901. The Out Campaign

Comment #60343 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Just musing away here. It strikes me that WeeFlea and other apologists get all uppity when a scientist makes a statement outside of what they view as his intellectual domain. They seem to forget that the word science is shorthand for "The science of Natural Philosophy". It's very much in RD's purview to comment on anything touching the philosophy of the natural world. Science is not just a technique that gives us plasma screens and cup warmers. It is a methodology that seek to explain the natural world via refutable hypotheses that are supported by repeatable measurements. If a person, such as WeeFlea, maintains that there is a god and that this god influences this world, then that is very much in the realm on Natural Philosophy, as it's affecting the natural world. So, RD can ask for empirical data, measurments, evidence. And until a theist produces this, they can't honestly maintain they know there is a god, or even that it's reasonable to believe in god. Just because you feel there's a god, doesn't make god exists, it's ontological wankery......And I maintain dishonest.
Anyway.....

902. The Out Campaign

Comment #60266 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 12:30 pm

WeeFlea:

"Belief in something that we have no knowledge of and which we can't be said to have experienced is a dishonest belief."

I agree entirely. So whats your problem?

Hi WeeFlea, it would seem on the surface we agree about many things. You didn't claim that atheism is a synonym for communism this time. I'll take that as you being able to understand definitions, and evidence against faith rendering you powerless. I trust you won't play that equivocation game again.
Second as you agree with that definition of ethical belief and knowledge, please present your empirical evidence for your beliefs. I look forward to reading them and being able to recreate them and to measuring them with equipment. If you can't measure a phenomenon, you can't call say you experience it, as you would realize. It would violate that pesky 1st law of thermodynamics if something that doesn't have energy or matter (all measurable) had an effect on something that does have energy or matter. Also, I have no doubt you'll get the Nobel prize - rewritings our understanding of the natural laws to include such violations of the 1st law of thermodynamics as the soul should ensure this - so it will be a pleasure to be able to experiment with your evidence.
See! No abuse or nastiness. Now can I get a "gold star" in the manner you gave _J_?

903. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #60097 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 2:01 am

Downunder:

meantime we do still not know where life goes to on death

Unless you want to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics; there is nothing after death. There's no net loss of matter or energy, thus everything is still there, just your organism has stopped. C'est la vie (ou C'est la morte)

904. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60095 by BAEOZ on August 1, 2007 at 1:50 am

Veronique:

Get a grip (and on your cheque book as well). Give the RD site what it needs to keep going. Money, you idiots. You merely make comments, he is out there, trying on behalf of all of you. Kudos to him, give him a fair go (you can tell that I am an Aussie:-))

You know, I'd sort of assumed the advertising for RD's books and DVD's was somehow paying for this site. Not that I'd thought about it at all. I hate freeloading, and yet, it seems that's what I was doing. I did buy RD's "Life in the Universe" and some of those scarlet letter T's from this site and didn't think more of it. Anyway, thanks to your brilliant post Veronique, I was spurred into action and chucked a 100 little aussie battlers in the direction of the RD Foundation.
Anyway....

905. The Out Campaign

Comment #60076 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Charlou:

Ahhh, I see symbiotic potential here - you with too much iron, me who can't get enough...Are you a smoker? ;)

Very funny. I did smoke years back. I regularly do therapeutic donations at the blood bank. All that iron in my blood, they should give me more than fruit juice and party pies as recompense I reckon. How much do you pay a pint?

906. The Out Campaign

Comment #60074 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 7:19 pm

Charlou:

Actually, I'm just hiding my vampiric fangs so as not to alarm all you good mortals. ;)

Cool, I have heamachromatosis (probably spelt wrong), does that make me more or less appetising? I didn't really look too hard at your avatar to notice the glove. Anyway, my mistake.


Yorker:

I made the 60K comment, it's my prize, hands off!
If I fail at 19,999, you can have the rest. :)

Shh! my wife will chop off my marsupial goolies if she reads that. I'd just like to state that I was only enquiring about how the virgins are to be administered to the winner, not trying to get my paws on one....... :)

907. The Out Campaign

Comment #60067 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 6:22 pm

WeeFlea:

It is not that much different from those who argue that some people might have a gentic predisposition towards a bad temper but that other factors can also contribute - both in a negative and positive way.

Terrible analogy. Behaviour can be experienced. Twin tests can be done. Any hypotheis can be falsified. Original sin, on the other hand, is a myth, not testable or falsifiable.

Good post there Charlou. Is that a veil you're wearing in the photo?

