501. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146816 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm

I always love quotations with [sic], they are powerful put-downs, and each [sic] cuts like a knife. I should have proof read my post, damn!

Leaving aside for the moment the breath-taking philosophical and religious ignorance, the factual falsehood, and the overwhelming intolerance for free thought expressed here, what is strikingly clear is that anyone who doesn't educate their children in accordance with ThoughtsonCommonToad's worldview is guilty of child abuse. Anyone who doesn't teach their children that the scientific method is infallible, is absolute Truth, and is the only method of evaluating truth claims known to humanity is guilty of a crime and should be removed from society with the full force of the law. As I sit in my son's bed and type this while he sleeps, I have shivers running down my spine!

child abuse to tell your children that they don't have to justify what they think and believe, just that believing it is enough

child abuse to tell your children something is true when there is no way to know this

the only method of evaluating truth claims know[sic] to humanity, the scientific method, shows Christianity to be demonstrably false.

502. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146792 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Leviticus 20:27 (King James Version)
"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them."

503. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146785 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Lets see Dawkin's actual quote just for clarity then mintcheerios

Even without physical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice persists to this day, almost entirely unquestioned. To question it is my main purpose in this chapter.
....
Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents' church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote:

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yucky' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold,immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest - but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

Admittedly, the sexual fondling she suffered in the priest's car was relatively mild compared with, say, the pain and disgust of a sodomized altar boy. And nowadays the Catholic Church is said not to make so much of hell as it once did. But the example shows that it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical. It is said that Alfred Hitchcock, the great cinematic specialist in the art of frightening people, was once driving through Switzerland when he suddenly pointed out of the car window and said, 'That is the most frightening sight I have ever seen.' It was a priest in conversation with a little boy, his hand on the boy's shoulder. Hitchcock leaned out of the car window and shouted, 'Run, little boy! Run for your life!' .... it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell.

504. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146735 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 10:28 am

I'd answer honestly. Some people say there is others not. What's the difference between the two? Well you have to evaluate what they say and see if its true. I think Santa Claus is a good analogy for young children.

505. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146724 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 10:11 am

Bill Murray. He can make any film worth watching.

506. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146720 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 9:59 am

Lets see Dawkin's actual quote

Even without physical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice persists to this day, almost entirely unquestioned. To question it is my main purpose in this chapter.
....
Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large). But I was reminded of the incident later when I received a letter from an American woman in her forties who had been brought up Roman Catholic. At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents' church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote:

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yucky' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold,immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest - but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

Admittedly, the sexual fondling she suffered in the priest's car was relatively mild compared with, say, the pain and disgust of a sodomized altar boy. And nowadays the Catholic Church is said not to make so much of hell as it once did. But the example shows that it is at least possible for psychological abuse of children to outclass physical. It is said that Alfred Hitchcock, the great cinematic specialist in the art of frightening people, was once driving through Switzerland when he suddenly pointed out of the car window and said, 'That is the most frightening sight I have ever seen.' It was a priest in conversation with a little boy, his hand on the boy's shoulder. Hitchcock leaned out of the car window and shouted, 'Run, little boy! Run for your life!' .... it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven mortal sins in an eternal hell.

507. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146697 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 9:31 am

I love Leviticus

• Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)



• Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)



• Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)



• Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)



• Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9)



• If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10)



• If a man sleeps with his father's wife... both him and his father's wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)



• If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)



• If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16)



• If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)



• Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)



• If a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)



• People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)



• Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

508. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146618 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 8:23 am

Pathfinder I'm certain you're a parody sorry if I'm spoiling some in-joke. Exclusive homosexuality is practised by a minority, so by common definitions of normal it is abnormal. Just as sitting down to urinate in men is abnormal, having a phobia of baked beans and thinking watching tennis is entertaining (Oh how dreadfully boring it is) is abnormal.
If abnormality is your justification for sin, go ahead sir.

