leader of the opposition (Rudd), and the two people most likely to take over the Liberal (it's not liberal its conservative) party are all religious - and it's becoming less embarassing for them to say so!
Meanwhile there are plans to fund chaplains in schools!
35. Interview with Richard Dawkins
Comment #17821 by Electric Monk on January 16, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Sancus:
Where in his explanation where he alludes to the gullability of children does RD reject the importance of the infant mind? - Just because he doesn't mention it does not mean that he rejects it's importance. All that Dawkins' argument relies on is for there to be a tendancy (all else being equal) for children to trust what they are told. - Your question about peas is a bit odd and kind of misses the point. It's not hard to convince children that peas are good for them - it's hard to convince kids that they taste good.
At no stage does Dawkins deny the ability of children to be scientists.
36. Atheist Outreach: Group Coaxes Unbelievers Into the Open
Comment #17814 by Electric Monk on January 16, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I find the Catholic priest's comments a bit odd. - Does he think that athiests don't believe that "you are part of the universe" or that "you are not god".
This is either a weird definition of atheism or of religion, and i can't work out which - maybe both?
37. Reason, Unfettered by Faith
Comment #16962 by Electric Monk on January 9, 2007 at 7:52 pm
zoro (#16959)
Hey the only point i was trying to make was that science is a deductive process... that's its power and justification. Scientific Hypotheses are deductive arguments. I'll agree that not all deductive reasoning is science but all science is deductive. We're on the same side here.
38. Reason, Unfettered by Faith
Comment #16953 by Electric Monk on January 9, 2007 at 6:24 pm
zoro (#16938)
The scientific method is an example of a deductive process in that testability (by reference to data collected) follows deductive logic. - read Popper.
By the way - also love your quote from RD
39. Reason, Unfettered by Faith
Comment #16928 by Electric Monk on January 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Zoro:
10. (n.) Hence: To carry on a process of deduction or induction, in order to convince or confute; to formulateand set forth propositions and the inferences from them; to argue.
- sounds a lot like the scientific method to me.
Deductive tests (hypothesis test etc.) are great for some types of study but do not work for others. (test the hypthesis that the Mona Lisa is a great painting) - in matters of oppinion the scientific method has nothing to say. Whether or not there is god is clearly NOT a matter of oppinion it is a matter of fact (which is why RD says that it is a scientific question).
The problem with most (if not all) theological reasoning is that it begins with the premise that god exists, and tries to work out what he/she/it is like. Most theological arguments never address the question of whether or not there is a god at all. In the above article the Pope is not asking that we question wherther god exists through reason, but what god is like given that we know he exists. Like Quine said above - you are expected to accept the premise on faith.
40. Without God, Gall Is Permitted
Comment #16799 by Electric Monk on January 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm
"The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody. It is impossible to see within it what might have preoccupied great artists and thinkers like Homer, Milton, Michelangelo, Newton and Spinoza--let alone Aquinas, Dr. Johnson, Kierkegaard, Goya, Cardinal Newman, Reinhold Niebuhr or, for that matter, Albert Einstein. But to pass over this deeper faith--the kind that engaged the great minds of Western history--is to diminish the loss of faith too. The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness."
No, faith does not have levels ('deeper faith') there aren't different kinds... all faith is the same. Faith simply means to believe in something DESPITE the evidence against it. Athiests (and agnostics) dislike faith because it admits to no argument and can justify anything at all. Faith denies thought.
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
