1. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64624 by stuartM02 on August 21, 2007 at 3:26 am

J42Lewis :

(http://www.newstarget.com/z001951.html) - that has to be one of the most dishonest things I have ever read.

Where are all the references for a start.

2. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55161 by stuartM02 on July 10, 2007 at 6:37 am

DG,

I have been silently following this debate for some time, and have a few questions which I would be interested to know the answers to:

1) Does God care if you believe in him or not?
2) You mention that the physical universe is put in place for us to obtain virtue, does God want us to obtain virtue, or is it just for our own 'experiential benefit'?
3) What happens if you don't obtain virtue?
4) Are there rewards after death if we obtain virtue throughout our experiences, or does it not really matter?
5) Could God change his mind about what is objectively good, or is that fixed?

Thanks in advance.

I also think it would be helpful if you stopped calling your ideas worldviews and start calling them hypothesis, unless there is a good reason otherwise.

3. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51334 by stuartM02 on June 22, 2007 at 11:42 am

Excellent stuff here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39XD1ImxGWw&mode=related&search=

WTF! That was unpleasent.

4. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51055 by stuartM02 on June 21, 2007 at 9:58 am

If reality is not objectively real, then DG's child in question is not objectively being tortured at all as apparently it is just their experiential environment. In your view (I think I may actually despise the word worldview after reading all of this) we are all sharing the same experiential environment (as I understand it) so it seems slightly odd that we can then interfere with each other (in an objective sense) within this experimental environment. Maybe nobody else is objectively real and it is just DG's own consciousness that is, and we are just placed in his experiential environment by God, oooooooo…….

I may go even as far to say that I have an strong intuition (or could propose such an intuition) that we could not interact in an objective sense in an experiential environment, hmmm

About time to stop dealing in intuitions and start dealing in facts. Intuitions are not even subjective data, they are just intuitions!!! or do you have a strong intuition that your intuitions have something to say about anything.
Anyway, I have enjoyed reading this, and just though I would make a contribution.

I can't see this going any further as DG is just essentially arguing for 'brains in jars', but hope you push on, maybe you could move to Christianity, as DG has escaped that somewhat....surely this man is a Deist…..but no..

5. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43336 by stuartM02 on May 21, 2007 at 6:18 am

Sorry to but in Guys – but I have a short questions for Billy.
…..I am having a drawn out email corresponded with a friend (theist) currently discussing the 'classic' debate of all things Christian/theist ect.ect. He is a biologist and I am making some good inroads (despite his extensive bible study type activities).
He brought up the issue of 'increasing information content in DNA during evolution' (an old one I know) – I imagine he got it from that dishonest document when they interview Dawkins. I could sort of remember an answer (duplication in copying ect) and was pretty sure that this is not at all contentious in the Scientific (biology/evolution) community. Anyhow he was more curious than anything, and knowing your background (from reading various threads) I thought you might be able to point me to some good literature/explanation for the question (3rd party and from Dawkins if possible)
I am aware of some of the many problems with the question itself (but feel free to remind me of them)
Cheers for your time.

6. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off (more info)

Comment #40862 by stuartM02 on May 15, 2007 at 5:51 am

@Riley : I don't see how the RSS did any of the things in teh debate you claim in your post. Please provide some examples.

It reminds me of the sort of accusations leveled at RD of being rude and disrespectful.

7. Face-Off: Can You Prove God Exists?

Comment #40463 by stuartM02 on May 14, 2007 at 10:15 am

@Mango

I think thats a little harsh. Not every atheist can have a PhD and top-of-the-draw debating skills.

But in any case I think it managed to demonstrate that any man-on-the-street can dispatch the likes of Comfort and his poor arguments without barely breaking into a sweat. There is just no need for the 'big-guns' when debating these literal/creationist idiots.

It will also appeal to anyone who finds the intellectual intimidating or offputting, allowing more people to realise that this sort of sanity is quite obtainable.

8. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40320 by stuartM02 on May 14, 2007 at 5:52 am

I read this artical yesterday in the Observer twice becasue I just could believe the dishonesty.

I knew instantly where she had got the assertion from (as others have pointed out). It is infact a good example of how a misrepresentation can go to a misquote to a whole load of sh@t. i.e the first artical, then the second (same author) to this.

I think what annoyed me more in this artical was not so much the dishonesty but the smugness. She must have known she was dishonest and yet still proceeding to be smug about 'catching RD out' and proving he's actually a believer.

9. Abstain With Me

Comment #39855 by stuartM02 on May 12, 2007 at 5:40 am

....laughing my ass off

10. Dawkins transcendent

Comment #39849 by stuartM02 on May 12, 2007 at 5:19 am

Ermmmmmm, what???

That was a load of cobblers. She seems to have read her own previous artical based on the interview, which wasn't bad although a little muddled - then gone away and projected here own belives onto the artical and decided to go to town on it.

If she writes a 3rd one, I'll bet RD will become a Christian.

11. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39810 by stuartM02 on May 12, 2007 at 2:14 am

If I have to hear one of Ray Comforts obscene analoges one more time......