509. Jesus saves

Comment #146509 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 6:45 am

Topic Already Posted, reported by The Times

510. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146494 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 6:24 am

mintcheerios read comment 347

511. Immune system differences found

Comment #146489 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 19, 2008 at 6:18 am

MaxD I quoted from the BNP's 2005 Manifesto. This kind of research, more so its reporting, ignores the fact that defining races for humans is a complex business. Simplistic notions like African American, Hispanic, White etc are patently ridiculous. The human species has a continuum. Grouping people into races will essentially be arbitrary. Does anyone deny that populations differ in their genetic makeup, being exposed over thousands of years to different environments, breeding in a discrete gene pool? Well if you did you wouldn't be taken seriously. Any two neighboring settlements could show some genetic differentiation and could therefore be defined as a separate race.

Subdivisions such a White, Black, Asian etc are just going beyond being reasonable.

512. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146112 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Lets see what your favourite intellectual says about Afghanistan:

If there's a crime, a major crime, crime against humanity, the way to deal with it is by careful police work, to identify the perpetrators and then, since this is an international crime, request international authorization, which was never received or asked for, to bring them to justice. And then trial in an independent court.

513. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146092 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm

MaxD

I'm bothered by Chomsky because his stuff is all fairly one sided anti-war.

I'm fine with Afghanistan

514. Fleabytes

Comment #146066 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Steve Zara
I'd have added one thing: Consistency!

515. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #146056 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 2:34 pm

MaxD if you want a quick painless to get an idea of whats really going on in Israel watch this video:
Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land: Media & the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Al-rawandi Yes Finkelstein's work is the best. From Time Immemorial's to Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel he has destroyed the lies.

ungodlyatheist I haven't come across that denouncement no. Any sources?

On suicide terrorism I'd recommend Robert Pape's Dying to Win: Why Suicide Terrorists Do It.

Here is an article he wrote about the book in the guardian with selected quotations:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1838214,00.html

Researching my book, which covered all 462 suicide bombings around the globe, I had colleagues scour Lebanese sources to collect martyr videos, pictures and testimonials and biographies of the Hizbollah bombers. Of the 41, we identified the names, birth places and other personal data for 38. We were shocked to find that only eight were Islamic fundamentalists; 27 were from leftist political groups such as the Lebanese Communist Party and the Arab Socialist Union; three were Christians, including a female secondary school teacher with a college degree. All were born in Lebanon.

What these suicide attackers - and their heirs today - shared was not a religious or political ideology but simply a commitment to resisting a foreign occupation. Nearly two decades of Israeli military presence did not root out Hizbollah. The only thing that has proven to end suicide attacks, in Lebanon and elsewhere, is withdrawal by the occupying force.

Previous analyses of suicide terrorism have not had the benefit of a complete survey of all suicide terrorist attacks worldwide. The lack of complete data, together with the fact that many such attacks, including all those against Americans, have been committed by Muslims, has led many in the US to assume that Islamic fundamentalism must be the underlying main cause. This, in turn, has fuelled a belief that anti-American terrorism can be stopped only by wholesale transformation of Muslim societies, which helped create public support of the invasion of Iraq. But study of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism shows that the PRESUMED connection to Islamic fundamentalism is misleading.

There is not the close connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism that many people think. Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist campaigns have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.

Religion is rarely the root cause, although it is often used as a tool by terrorist organisations in recruiting and in other efforts in service of the broader strategic objective. Most often, it is a response to foreign occupation.

516. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #146004 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 1:16 pm

jwdink
Believing they have excellent reasoning and having excellent reasoning are very different things.

Takes Francis Collins, one of those intelligent believers.

On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains … the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

