Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by BAEOZ


701. Review of Richard Dawkins' new book 'The Fascism Delusion'

Comment #69183 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 11:01 pm

Eric Blair, your comment makes a lot of sense. To me, and I suspect other atheists, belief in god is irrational and as such religion is irrational. To believers, it's not a question of it being an irrational whole, their little part gives their life meaning and is different to the religion that atheists attack....

702. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69163 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 8:33 pm

82abhilash:

Bottom line. Some of us are nice, because we fear punishment. But most of us are nice because it is our nature to think that being nice is good for us. And we help develop and sustain liberal societies, where niceness prevails.

That makes sense to me. If we were all agressive, society would be survival of the most agressive. I think that morality comes from our general nature, it doesn't proscribe our actions.

703. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69154 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 7:54 pm

void BaeOzComments(int & iAmSilly)
{
iAmSilly++;
}

I like it alot Yorker.

704. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69151 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Yorker, I guess that means we have to convince Tom Cruise, John Travolta and David Hasselhoff, et al to become atheists.....

705. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69144 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 7:23 pm

82abhilash, I think I understand your point, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence of large numbers of people without pacifist tendencies who didn't concentrate to not form societies. I guess my point is, that we evolved the tendency and from this society came. In your earlier post, I thought you were of the opinion that people chose to be pacifist. Correct me if I've got any of that wrong.

706. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69126 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Oxytocin:

I'm Canadian.

Apologies. Mea culpa.

707. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69124 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 6:39 pm

82abhilhash:

Humans who build cities and develop civilizations are those who think murder is immoral, under most circumstances. Those who think otherwise cannot advance as a culture.

That seems a little back-to-front to me. Obviously you can't have society if people murder and lie all the time. But did people just "choose" to not murder and lie after they decided that they wanted to form a society and that murder etc would stop them from doing so? I'd have thought that being a social animal meant that a large part of the species would not exhibit egregious behavior and so society, in some part, would follow from our nature as social animal. That is, some biological trait we all share means most of us are not into murder....

708. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69120 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Going well over here in OZ oxytocin. Suns out, footy finals have begun.... Just finished an assignment for Research Methods, now have to do one for Biological Psychology. The joys of study! From which part of the world do you hail? NZ?

709. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69119 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Yeah, I've heard about Augustine of Hippo, I bought his City of god, which I've read a tiny bit of, and something about free will, which I've not looked at. I reckon he was a prick, he spent his youth enjoying himself, then later, after having his fill, he recants and tells everybody that their life sucks and that's the way god intended it and physical pleasures are bad (I think). Prick.
I remember the name Protagoras from Bertrand Russell's book on history of western philosophy, can't remember much more than that. Will have to look into it. Thanks Henri.

710. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69113 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 6:13 pm

I have to agree Henri. I've thought several times while reading Plato that you could just substitute the christian god and idea of soul into his text and you'd have something straight from the Vatican factory of rubbish philosophy.
There's a bit in the latter part of the republic where evil people are sent down into the Earth for eternity and good to heaven coupled with his idea of the eternal soul that makes me thing that the early christians should've been charged with plagiarism.
The only Sophist referenced in Plato was Gorgias, I think. Are there any that you recommend reading?

711. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69109 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Henri, I'm reading Plato ATM, find him a good writer, but his philosophy seems to take many things for granted (i.e. soul) and he dismisses opposing views simply because he can find a logical error in the idea as proposed by the person holding the view, he doesn't seem to debunk the idea itself. Anyway, next is Aristotle...I'll get to N in a little while, I've bought the books, just thought I'd try a chronological approach to philosophy to see if I can understand the evolution of ideas.....

Hey Oxcytocin, how's life being a neurotransmitter? I think, as yorker said, Henri is an agent provocatuer. I quite like his cutting attacks but I agree with you that I'll take preponderance evidence over rational thought as reasonable.

712. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69091 by BAEOZ on September 9, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Henri, how's it going? Good to see you back hammering morality again. Still haven't read Nietzche yet, but he seems to have made an impression with you.

713. The Atheist

Comment #68054 by BAEOZ on September 5, 2007 at 10:10 pm

To all who are leaving: thanks for your comments and have a good one!

714. The Mix Tape of the Gods

Comment #68023 by BAEOZ on September 5, 2007 at 4:53 pm

I have to agree with Yorker. It is fun to rib people sometimes, but we can't know everything. Each of us will know a little of something. Besides atheism isn't scientism (hate that word.) You don't have to know physics or the speed of light in a vacuum before you think belief in supernatural gods is a wank. And it'd be boring as batshit if we all knew the same things and didn't have anything to teach each other.....

715. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67892 by BAEOZ on September 5, 2007 at 4:38 am

Richard, I've been to some crappy funerals, usually when young people died due to some crappy circumstance and to some good funerals, where the deceased had had a good crack at life, lived it well and the people at the funeral got together to celebrate his life and then get seriously pissed after whilst recalling stories of the stiff being a silly human over too many beers.

716. In God we doubt

Comment #67868 by BAEOZ on September 5, 2007 at 3:37 am

V:

Sorry, Russell, I am no philosopher of any particular discipline. At the level of practical living, I really don't give a flying fuck for the mainly mental meanderings of meticulous minds.

I agree in the sense that I too think that metaphysics is the hiding ground of people who don't have evidence. I do like philosophy though, the little of it that I've learnt. I think the problem is that believers know that their belief is illogical and so try to dress it up as something high and intellectual through philosophy to cover. Like anything in life, you can be honest or dishonest and I think most believers are dishonest in their use of philosophy, they don't use it to find the truth, only to cloak their silliness with a mystique of quasi-sensibility.


Such perorations about the preposterous proposals of the pre-inclined protesters to a pre-determined progenitor is pathetic.

Try saying that 5 times in quick succession!
Peter piper picked a.....blah!

Hey V, I was trying to delete my account last Saturday because I'd had it with the metaphysical bullshit of the believers on the Alistair McGrath link. But the next day I found that I wanted to read more articles and post again. It's an addiction......

717. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67814 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 11:26 pm

You don't want me to mess with peoples minds Richard?

718. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67809 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 10:59 pm

I guess that means any atheist who doesn't agree with him isn't half-decent then?

719. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67800 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Oxytocin:

Dr Benway, are you a psychiatrist?

I believe the Dr. is some variety of avian, suffering from anal fixation, who's delusions, brought on by seeds dosed with LSD, lead him to believe that he's a psychiatrist and that he treats the mentally ill. I base this diagnosis on the good Dr's avatars, which were various sweet looking birds giving the viewer a good look at their respective cloacas. The current avatar is symptomatic of the pathological psychosis that one might expect of a small bird that's tripping so much that he thinks he's human. However, I'm yet to explain how a wee bird can access an interact with the internet via a computer. A conundrum indeed.....The alternate hypothesis the the Dr. is indeed a human, and a psychiatrist has been rejected due to lack humour it engenders in my mind.

720. In God we doubt

Comment #67786 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Northern Bright, that was a great series of posts. I've often wondered how you reach someone who doesn't seem to understand the words we share the same way. Been very frustrated too and have attacked believers more than once because of what I see as their dishonesty. I don't have your or Russell's ability nor patience, me thinks.
Oh well.....

721. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67778 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Thanks for the offer. Can you finish my assignment that is due in a week? I'm up to the bit on Repeated Measures ANOVA and.....just kidding.

722. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67775 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Thanks for the info Oxytocin. I will probably finish my degree in a year or so. I don't think I'll do post-grad to become a therapist or such because I'd have to study full time at a uni and that would mean leaving my job which keeps me in beer and skittles of proportions I've become accustomed to. Also, I don't know that I have the ability to empathise and understand the client sufficiently to help them instead of telling them what I think they need to change, a la Dr. Phil.

723. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67769 by BAEOZ on September 4, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Interesting comments. Oxytocin, you're a font of knowledge.
I once thought I could handle anything that came my way in life and shrinks were for weirdos, but in the end I kept doing destructive things in my relationships and stuff and sought help. I saw shrink for a year or so. He was brilliant, I think he did cbt. Therapy was nothing like on tv or movies, much more like working out stuff and trying different thoughts and behaviours. Very useful.
Anyway, that experience got me interested in psych and now I'm studying it part time. I can certainly attest to how scientific it is, and how much evidence is collected. Bloody experimental methods and statistics out my cloaca!
I believe that psychiatrists are doctors with psychological training but approach the problem as soluble with drug therapy as well as behavioural/mental approach. Is that basically correct?

