601. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136427 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on March 1, 2008 at 6:48 am

Self defence is a powerful argument. For example a someone defending themselves from rape when in normal circumstances that would not be possible. Unfortunately it is a dud because all American citizens have the right to bear arms so it seems logical that potential criminals would be more likely to commit their crimes using firearms than not.
The only way guns can be used as effective self-protection is if the aggressor is not using a gun, or is using a gun but you can somehow become in control by catching him unaware or from behind etc, or have other people to protect you.
The reason most people find the American citizens attachment to his gun so abhorrent is its implication. That force is preferable to other forms of conflict resolution. It reflects a massive difference, just as the 'American dream' and the demonising of words like socialism.
I've said I see no good argument against gun control in terms of self-defence, defence against tyranny but only because it is a catch-22 situation.
Defence against tyranny is bogus in the US as Bonzai has pointed out (guns v tanks). I hope to have shown that self-protection is a similarly bogus argument as it is only valid because of its catch-22 nature.

Interesting side note: "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22. Like the final commandment left at the end of Animal Farm, Catch-22 is an entire rule book distilled into one lunatic decree. Its very uniqueness meant that Heller had to think carefully before naming, or numbering, it. And his choice was?… Catch-18."

602. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136079 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 29, 2008 at 1:03 pm

There should be learned papers published on the decays of threads. I suspect many have already been published.

Godwin's Law?

603. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136060 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 29, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Yes the defence against tyranny is bogus thanks Bonzai, my image was far more primitive.

Al-rawandi my name has nothing to do with a toad its from the title of an essay by George Orwell: Some Thoughts on the Common Toad

The last few lines:

How many a time have I stood watching the toads mating, or a pair of hares having a boxing match in the young corn, and thought of all the important persons who as you are not actually ill, hungry, frightened or immured in a prison or a holiday camp, spring is still spring. The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun, and neither the dictators nor the bureaucrats, deeply as they disapprove of the process, are able to prevent it.

604. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #135990 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 29, 2008 at 11:57 am

My logic was merely illustrative of the problem. Once the cat is out of the bag there's not much that can be done. You have to see that this is the way 'the right to bear arms' is couched in western Europe. Its so alien, you sound like reflexive fundamentalists.
I can actually seen no good argument against the right to bear arms as a defence against tyranny and as self-defence.
Its the strange way that patriotism and the right to bear arms are worn proudly on the average Americans psyche, but in Europe its different, patriotism is ironic more than anything else.

605. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #135954 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 29, 2008 at 11:25 am

The right to bear arms

All people have the right to bear arms because, well other people have guns so you need to protect yourself.

All countries need atomic bombs because, well other countries have atomic bombs so they need them to protect themselves.

No??????

606. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135233 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Despots are commonly anti-intellectuals. Hitler murdered the Jews, wiping out a disproportionate number of professors, doctors, scientists, attorneys, etc. Stalin persecuted his intellectuals, sending thousands to the Gulag. Mao made professors scrub toilets during the Cultural Revolution. Pol Pot explicitly hunted down and murdered anyone with higher education.

Yes and with Pol Pot merely if a person looked like an intellectual. I believe glasses were a symptom of the affliction.

I'm not suggesting we pull the plug, merely noting that we do not need nor have a rational argument for keeping unproductive people alive. Most of what we do, we do because that's what we've long done, not because everybody sat down and thought things through logically.

The currency of productivity is fungible, although intelligence would always factor in no doubt.
I know you get the same pangs of conscience when contemplating such a world though (as your description of the child from Darfur shows). A free-market for existence may be the solution to over-population, resource shortage and the extinction of the species but:
Would I save someones life if I had the chance? Yes. Would I provide care for an individual who lacks productivity? Yes. To all similar questions I would answer yes. Why? Because my evolved 'morality' compels me to do so.
I can see a future where either we deal with the problems of over-population and resource shortage or they deal with us, but I still answer yes. It's a blind spot in that my justification is purely emotional and perhaps the actions based on these emotions will destroy the species (although the bi-products of this are solidarity, community etc which have allowed humans to exist up until now). I still cannot bring myself to advocate your sophisticated form of eugenics.
Lets hope genetic doping will come before nature strangles us. Still the same problems of over-population arise. Are we as a species doomed?

607. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135175 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Are you suggesting Prof. Hawking is severely mentally retarded? That doesn't make sense.