I thought Kelly and Brain did well despite having the difficutily of arguing against a non-position. Although I thought they could do better at times; it is never easy to think fast when you have no direct points to respond to that arn't so easy to dismiss its alughable.

If the got the bannana out it would have been more conviencing.

12. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39704 by stuartM02 on May 11, 2007 at 4:37 pm

3legecat - I would also agree that this 'aparent' universal 'good' and 'evil' concepts is purhaps one of the central drivers for belive in the supernatural.

Thanks for your reply - although I still think you somewhat confuse philosophical arguments with the practical implications as practised by law and society (as I raised in my earlier post), but it is a small point.

13. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39635 by stuartM02 on May 11, 2007 at 11:54 am

3legcat - interesting post. I must admit this is a little 'off-topic' but I wanted to address one of your points directly.

"Kant's notion of responsibility is the deepest foundation of our legal system. We don't simply judge other's based on their actions but also their intentions and their ability to do otherwise. Social psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience is moving ever closer to declaring the idea of freewill meaningless, no matter how counter intuitive this "feels" to us. This is a truly troublesome notion for social justice, like it or not."

I do not see why this poses any sort of a problem. If we move to prove that free-will is an illusion it should not impact either our society or the law. All that changes is that instead of declaring that an individual has behaved (or intended to behave) in a 'bad' way, we simply declare that this individual has been driven by neurological and physiological factors to act in this bad way, although did not directly choose to do so. This, to me, is nothing more than semantic.

Because.....

The law/ society would acts in the same way - a person committing bad acts or intending to is punished/ rehabilitated until this neurological pressure causing the bad behaviour is amended. If you want to change the name of prisons to mental health clinics, or behaviours adjustment centres (in the absence of free will) then so be it.

If a legal preceded can be set whereby it could be proved that freewill did not exist and that the perpetrator did not intend (which you state is important for Kant's notion) - then what changes, they go to an asylum and not a prison?- I also doubt this precedent would ever occur in a legal setting due to philosophy/scientific justifications.

Your example of a paedophile would be addressed in the same way. It's actually an interesting example because it is essentially a malfunction in sexuality which some cannot (if free will does not exist) resist acting on (when combined with other philological/neurological factors). But we not have any trouble in address their acts.

I hope I have explained this clearly - I would be interested in your views.

14. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39253 by stuartM02 on May 10, 2007 at 8:22 am

Comment #39201 by Toivo.

I am somewhat confused by your claim that "that value is, however, for most humans, very low." i.e. that which value which you place on other people not directly related/known to you.

Maybe you qualify this statement in ways that are not clear in you post.

I ask you a serious of questions with the hope of clarifying your situation and perhaps modifying your approach.

1. You know that many people who experience (in both happiness and suffering) the world in the same way as you. So you have the ability to perceive the degree to which another person will be suffering.

2. This perception should allow you to realise that it is a matter of geography and fortune (or misjudgement) that you are not experiencing this suffering.

3. Knowing this, would you not wish to relieve this suffering in entities such as yourself, not only because you can empathise with them but can identify that you could easily be experiencing the same suffering.

4. Is this not placing value on other peoples lives? How can identify that in almost every way another, unknown, person is like you but not wish to relieve there suffering and preserve their life for them and those who would also suffer?

I can admit that many poeple will see suffering of other people and do nothing, providing the siutation is remote enough. I don't preceive this as placing low value (alhtough purhaps lacking), only a lack of realisation and motivation. I will be interested to know your response.

Here is a small case study and question to try and establish your perception of value:

You are walking down the street and notice over a fence that a man is about to murder a child, unknown to you and of no consequence to your direct existance.

Assume that you know for a fact that if you intervene you have a 5% chance of being killed, but a 100% chance of saving the child. What do you do?

15. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39159 by stuartM02 on May 10, 2007 at 5:31 am

It was almost painful reading that reply. I just cannnot stand that 'with a premsis of atheism then there is no logical justification to not kill/rape/genocide ect' complete non-argument.

It is certainly a non-argument in relation to whether Cristianity is true, as 'even if' it is more logical to be moral if there is a God, than if there isn't (i.e. the concept that you will be foreced to pay for any of these miss-deeds) it certainly doesn't hold that there is.

-this has certain assumption within it also:
1. Thats GOD's idea of good deeds is the same as we adhere to (i.e killing/salvery are bad)
2. God punishes miss-deeds/rewards good-deeds

But admittadly thats not the questions addressed here (i.e that Christainity is good for the world, which I don't think was every directly addressed in the response). But that doesn't make it any sounder. If we can be moral without belief in God, which is clearly the case (and incidently he backed up this with some scripture!?!) then the fact that he cannot figure out a logical reason to be moral with religon based on an athestic viewpoint is irrelevent. It is much more his problem to figure out than ours.

What he seems to be saying (to paraphrase somewhat) is:

~If people accept that atheism is true, then they will determine that (in his opinion) there is no reason to be moral, and hence the world becomes immorral (and could not have become moral without Christainity)~

This is patently absurd for the points raised above.