724. The New Atheists

Comment #67581 by BAEOZ on September 3, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Russell, you're way to reasonable to fit the militant atheist caricature. Sheesh! Don't you know that atheists like RD and all who tend to agree with him are the Devil and his demonic minions? Act the part please. Theists have enough cognitive dissonance to deal with without atheists not fitting their clearly defined roles in the theistic worldview.
{end poor attempt at humour}

725. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67578 by BAEOZ on September 3, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Hey Oxytocin. I'm studying psych part time and was quite interested in cbt. How do you challenge irrational theistic beliefs? I think you have to put up with them, as they're not considered delusions like say, someone believing that a burning bush is talking to them.....oh wait, that's considered normal too. :)

726. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67554 by BAEOZ on September 3, 2007 at 7:29 pm

So it's not just Tom Cruise and the his cadre of supernaturalists who dislike psychiatrists.....Faith can't handle having it's dualist cannard of a separate mind/soul being trampled on by doctors with monist ideas from science and their drugs perhaps?

727. In God we doubt

Comment #67307 by BAEOZ on September 3, 2007 at 3:25 am

Seems like a reasonable guy, whose desperate to justify faith and tell off those nasty atheists. Sigh.
I'd like devolved to tell me how Koalas and similar got over here to OZ from Turkey too. They only eat a small selection of Eucalyptus leaves, very picky. How'd they get them on the way?

728. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67301 by BAEOZ on September 3, 2007 at 3:12 am

And here is an interesting thing: it was only the atheists who seemed absolutely certain."

It's funny, I'd have thought saying that we await any evidence of god, and that evidence explanatory value for the god case only, we think it dishonest to believe in god is the opposite of an absolute statement about god's nonexistence. Silly me.
Who are these fundamental atheists by the way?

729. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67265 by BAEOZ on September 3, 2007 at 1:47 am

I didn't realise she was not religious. That blows my thesis out of the water.
Salley 1 - Me 0.
C'est la vie. Anyway...

730. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67255 by BAEOZ on September 3, 2007 at 1:24 am

V, don't let her comments bother you. Religious people see the acts of the non-religious through their worldview. If you agree with someone and defend him, then like a christian is to christ, you'll simlarly be seen. They project how they imagine they'd act.

731. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66971 by BAEOZ on September 1, 2007 at 6:18 am

Yorker:

The fact she was a spoiled brat dork wouldn't make any difference to Diana fans, in fact I think they'd love her more for it.

The fact that letters show that Mother Teresa didn't believe in god wouldn't make a difference to some catholics, in fact I think they'd love her more for it.

Gotta love cognitive dissonance.

732. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66964 by BAEOZ on September 1, 2007 at 5:58 am

PaulEmecz. You do realize Jesus was OK with Slavery? Do you call yourself a Catholic and both ignore those bits of catholicism that you disagree with as well as Jesus' teachings?
You are a liar.

733. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66962 by BAEOZ on September 1, 2007 at 5:49 am

Well this person didn't put on her thinking cap...
Russell Blackford: I believe I get where you're coming from. Such idiocy without evidence. I know I asked you about it ages ago, and you said that I'd have to do the philosophical heavy lifting. But it seems strange to me that we haven't worked out that although anything can exist, there's no honest reason to believe it does without something tangible or is that supposing to much? .... Then again that means someone intelligent (that excludes me) can create a new theory and we can all learn more because we still haven't worked it out...c'est la vie.

734. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66674 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 10:18 pm

V:

I am sober now and have just celebrated with several cups of coffee:-)

A couple of wines in quick succession would fix that state of affairs better than several cups of coffee.

735. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66665 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 9:36 pm

I'll try:
If Hitchens' opinions aren't all
Wholly liberal, then comets will fall!
Then RichardDawkins.net
Will engage in a godless minuet*,
While satan holds them in thrall!

minuet = a slow, stately dance in triple meter
scansion = the metrical analysis of verse.
Meter, metric? OK, I'm flogging a dead equine....

736. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66663 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 9:23 pm

OK, now you're just pulling them from your derriere! Still, as a novelist, lawyer, philosopher and probably many other things, it's probably not a stretch for you.

737. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66661 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 9:14 pm

What was that about scansion Russell? Just kidding, it seems to have a lovely meter.

738. The importance of doubt

Comment #66658 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Can't let this one go.
Steve it's "no me gustaN mucho los sesos", sesos is plural and gustar agrees the subject in number, not the indirect object. Sorry, but it seems fair.

739. The importance of doubt

Comment #66656 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Gracias por corregirme esteban raíz. Aunque soy australiano y el inglés es mi lengua materna, no soy capaz de escribirlo bien.
Te gustan sesos fritos o revueltos? Me disgustan. Qué asco!

La cucaracha, la cucaracha,
ya no puede caminar.
Porque no tiene, porque le falta.
Marihuana pa' fumar...

740. The importance of doubt

Comment #66651 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 8:26 pm

Me too! I'll probably get corrected but....