Yes I agree that in the context of your quote it does seem strange. I was though (although I was unclear I admit) referring to your more general point that:

Consider: there are some people who have very little chance of ever pulling their own weight in society

By some measures Hawking fits this criteria; A man who is completely dependent on others for survival. I think I will retract my point though if your criterion for imbecility is intelligence. We can imagine the kind of society this would create, but I won't be as ungenerous as to suppose intelligence is your only criterion so I will allow you to elucidate further.

Let's try another moral dilemma that may be easier to picture. Suppose you are in a lifeboat that can hold 50 people of average weight before it sinks. Suppose there are 100 people drowning in the water around you. If more than 49 other people climb in the lifeboat, everybody drowns. What do you do? What is the purely rational thing to do when you lack the resources to save everybody?

Similar to Joshua D. Greene famous "Trolley Problem". You would obviously choose a utilitarian solution if you were being purely rational, and it seems instinctive also.

It's strange how that works. If one of those starving kids from Darfur was on your doorstep, you'd probably go out of your way to feed and clothe the poor child. But when the problem is a continent away, most of us rarely think about it.

I refer you to a comment I made in another thread. I completely agree.
"The insular way we humans live our lives today, divorced from the consequences of our actions allows forms of behaviour that wouldn't be dreamed of if we were connected to the consequences of our actions."

As to the method. Society should provide a place for all people of all abilities to live and prosper.
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever have prospered."-Adam Smith

It probably comes as no surprise that I generally don't do that. I'm far too smugly condescending to have any chance at despotism. Look at how I get flamed on this site; how many people are lining up to swear allegiance to me

I like the way you post. It's all too easy to trot out trite pith.

I don't know. Did Hitler want to cure the retarded, as I advocated in my post? Or did Hitler simply want to kill them?

I was referring to your tendency towards eugenics.

For the most part I reject Hitler's most lasting contribution to modern society: the superhighway, at least for personal use. I do, somewhat inconsistently, eat food shipped in trucks that travel on Hitler highways.

Why?

I would be surprised if I have ever had an original thought.

I would be surprised if there ever are that many original thoughts. The few who are believed to have had them are regarded as geniuses. Original in terms of the fact that no one ever thought them, but truly original? I doubt there could be many more than a few tens of people who could claim that honour.

608. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #135151 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Devolution
Yeah I know and then in Texas they wanted to teach Spanish.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Texas schoolchildren"

609. Fleabytes

Comment #135143 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Richard Morgan You don't get the halitosis or flatulence, but you also don't get the ability to be ironic and sarcastic and mocking with the ease, or necessary surprise required.

610. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #135137 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Its so obvious with even a cursory glance at the foundation of America that it is not a Christian nation and that people who believe it are either self-deceptive,liars or ignorant.
Most are a combination of self-deception and ignorance. So even if this is presented to them it won't change their faith. That is of course the nature of faith.

611. Fleabytes

Comment #135096 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Richard Morgan
This is a relatively common sales technique called "creating the need".

You certainly love your Richard Bandler. :)

612. Fleabytes

Comment #135081 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Verylee
Yes that why I added the caveat at the end. I like the dialectic by the way.

613. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #135077 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 2:01 pm

If we looked at the numbers, we might find that society as a whole would advance faster if we were to exterminate the severely mentally retarded, and transfer the savings to fund more scientific research. That raises the question of what sort of humanitarian benefits we squander by beggaring science to feed the retarded - perhaps we are delaying scientific research that could ultimately save more lives than we are currently paying to feed.

Of course we won't consider such a thing, but why not? Not because we've thought it through on rational grounds (yes, there is the slippery slope argument, and it carries weight, but we take our chances atop many slippery slopes, such as for example by building the most destructive military machine in history and expecting politicians to keep it under control). The vast majority of people have never rationally considered the issue. If they did, some might find no purely logical reason to disagree with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who famously opined "Three generations of imbeciles is enough" as an expression of his strict utilitarianism.

Of course we can on purely rational grounds. So you would exterminate Stephen Hawking? We cannot judge what is or isn't imbecilic.

: magnetism, ambition, intelligence, ability to inspire and manipulate others, and a sociopath's ruthlessness and freedom from empathy and guilt.

In short a psychopath.

Do I see the beginnings of a Hitler in you?

All despots thus far appear to have been men. I don't know if that means women are immune to despotic tendencies, but if they are, that indicates a simple way to eliminate the problem or at least make it far less probable: banish men from politics. The few women who have risen to positions of leadership certainly haven't made a bigger mess of things than men thus far, so this seems like a very low-cost strategy.