Collins' case for the supernatural origin of morality rests on the further assertion that there can be no evolutionary explanation for genuine altruism. Because self-sacrifice cannot increase the likelihood that an individual creature will survive and reproduce, truly self-sacrificing behavior stands as a primordial rejoinder to any biological account of morality. In Collins' view, therefore, the mere existence of altruism offers compelling evidence of a personal God. (Here, Collins performs a risible sprint past ideas in biology like "kin selection" that plausibly explain altruism and self-sacrifice in evolutionary terms.) A moment's thought reveals, however, that if we were to accept this neutered biology, almost everything about us would be bathed in the warm glow of religious mystery. Forget morality�"how did nature select for the ability to write sonnets, solder circuit boards or swing a golf club? Clearly, such abilities could never be the product of evolution. Might they have been placed in us by God? Smoking cigarettes isn't a healthy habit and is unlikely to offer an adaptive advantage�"and there were no cigarettes in the Paleolithic�"but this habit is very widespread and compelling. Is God, by any chance, a tobacco farmer? Collins can't seem to see that human morality and selfless love may be derivative of more basic biological and psychological traits, which were themselves products of evolution. It is hard to interpret this oversight in light of his scientific training. If one didn't know better, one might be tempted to conclude that religious dogmatism presents an obstacle to scientific reasoning.

517. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #145935 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 18, 2008 at 10:34 am

jwdink

"Wrong" and "mildly unreasonable" are two very different things which you are trying to equivocate. There are a great deal of professors, philosophers, etc. that believe in a mild form of the Judeo-Christian God who are much smarter than you or I. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean they're stupid.

518. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145546 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 5:38 pm

ungodlyatheist Just add two more
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and one of countless examples of other such heinous crimes, but recently reported in a mainstream publication.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

"With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever."

519. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #145537 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm

The Portable Atheist and Modern Science Writing are the most blatant cash-ins. I still however have purchased both.

520. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145510 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:59 pm

ungodlyatheist
I would agree but we are talking in a removed detached sense. I think violence of any form should be rejected unless it can bear the burden of proof. No society perfectly subscribes to this position. I'm a moral relativist in theory but not in practice. I happen to think elementary moral principles, such as equality, freedom etc should be moral absolutes and can be shown to be at least partly evident in basic human nature.

Genital mutilation (not medically necessary) is wrong because it doesn't bear the burden of proof, the reasons proffered are not evidential. It is wrong.

521. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145504 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Shock and Awe al-rawandi?

522. Immune system differences found

Comment #145498 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm

This is the kind of thing the BNP use to justify their racism

"We do not accept the absurd superstition propagated for different though sometimes overlapping reasons by capitalists, liberals, Marxists and theologians - of human equality. ...This must not be taken to mean or imply that we believe that any particular ethnic group or race is 'superior' or 'inferior'; we simply recognise that as any biologist would be able to predict, and the new medical science of pharmacogenetics is now confirming human populations which have undergone micro-evolutionary changes while being separated for many thousands of years have developed differences in many fields of endeavour, susceptibility to health problems, behavioural tendencies and such like."
British National Party: Rebuilding British Democracy general election manifesto 2005, p. 17

523. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145490 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Principles such as equality, freedom, concern and sympathy for others, can be shown to be consistent with certain feelings, such as you own wish to be cared for, for example, that privilege is far more likely to be born than earned so an argument for privatisation of necessities is a shaky argument, but if a person has different feelings then these principles are meaningless. If you care about the human race surviving then certain things follow from that.

Your point about murder being wrong can either be accepted or rejected. Can it be proven that it is wrong? You can give a list of circumstances that would occur from accepting it as being right, and these circumstances can either be rejected as undesirable or accepted as desirable. It still come downs to feelings. Feelings that have allowed human societies to survive so not all that worthless, but feelings none the less. It cannot be proven in any absolute sense, which you agree with.

We are saying the same thing just from different perspectives. I think we agree.

524. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145479 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Slave owners argued that they were more moral than the people who merely rented work because they owned there workers, and consequently cared about them more.

Why is that not a good argument. I don't think any human being has the right to exert any power over another individual unless they bear the burden of proof. Can I prove why this should be so. Is it an absolute?

I can't see anyway that a moral principle can be 'proven'.

525. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145475 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:14 pm

morality is an issue of consensus, it is not absolute.

We can say something is not consistent, or there justification for an act is not based on any evidence.

Can it be said to be immoral? Depends what society thinks is moral.

526. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145473 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:09 pm

The motivation surely has everything to do with the morality of an action?

The only thing we can say to someone is if your motivation is not based upon evidence then you cannot in a lawful society commit the act. If you have motivations based on evidence they must be evaluated as being sufficient to commit that act.

527. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145470 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Two people committing the same act, one with a belief in the afterlife, another not, with the same motivation to commit the act they should have the same punishment under the law.

Are there some acts that can only be committed with a belief in an afterlife? I don't think that's ever been demonstrated, what has though, is that belief in the afterlife (with the connotations that has) makes some acts more likely to be committed by people, all other things being equal, who otherwise have not committed them.

N.B - as with other beliefs also.

528. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145466 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I think the people who dropped the atom bomb were horrific. I think, in fact it easily demonstrable, that the mass hysteria of war and a scared population lessens the contempt I feel for the pilots. Here's what Paul Tibbets says about the bombing

"I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it, and have it work as perfectly as it did... I sleep clearly every night".
"If you give me the same circumstances, hell yeah, I'd do it again."

529. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145453 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 3:35 pm

"... every society we know has sought to find some explanation for matters of deep human concern that we do not begin to understand (death, the origins of the universe, etc.), that's doubtless true. If one wants to call the constructs developed "religion," OK
....
people seek answers to hard questions, and where understanding reaches limits (very quickly, in most areas), they speculate, construct myths, etc." - Noam Chomsky

530. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145448 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 3:29 pm

ungodlyatheist
The only bearing on the act is its motivation. If the consequences are the same, that does not mean the acts are equally as wicked. Accidental vs intentional for example.

If you believe in an afterlife, or are sanctioned by a higher power then it has the potential to excuse acts that would not usually be excused. Steven Weinberg's quote is wonderful in explaining this:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

531. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145407 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 2:43 pm

That's what the American and British Governments say. Its not something I've made up.

We have committed criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes

and these acts

are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

Our justification is 'counter-terrorism'.

532. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145390 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Terrorism is defined quite simply, and I think correctly like this:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-49-60/page_4/rect_103,807_894,899

533. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145378 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Yeah exactly. Wow I don't think I've agreed with someone as much you ever before.

534. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145371 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 2:12 pm

I was referring to hypocrisy. George Bush and Tony Blair don't even follow their favourite philosophers advice. They are hypocrites by biblical definition.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5 RSV)

535. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145357 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm

It's very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's counter-terrorism.

536. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145212 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 11:20 am

Going out of the trench and running across no man's land is equivalent to suicide, its just without the collateral. There is obviously, under high pressure situations, conditions of despair etc, the ability to elicit suicidal tendencies in almost anyone.

Read the studies there interesting. I'll search wikipedia it usually collects such things in one place rather than giving separate links.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombers#Profile_and_motivation_of_attackers

537. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145202 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 11:10 am

Oh yes sorry Al I know it was rhetorical.

538. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145195 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 10:57 am

How many do you think really read the Qu'ran. We know most Christians don't read the bible but just use hearsay from there preachers?

Take Pakistan. You basically get a suicide bomber to blow themselves up for any reason. Why is it so easy?

Sam Harris in The End of Faith dismisses the Tamil Tigers. Why?

EDIT: Japanese kamikaze pilots of World War II.

Surely Islam just provides a way for those inclined to commit suicide attacks, through poor circumstances and doubtless other reasons, a cause to attach the desire to.

539. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145116 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 9:17 am

Steve. I think always look on the bright side of life is one of the most poignant songs ever written.

540. The atheist delusion

Comment #145097 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:44 am

Yes I think we probably do. Context is important for that quote, I was talking about the fact that scientific fact is just as useful a propaganda tool as saying God did it, to the general population.

541. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145095 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:39 am

Sargeist
Betrand Russell said something like you should never hold irrational beliefs, only those you can find evidential support for apart from commitment to pinciples, equality freedom etc.

I agree with you, wrong is a matter of definition.

542. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145090 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:34 am

To be consistent that would have to mean the 'white' society would have to be 'suffering' just as much. I don't agree with they cheap shot of calling it 'white' though. I am personally against all forms of violence against fellow humans and sentient beings unless it bears the burden of proof.

543. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145085 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:28 am

He Steve I should use my real name but there are reasons. I never said go on gut feelings but that ethics and morality can only be demonstrated to be inconsistent, not right or wrong. Benway, Bonzai, SPS and others have been having a very similar argument on the Atheist Delusion thread.

544. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145079 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:22 am

Al-rawandi support is a strong word, but they didn't denounce it say with the Fenians in Ireland. I think civil disobedience etc are methods and destruction of property, for example blowing up a train carriage about to carry troops to Vietnam. But would distinguish in the strongest terms about violence to people. The burden of proof is on those who say violence is acceptable, and that burden is a hard one to bear.

545. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145075 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:18 am

Sargeist, I've had about 5 comments over on the Atheist Delusion thread to construct that post. My first attempts were very sketchy.

546. The atheist delusion

Comment #145072 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:17 am

Yes it can help I've never denied that, just that it cannot provide the answers.

547. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145062 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:10 am

On the Question of morality Geoff

The scientific method is the only method known to humanity that can evaluate truth claims. The scientific method cannot provide answers to questions like Is abortion right or wrong, questions of ethics and morality. Its the only way to give us information on which to base those judgements though. It can for example show that the argument about a foetus being equivalent to a sentient human being and other such information, but an answer cannot be provided.

The scientific mode of thinking can also be applied to history and we can show that the Nazis exterminated close to 6 millions Jews throughout world war 2, can tell us that Hitler claimed things about the Jews that were false, but cannot answer the ethical and moral question about whether it was right or wrong to do so, and whether it is desirable to stop it happening again. The only thing the scientific method can do, or that mode of thinking, is to make sure that people base their ethical judgements on sound evidence. That if they have an opinion on a topic it should be supported by evidence.

Principles such as equality, freedom, concern and sympathy for others, can be shown to be consistent with certain feelings, such as you own wish to be cared for, for example, that privilege is far more likely to be born than earned so an argument for privatisation of necessities is a shaky argument, but if a person has different feelings then these principles are meaningless. If you care about the human race surviving then certain things follow from that. So the scientific method can make ethics and morality internally consistent but cannot say whether one is right or wrong.

While it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.
- Religion and Science (1935)

548. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145056 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 8:05 am

In rhetoric but in policy? Minimum Wage, increased NHS funding, but the system was merely a continuation of Thatcher's policies of privatisation of resources. Government is still the servant of big business and always will be because it is inherent in the system. They are trifles of difference but they fall in a very narrow range.

549. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145043 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 7:55 am

Representative of what? The people? No. Polling data on policies do not match up to actual policies. Representative democracies are systems of power that seek ratification once every 4 years in the US and up to 5 in the UK. Elections are propaganda wars, not fought on the issues, more on personality cults and misinformation. The first past the post system in the UK and the electoral college system in the US are gerrymandered systems that ensure power interests are not challenged, and the choice is between indistinguishable, very narrow interests. Democracy? Strange word to choose to describe the American and British systems of government.

550. The atheist delusion

Comment #145034 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 17, 2008 at 7:42 am

The scientific method is the only method known to humanity that can evaluate truth claims. The scientific method cannot provide answers to questions like Is abortion right or wrong, questions of ethics and morality. Its the only way to give us information on which to base those judgements though. It can for example show that the argument about a foetus being equivalent to a sentient human being and other such information, but an answer cannot be provided.

The scientific mode of thinking can also be applied to history and we can show that the Nazis exterminated close to 6 millions Jews throughout world war 2, can tell us that Hitler claimed things about the Jews that were false, but cannot answer the ethical and moral question about whether it was right or wrong to do so, and whether it is desirable to stop it happening again. The only thing the scientific method can do, or that mode of thinking, is to make sure that people base their ethical judgements on sound evidence. That if they have an opinion on a topic it should be supported by evidence.

Principles such as equality, freedom, concern and sympathy for others, can be shown to be consistent with certain feelings, such as you own wish to be cared for, for example, that privilege is far more likely to be born than earned so an argument for privatisation of necessities is a shaky argument, but if a person has different feelings these principles are meaningless. If you care about the human race surviving then certain things follow from that. So the scientific method can make ethics and morality internally consistent but cannot say whether one is right or wrong.