Dico fides rationem non habere. (latin)
Digo que la fe no tiene razón. (spanish)
Dico che la fede non ha ratione. (italian)
Je dis que la fe n'a pas raison. (french)
I say that faith doesn't have reason. (strailyen)

(fides et ratio = faith and reason for those who don't know.)
The Spanish one means faith doesn't make sense as well as it's literal meaning.

741. The importance of doubt

Comment #66645 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 7:48 pm

RD:

I cannot have deliberately misquoted John Cornwell because I have never quoted him, or even mentioned him, in any of my books.
mat
That's really gotta burn Fides. Sorry, I'm probably seeming all gooey eyed!

Hey Fides, you still clinging to the trinity, as taught by the Catholic church? Or have you become honest and accepted it's logically flawed? Just in case you have any doubts as to why it's flawed:

God is the father , son and holy spirit . Thus, god is identical with the father, and god is identical with the son and god is identical with holy spirit. All good?
Now, the trinity states that there are 3 different persons in the godhead which means that the father isn't identical with son and the father isn't identical with holy spirit and the holy spirit isn't identical with the previous 2. That just contradicted the first two sentences which stated that god was those 3 persons. If god is identical with father and identical with son at same time, the father must be the son and so on with other combinations of the 3. It's violates the law identity to say they are distinct persons.
If you say that identity doesn't matter, then nothing in this world is reliable, because arithmetic and logic can't work without identity.
I wonder if you'll be honest and say that the trinity, as taught to catholics and probably all christians, is not logically possible.

742. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66634 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 5:31 pm

The past isn't what it used to be either.
Look! A fundamentalist! Get him!
Sorry, just wanted to see if Howard style dog whistling worked here....

743. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66625 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 4:31 pm

V:

This one is said in Oz quite a lot - one sandwich short of a picnic.

A few roos short in the top paddock.
A few snags short of a barbie.
A few cards short of a full house. etc.

744. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66592 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Richard Morgan:

The problem is, I'm so frightened of silly people harming a cause that is so vitally important to me, that I end up, well, harming the cause, in reaction.

So frightened that anything that bends from your orthodoxy has you jumping at shadows and labeling as silly what may indeed be a statement of ironic or humorous comment or even plain admiration. Live and let live man. It's a big board.

745. The importance of doubt

Comment #66438 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 2:14 am

I didn't finish the article. Seemed a waste of my only life.......I'd rather drink wine and read something educational. Now where's that playboy?

746. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66435 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 2:11 am

I have some Irish blood too! Anybody want to step outside for a blue? I'll be right around to accommodate you in an...eternity. (Hopefully no one knows where this cowardly little devil lives :))
What a wanker! Just a puffed up try hard.

747. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66420 by BAEOZ on August 30, 2007 at 1:12 am

Yes, I was ducking and running away after my little jibe. Anyway, where were we? I concur with RD, Sam, Dan Dennet et al. too. Anyway.....

748. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66397 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Richard Dawkins:

What a terrific piece by Sam. Just a marvellous piece of writing.

I wonder if Richard Morgan will accuse RD of being into gooey eyed hero worship....(ducks and runs away !)

749. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66395 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Richard Morgan:

However I should explain that I find gooey-eyed hero-worship demeaning to the debate itself

Seeing that you included me in your previous grouping, and continue to comment on it, I'll risk my dignity.
I take it you still think my comment about Sam's writing gooey eyed hero worship. I know text read on the net is easily misconstrued so I can understand how in your mind you might have thought I was like some beatlesque teenage girl sqealing. Didn't feel like that where I sit. I just reckon you give kudos where it's due and equally rip shit through someone where that's due too. Anything you've read into my comment isn't necessarily coincident with reality.

750. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66353 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 6:52 pm

BigJohn:

Any logical, thinking person must be against abortion. It requires a strong dose of liberal dogma to find abortion acceptable. There are few legitimate reasons to kill a human being.

And that in a nutshell is why the abortion debate gets derailed. Equivocation, a human embryo and early stage fetus in now way can be termed a child or human being. It may be said to be a human becoming if you want to be cute. It can't feel pain, think or do anything a human being can be said to do. And if you wish to compare it to a disabled or brain damaged person, because they may not think or feel pain, then that won't wash either, because a disabled person can and does survive outside of his/her mothers womb. A 3 month fetus can't. They generally turn the machine off when an unfortunate person can't think (brain dead) and can't survive without a respirator for good reason.
You need reason to debate ethics, not equivocation of comparing a glump of cells with potential to be a child with a real child.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next