Desmond Morris suggests this actually. Read him you'll like him.

614. Fleabytes

Comment #135067 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I have to say I'm incredibly suspicious of PMurdock. He has come to this site, apparently very recently and seems to be uncommonly knowledgeable of Wee Flea, knows he is David Robertson and has come armed with a distortion of a quote by Dawkins. Called posters on this site "Dawkins followers" and seems to be to naive to be credible.
If he really is a guy just starting university, questioning the world after having been brought up in a strict Christian family then I'm sorry PMurdock and Hello. I have to say his choice of topics seems too suspicious for me.

615. Fleabytes

Comment #135057 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Actual Dawkins quote:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

That's actually a beautiful sentiment.

616. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135044 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Cultural Sensitivity a liberal cause?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

"The job of a liberal state is not to stamp The True National Essence on its citizens, nor to promote "difference" for its own sake. It is to uphold the equal rights of every individual"
source: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2247,Why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned,Johann-Hari

617. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #135019 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm

3. Comment #134097 by ThoughtsonCommonToad
And a question, I assume horizontal gene transfer is a precursor to sex? The evolution of sex is interesting but I only have an amateurs knowledge. One of my favourites is that sex evolved as a sort of cannibalism.

I don't know why this thread hasn't provoked more discussion. It's one of the best I've read in a while on this site.

618. Fleabytes

Comment #134948 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 11:20 am

PMurdock

Prof. Dawkins followers a little above that?

I smell a rat.

619. Fleabytes

Comment #134830 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 28, 2008 at 8:41 am

Geoff - Actually Dawkins proves the existence of God with that clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC66oXIDGc8

620. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #134097 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 27, 2008 at 8:37 am

Fascinating. Viruses really are just bumbling along. A case where its quantity not quality. Again fascinating.

The stunning power of evolution is always summed up by this article for me. Evolving a Conscious Machine

And a question, I assume horizontal gene transfer is a precursor to sex? The evolution of sex is interesting but I only have an amateurs knowledge. One of my favourites is that sex evolved as a sort of cannibalism.

621. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133970 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 27, 2008 at 5:16 am

Styrer
In terms of performance enhancement I find it hard to see where to draw a line as the athletes job is to enhance his/hers performance.

I agreed with your point that in athletics we should as far as we can aspire to achieve equality. You pointed out that athletics should be a battle of athletic ability, rather than athletic ability plus capital, by making the point that drugs cost money.

So I suggested a universal budget to subtract capital from the athletes equation. You answered me with the very obvious point that this was a pie in the sky idea and what would I implement as practical solution against the one already employed: that being 'drugs' however one defines them, as the 'cutting-off' point.

So I suggested that scarcely available resources should be disallowed. This is to aspire to equality. It has obvious limitations. Is it expected that all athletes will live at the same altitude, in the same climate, with access to the same foods (allowing athletes who wish to keep a stricter diet than others to do so), same training facilities (allowing for athletes who wish to train more to do so) with access to the same coaching?

Well obviously this is a utopian wet dream and is not a practical solution.

Those are the two urges I'm fighting, one is that there is no line to be drawn in terms of what substances you can put in your body if the equation for each athlete is merely athletic ability plus effort. The other is that in the real world the equation is athletic ability plus capital plus effort. With capital comes access to all other sorts of resources and which enhances an athletes performance in an unfair way compared to other athletes.

So I cannot say I would make the cut-off at drugs because if we allow the some of the advantages of capital, we should allow them all. I wish to make the equation athletic ability plus effort, but unfortunately it is, and probably always will be, athletic ability plus capital plus effort.

JUST TO HELP YOU STYRER THE REST OF THE POST DOESN'T RESPOND DIRECTLY TO YOUR POINT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO CARRY ON READING AS IT IS AN OVERLY LONG POST

Note to Goldy: bloody line drawing lol.
And yes in the grand scheme of things sport is such a trivial part of existence. The gloom you hear on late night phone-ins, the anguish and despair because your local team lost 3-0 (in my case a regular occurrence). There are things to really despair about in this world and if the general population were not saturated with a facile entertainment culture the world could be a better place. It is just silly really I agree.