16. Science and fiction

Comment #37331 by stuartM02 on May 4, 2007 at 5:34 am

It is worring the combination of faith schools and develoving power and control to schools (a bit of a buzz concept). Develoving control and automomy to allow teachers to get on with their jobs is comendable in most cases - but with the prevelence of faith schools this cannot be wise!

17. In the beginning

Comment #34119 by stuartM02 on April 23, 2007 at 9:47 am

Damm rabbitpirate you beat me too it. I just could concentrate reading the rest of the artical after reading of his impressive "vast cannon".

18. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29766 by stuartM02 on April 4, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Very funny Stoic.

I think what is really missing from the Bible is an executive summary which lays out the purpose, scope and main conclusions of the Book. It could include a handy list of all the sins in order of importance to help clear the whole situation up.

i.e.

1. Lobster
2. Murder - when unsactioned by God
3. Mixed fabrics
4. Homosexuality
5. Gluteny
6. Stick picking on a sunday,

ect ect....

19. Kansas State School Board Bans Pokemon Due to Evolution Content

Comment #29761 by stuartM02 on April 4, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Mr Dawkins has posted on several other articals that he neither posts articals on the website, nor really knows how - other than to get in touch with the guy that maintains it (I forget his name). I hope I don't do him a disservice here.

I don't think having the odd hoax artical is all that bad - this one did come with a warning at the top. But it would be nice to keep them few and far between (perferably once a year - April 1st).

20. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #29595 by stuartM02 on April 3, 2007 at 2:22 pm

It is not satire, even though Louis is very funny. I have seen several clips on youtube from fox et al in the past.

I watched the show last night and the overriding theme was how nice all the children were, but nevertheless still thought everyone else was going to hell and god kills american soliders ect becuase the "US tolereates fags" as "God hates fags". There was this lovely witty 17 year old girl who you thought still might have a notion of commmon sense - but I think she had gone. If RD was right about the child abuse of religon, this has to be the worst case. It was very saddening.

21. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29323 by stuartM02 on April 2, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Someone once told me that when you meet someone the best way to make someone rememeber you is to tell them one interesting thing they did not already know.

Although you could always just say nothing of note, and imply the whole concept of an exchange of ideas is not what your here for...

I think I know what sort of discourse I find more involving and rewarding, I'm not sure everyone else here does.

22. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #26077 by stuartM02 on March 16, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Comment 138:

I came across this comment and though I'd offer a reply from something similar I have been discussing with a friend - a theist at that. Although the terms of our conversations are a little different I will offer my "rational justification for minimising other people's pain and suffering"

(My grand title comes from your last comment, and I think its perhaps a little too much, never mind)

...here goes,

My argument essentially resides on justifying empathy. Your consciousness enables you to identify that other people are like you, in that they have experiences like yours: they feel pain and suffering in the same way you do. You are aware that these experiences have negative impacts on your existence and you are aware that they will have negative effects on others that have the same experience of existence. (you can identify this because we have evolved the concept we call consciousness)

Anyhow this was my explanation and my friend is yet to respond and is mulling it over - I'm not sure it's entirely sound yet, let me know your views.

The argument for morals from empathy is not something I have heard of before, but sure someone must have done it better.

Incidentally: once of the key characteristics to identify a psychopath is a lack of empathy. Maybe being a psychopath is a malfunction of your consciousness which cannot switch on empathy (identifying that other have the same experiences as you) I'm not trying to justify my view by this, but it's an interesting thought.

23. She's No Fundamentalist: What people get wrong about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Comment #25259 by stuartM02 on March 11, 2007 at 10:56 am

LITTG - comment 37. I don't see how you can compare the free choice of an adult to enagage in plastic surgegy, compared to physical or mentally forced femal genital mutilation.

The choice may not be entirly free of external social pressures of a material/cosmetic focused western society, but I would say plastic surgey as practised today is a huge degree more moral than FGM.

24. Ayaan Hirsi Ali Feature

Comment #24262 by stuartM02 on March 5, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Pantore - must you keep flogging this anti-capitalist horse.

It has very little do no with the majority that Ayaan Ali has to say, espically anything posted here. She raises interesting points on Islam and the nature of religon and certainly appears to have some admirable qualities.

Maybe she is wrong about being conservative, maybe she is wrong about being a capatalist and afiliated with AEI. It is a farily easy thing to be wrong about, if it turns out that way.

Maybe their is a powerful group of corporate influenced neo-cons in the US which are leading us towards a "new american centuary" of dominance and the worst capatalism could offer. (I'm assuming the clip represents your general view -my appologies if it does not)

I doubt this (not all of it), as I'm sure many do, and I think you need to accept there is a significant chance your are wrong on the future picture of the world (the hypothesis their exists a better system than free-markets, capatilism and that this path will have very negative consequences) - but this is a very seperate issue of social models and economics.

If you think Ali's affiliton with the AEI disqualifies from making valid points, I would be interested in you reasoning for this.

25. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #23982 by stuartM02 on March 4, 2007 at 2:08 am

Check out www.conservapedia.com/athism - its pretty good. Getting much humour and mild depression from navigating this new find.