The fact that David Beckham gets dropped from the England team get more coverage than the suicide bombing in Pakistan and Iraq that day, more than the massacre in Darfur etc. The insular way we humans live our lives today, divorced from the consequences of our actions allows forms of behaviour that wouldn't be dreamed of if we were connected to the consequences of our actions. We wouldn't dream of dumping litter in a big hole in the ground to rot away for example. Out of sight out of mind unfortunately. We don't see the amount of carbon dioxide pumped in the atmosphere so that our television can stay on standby to save 5 minutes of our time re-inputting the settings. We don't see the animals who are treated appallingly to provide us with a meal. I'll stop I think the last paragraph is a bit of a rant but hey we're all allowed one from time to time.

TERATORNIS. You're blowing my mind. Genetic engineering on adult genomes, not just so called designer babies. Do you have any resources? I can't tell how much you've just blown my mind. "it may someday be possible to completely reconstruct a person's body down to the molecular level". Wow

622. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133756 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Yes Goldy I believe it is. I'm not a big fan of Reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't allow line drawing at all.

623. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133754 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Yes Styrer you are right. It seems right that resources that are scarce, i.e not available to the majority, should be disallowed.
I believe that would be an acceptable compromise.

Thanks for responding Diacanu, Styrer, Goldy, Frankus1122 and Teratornis.

624. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133749 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Teratornis

Once science enables every human to be as athletic as he or she wants to be, the average person will probably lose interest in worshipping our current genetic anomaly sports heroes.

Would not genetic inequality still be preserved? There would still be an apex unreachable. For example, If I was to take performance enhancements, and Michael Johnson also was, Johnson would still always be the better Basketball player.

I like your post though, very thought-provoking.

625. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133743 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Well the point of the falsity of inequality was exactly the one I was making with my examples. Either you force all training to be equal, under laboratory controlled conditions to ensure perfect equality, allowing for differences in effort, or you cannot scream inequality when talking about drugs.

Yes it's true drugs cost money, but so do high-tech training facilities and other performance enhancing techniques.

I'd advocate a universal budget to stop inequality based on wallet size.

It's something that has always bugged me. It could come under the heading of Double-Standards I suppose.

EDIT: Other examples, "But its my Faith". It seems peoples averse reaction to drug use is merely a reaction to the taboo of drugs.

Double standards to the legalisation of alcohol, but not of so called 'drugs', merely because of historical precedent.

EDIT: Sorry Styrer, I didn't answer question, Or are you indifferent to inequality? I would describe myself as a socialist, so no I am absolutely not indifferent to inequality.

626. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133720 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Actually just a question for everyone. Can anyone give a coherent reason why drug doping is against the rules?

If I'm an athlete and I stick to a calorie controlled diet, and another athlete eats high fat, 'unhealthy' foods the former gains a 'performance enhancement' which is the alleged offence.

If I'm a British athlete with access to cutting edge technology to monitor my running style, oxygen levels etc I gain a massive advantage over an athlete training in the foothills of Nepal who has himself and his running shoes.

If I'm a distance runner living in at high altitude, I gain an advantage when i compete against athletes who train in naturally lower lying areas.

etc


Anyone, I've always wondered?

Goldy in reference to "uber-athletes claiming they didn't do drugs". Be nice to hear your response.

EDIT:Kudos on Ben Johnson thing

627. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133715 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Genesis 7:14 "They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort."

Creationist: "I've never seen a monkey give birth to a Human."

My [Exclamation of awe] that was wonderful Richard.

628. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133709 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Frankus1122
Johnson pulled up about 50m from the finish line so Bailey didn't actually win.
The fact that always amazes me is that Ben Johnson's 'record' of 9.79 in 1988, although revoked for drug use, (Carl Lewis was just as bad, tested positive three times before the 1988 Olympics, but his claim of inadvertent use was accepted and the decision was overturned, all without publicity until I think the early 2000s) was not equalled until Maurice Green came along in 1999.

EDIT: I'm not American by the way, just pointing it out.

EDIT:Actually just a question for everyone. Can anyone give a coherent reason why drug doping is against the rules?

If I'm an athlete and I stick to a calorie controlled diet, and another athlete eats high fat, 'unhealthy' foods the former gains a 'performance enhancement' which is the alleged offence.

If I'm a British athlete with access to cutting edge technology to monitor my running style, oxygen levels etc I gain a massive advantage over an athlete training in the foothills of Nepal who has himself and his running shoes.

If I'm a distance runner living in at high altitude, I gain an advantage when i compete against athletes who train in naturally lower lying areas.

etc


Anyone, I've always wondered?

629. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133624 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm

toddaa

Chapter 5 - The problem of wicked atheists. Stalin, Hilter, Mao and Pol Pot.

I've come to the conclusion that the only proper response to this line of argument is to use PZ Myers patented response, "YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT." No matter how many times we debunk it, they come back for more. At some point you have to conclude that they so fucking stupid that they require written instructions on how to keep food from dribbling down the front of themselves when they eat.

You can see the parallels from their point of view.
"They were dogmatic maniacs but surely that's all religious fundamentalists are?"

Its actually the fact that atheism is not a belief system, it doesn't entail anything at all.

Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything.

�" C.S. Lewis

Assertion is there anything to back this up? Well the surveys in Britain, suggesting massive rise in New Age belief systems, and the particularly putrid, Madeleine Bunting - esque, "I believe in 'something' but I'm not sure what 26%".

Summary: If you believe things without evidence your mind is uncritical and at risk of extreme behaviours.

630. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132299 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Steve Zara seems to be the resident physics expert so I'll address my question to him.

Why does the cyclical universe get rid of the need for a beginning, a first cycle if you will?

And are you just a keen amateur or do you work in the field?

631. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132225 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Wired: But isn't there still a beginning?

632. My Argument With God

Comment #132094 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 24, 2008 at 6:48 am

Paula Kirby: The term "free will" has its roots in theology and is very much bound up with notions of sin.

A very strange way to describe free will. This is just assertion on your part.

Steve Zara What have you got against Gervais?

633. My Argument With God

Comment #131748 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 23, 2008 at 5:51 am

I think Ricky Gervais' work is fantastic. He and Stephen Merchant produced perhaps the best comedy series ever with The Office, and a decent follow up with Extras. Incidentally the Kate Winslet episode of extras in the first series has an atheist theme among others.

EDIT: link to said episode: Extras s01e03

634. My Argument With God

Comment #131743 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 23, 2008 at 5:38 am

Partisan
Stephen Colbert is a Catholic Sunday School teacher. Although as to whether he's a believing Christian I have big doubts.

635. My Argument With God

Comment #131687 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 23, 2008 at 2:40 am

Charles Darwin recognized the importance of free will to evolutionary biology. He first wrote about human free will in his M & N notebooks as he became a materialist in 1838, soon after the voyage of the Beagle:

The general delusion about free will is obvious because man has power of action, & he can seldom analyses his motives (originally mostly INSTINCTIVE, & therefore now great effort of reason to discover them.…)
Source:http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55593?&print=yes

636. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #130464 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 20, 2008 at 3:21 pm

A more pertinent, and real, example concerns a Sikh man being thrown off a train in Ontario because he was carrying a ceremonial dagger under his clothes. This situation was unfair because train security does not routinely strip search passengers, or even ask if they're carrying a weapon. They just happened to see he was a Sikh and realized he probably was wearing a dagger.

In this case, it would be up to the authorities to provide a rationale for stopping the man from riding the train (or taking away his dagger). I think they would have to provide some evidence of attacks by Sikhs using ceremonial daggers, not just a "general risk."

Easy if the law is that you cannot carry a knife then simply making an objection based on tradition is not valid. You assume that people are the mean of their culture. A sikh is a sikh, an american an american. Multi-culturism is a poison, a poison that does not take account of the fact of individuality.

And what would stop a person dressing up in Sikh attire so as to be allowed to carry a ceremonial dagger.

Defences of multi-culturism always leads to 'unlcarity'.

637. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #130449 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 20, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Enlightenme..

Watched this a couple of weeks ago..there's a bit of handbags in it!

Where??? There are no Handbags. No animosity whatsoever.

638. Bart Ehrman, Questioning Religion on Why We Suffer

Comment #130110 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 20, 2008 at 5:25 am

Yes the question whether or not there is a benevolent God is certainly settled. No need to be tooth-fairy agnostics about omni-benevolence.

Congential Birth Defects

Cancer, Parkinsons etc

Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanic Eruptions etc

Psychopath, Sociopaths

etc...

Free Will can explain Human on Human suffering, but nothing can explain these if you posit an omni-benevolent god.

639. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129510 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on February 19, 2008 at 8:35 am

Justin Barrett, a psychologist who has been quoted in support of arguments by both the atheist Richard Dawkins and his critic, Alister Mc-Grath

The confusion with this sentence lies in the use of "in support of arguments" rather than "to support arguments made". Good journalism is clearly intelligible, this is not.
The journalist clearly wants a boost by including Richard's name in the article but her desperation has caused her to make this 'unclarity' to quote Rowan.