908. The Out Campaign

Comment #60057 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 5:33 pm

_J_:

I'm 'a credit to this site'. Stick that in your pouch, marsupial.

_J_ until this comment, I've always admired your posts. But this is a discriminatory speciest remark. I cannot let it pass unrefuted We, who are pouched, should not be singled out. You're implying that being different, having a pouch, somehow makes us less of a mammal. I reject that. Females of my species lactate, and have hair. We are therefore mammals, as are monotremes like the echidna who lay eggs. It's a typical chauvinistic placentalist attack against us marsupials. We just care more for out young by giving them a place to develop after birth. If humans had pouches so that their young felt safe and warm, then I'm sure there'd be less angry people like WeeFlea.
Maybe I shouldn't have eaten that dead possum who was seen munching on that strange weed that the hippies have been planting before he jumped in front of a truck......Got the munchies, and a strange urge to listen to Pink Floyd.....

909. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60052 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Dr Benway:

It's an offense against plumbing. Why are the plumbers not speaking out?

Agreed, but even worse what about the poor person who needs to do number 2s and can't hold on? That is willfully and knowingly inflicting suffering on a sentient creature. It's plainly unethical.

910. The Out Campaign

Comment #60050 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Russell Blackford:

60,000 virgins, perhaps?

Well, are they real, human virgins? If they were perpetual, muslim boudoir (heaven) virgins, one would be enough. Even a man of the Hell fire club couldn't soil a perpetual virgin. But, as they are of this world. Happy wending through the 60,000 to whoever gets the prize......
Sorry, feeling a bit silly today. WeeFlea deemed me worthy of a put down. Sadly, he didn't deem me worthy of a refutation. Oh well, tis not my place to understand the reverends who would be revered I suppose.

911. The Out Campaign

Comment #60033 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 2:55 pm

WeeFlead:

BAEOZ thinks that my faith renders me powerless to think and to be able to see the truth. As an open minded atheist he is clearly aware that he alone has the truth. Why, even communists were faith heads, and not real atheists despite the fact that an important element in all their faith, was that there is no God. When is an atheist not an atheist. When he is a communist!

Very funny WeeFlea. Do you do matinees? Wherever did you get the idea that I deal in truths of a solipsistic variety?
Seriously, the fact that you've not yet been able accept that atheism is a term that implies no positive belief goes a long way to demonstrating my point that faith renders you powerless to see the truth. You can't even understand the definition, created by people of faith, is negative.
Communism implies a positive belief about class struggle and all that Marxist jazz and it was taken to religious extremes in the old USSR. Remember the gulags for those who didn't practice good think? This is a fact of history. A truth that is equally available to you as me. Communism is a faith of the godless sort, it's not atheism.
I've never said I alone know the truth, but that's the kind of ad-hominem I'd expect from someone who knows they don't have a leg to stand on. All our knowledge of this world is based on experience and probability. Belief in something that we have no knowledge of and which we can't be said to have experienced is a dishonest belief. Just like me saying I know or believe that you are a spotted owl. I have no knowledge or reason to believe it, so I'm dishonest if I do believe it. This is not something particular to me, it's universal. You know this is the truth, but your faith; which renders you powerless to choice, makes you affirm such stupidity as god's existence, resurrection and all that childish pap.
Thank you for proving my point about faith rendering you powerless to see reality. And when you accuse people of being nasty, remember it may just be that because you see the world through your nasty faith tinted glasses, you can't but help see people that way.

912. The Out Campaign

Comment #59888 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 3:03 am

WeeFlea:

Not for one minute do I beleive that RD and all you tolerant atheists will vote for a religious person, or allow a religious school or if you had power allow any public expression of what you consider to be so evil. In fact atheism whenever it comes to power is remarkably intolerant.

That's just testament to how people of faith project their own malignant world view on to others, not in any way an objective statement of truth. Your faith renders you powerless to think and be able to see the truth. Whenever christianity or any faith comes to power it is intolerant. Look what the peace loving christians did when Constantine gave them the keys to power, banned all learning and religions that didn't agree. Killed countless. This story has been repeated through time since; the Cathars, Inquisition, Nazis, Rawanda, just to name a few examples. And communists were people of faith too. So you can't pin that on Atheism which has no faith, by definition.
Oh, and by the way, if you say you know god exists, you're a liar, and faith in god is dishonest, as you are believing something without reason. No evidence = no basis to have faith. Or put another way, something so improbable as god, which flies in the face of all we know of the universe, requires the most amazing evidence, that can't be explained naturally to be a reasonable belief, else your being dishonest. ;-) (Sorry people, it's my favorite meme at the moment).

913. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59880 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 2:22 am

Fides:

My faith certainly doesn't teach that believers of other faiths or athiests or anyone is damned because of their belief.

So, you're not christian. Jesus was quite clear that he was the only way to eternal salvation. No if or buts.

914. The Out Campaign

Comment #59853 by BAEOZ on July 30, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Just ordered a army green t for myself, a baby blue for my wife and a sticker. Ahh, conformity :P

915. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59797 by BAEOZ on July 30, 2007 at 4:58 pm

Fides, you haven't responded to my post 214. How is it that you can claim to know something you cannot? Also, how it is that you are not immoral in believing something that you have no evidence for?
The way I see it is if you look up knowledge, you'll find that you can't know god's existence, as you don't have know if your belief is true, futher to be knowledge a true belief must be warranted to be knowledge, i.e. have some experiental backing. That covers the knowledge angle. Now, as to believing in god. As you have no reason for believing, that is there is no high probability of god's existence, it's immoral to pretend it's a reasonable belief. You must suspend any belief in god until you have a higher probability, say 99.9999999%. This is because belief in god is against all we see and know of the universe. It's tantamount to lying to believe in god when there's no support for god's existence. And to teach your son that there is a god and that praying to god is good is lying to him and that seems to be abuse to me.

916. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59672 by BAEOZ on July 30, 2007 at 6:00 am

Danielos, a requiem mass only goes to a catholic. Any catholic in fact. Only a Cardinal would bother with a head of state. It was Cardinal Bertram, who the church now tries to portray as against the Nazi's neopaganism, that may be true, but he wasn't against Hitler's catholicism.

Here's a list of quotes, by Hitler himself about his beliefs.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

917. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59607 by BAEOZ on July 29, 2007 at 10:56 pm

A bit of info on Hitler's version of christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

918. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59606 by BAEOZ on July 29, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Danielos, Hitler was given a requiem mass after his suicide, or at least offered one, by a cardinal. Not something you do for an atheist. The church supported him and helped many Nazis escape justice. They've locked up there records about a lot of this of course, it's all quite embarassing. But the Nazis were supported and had a lot of devout christians. The final solution is the ultimate outcome of 2000 years of christian persecution because the jews didn't accept christ as the messiah.
The Church did a similar thing supporting the genocide in Rawanda. Many priests were involved in organizing killings, who now have been given posts in other countries and the church has helped them avoid trial.

919. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59594 by BAEOZ on July 29, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Jadon64:

Has anyone heard the phrase "United we stand, divided we fall?"

Yes, it's the last lyrics in the Pink Floyd song "Hey You" from the 1979 double album; "The Wall". What of it?

920. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59554 by BAEOZ on July 29, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Billy:

It certainly beats wearing a dead jewish blasphemer on a stick.

I vote this as best post ever! Hail Billy.
PZ had a point. If you don't like it, don't wear it. For fuck's sake, to paraphrase the Quran, there's no compulsion in Atheism! Although there is a lot of compulsion in Islam.....

921. Come Out!

Comment #59336 by BAEOZ on July 28, 2007 at 8:30 pm

I just posted the link to the scarlet letter on my myspace site. If they hadn't already realized I was atheist before; with the Richard Dawkins, PZ myers' and Charles Darwin being amongst my friends and my select quotes about evolution and such, they don't need to be deluded anymore. :)
myspace/wearethecrap <-- gratuitous plug.

922. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59325 by BAEOZ on July 28, 2007 at 7:53 pm

OK,I'm going to side with PZ Myers, because he has a great website, and Russell Blackford, because he knows a lot about philosophy. And they're both a shitload smarter than I (as far I can tell anyway). Don't you love the argument to authority and bringing in irrelevant information? Seriously, it my point of view. If you don't like it, don't wear it. If you do like it wear it. It's not a life or death thing.
So, Henri, whilst I like your individualist stand, I'm a cat who doesn't always like to be herded, but still needs to be fed and have his back scratched from time to time. Which I can't do alone. Hopefully not a sheep. Baaaa :)

923. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59258 by BAEOZ on July 28, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Fides:

To whoever it was who said that 'if I know there is a God then it isn't faith' consider this. I know that my doctor is well-qualified, I put faith in that knowlege when I allow him to operate on me with a sharp knife. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I believe that was me. Let's play the equivocation game beloved by people of faith (without evidence).
You know a doctor, that means you know he's had training and subject to checks and balances as _J_ said.
You don't know god.
It's equivocation, pure and simple, to say that faith in a system that is empirically backed, and with which, if we so choose, we can check the bono fides of any person who claims membership, say a doctor, is the same as having faith in a superstition with no evidence.
If you have belief without evidence, as belief in an unknowable (note unknowable = you can't know) god requires, you don't know god (forgive the obvious repitition). There's no "warrant" that makes your belief knowledge. Note, this doesn't mean there isn't a god, and even allows that you may indeed believe in the right version of god by an incredibly improbable coincidence. But because you have no empirical reason to warrant this, possibly true, belief, you have no knowledge of god. You have no sensations that cannot be attributed to the natural world. Therefore you are lying when you claim to know god. Add to that the fact that this god you believe in is improbable and has no empirical backing, it's wrong to hold the belief.....
Exemplia gratia: Just as I can say I know there is a person called Wang Chung in a certain area of outback China. It just may be, however unlikely, there is a Wang Chung in that part of outback China, but it would be a lie to say I know this as I have nothing to warrant this belief whatsoever. Even the act of holding this improbable belief, with no empirical backing is dishonest. Hopefully you'll get my point. BTW, I don't profess any belief to the Wang Chungyness of any part of outback China.
Please stop with the semantic games and dishonesty.

924. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58978 by BAEOZ on July 26, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Bonzai:

How is it "morally wrong" to believe that you are 6 foot tall while you are 5'3"?

Uhm, becaue you're lying.

925. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58963 by BAEOZ on July 26, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I have to agree with Russell. I know posts about burning Bibles and churches are just having a bit of fun. But Fundamentalists, almost by definition, don't get irony. Everything seems to be literal to them. So, I guess if you post the most humorous diatribe with tongue firmly in cheek; the godbots will interpret it as literal. Sad really, but that's the mentality we seem to have to tackle. Of course, I could and often have no idea what I'm talking about. So feel free to ignore or ridicule me. :)

926. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58918 by BAEOZ on July 26, 2007 at 5:05 pm

Fides:

I know there is a God, I have a relationship with him and spend time in meditative prayer on a daily basis. As a result of this I have achieved a sense of peace, freedom from fear, and an awareness of the present that I didn't experience before.

OK, if you know, please show us the evidence. Also, if you know, you don't have faith. Of course, you're lying when you say you know.
This demonstrates the point I made earlier about faith being dishonest. You do not know there is a god. You cannot say you have a relationship with something you are not acquainted with. You may meditate and pray, that is purely mental. You are dishonest if you say you know god exists. This is why faith is egregious. It stops people from seeking out truth.

927. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58647 by BAEOZ on July 25, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Fides, if you're still around.
I think the thing that is worst about faith is that it teaches dishonesty. It says to children that it's OK, even virtuous, to accept something for which they have no evidence or something that is nearly improbable as being true (the probability for god existing is almost non-existent) and of the same validity as say something known like gravity. That's dishonest. You have don't know that god exists and you are lying if you say you do know. Therefore to teach a child that he does exist, that belief in him is a virtue, and that is good to pray makes you dishonest. That's why faith is bad, especially around impressionable minds.

This is all done before they have developed an efficient crap filter and so can't grasp that god is as unlikely as the tooth fairy. It will stick with them as they've been encouraged and told it is virtuous to believe in superstitions (so long as it's the parents superstition.)
If you don't believe that god is as unlikely as the tooth fairy and it's not dishonest to teach a child dogma like the existence of god, please tell me why. Remember, that even if science doesn't have an explanation for a natural phenomenon, that is not evidence of god's existence, let alone evidence for the truth of any tenets of your faith.
Also, you may teach your child about other faiths and harmony, but you'll raise him in your faith, won't you?

928. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58494 by BAEOZ on July 25, 2007 at 3:23 am

Fides_sin_ratio:

Mr. Dawkins difficulty in all this is that one of his arguments is that faith is childish. If this is true then it follows that children can have faith, therefore it is not only not wicked but right to label a child as having faith if he demonstrates a tendency towards the things of faith, as my son does when he prays.

Let's call faith puerile, childish or infantile. That which doesn't belong to an adult worldview. Not necessarily that which a child does.
Does your child demonstrate a tendency to repeat your words? or actions? Do you label him a copycat because he's learning by example. So don't label him for a habit that you've inculcated, whether intentionally or not. Because, if you didn't pray or talk about god,neither would he.

929. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #58438 by BAEOZ on July 24, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Dr. Benway:

Being contrary is a hobby.

Aha! That explains the positioning of the bird! It's not trying to moon us, just showing us the contrary view of it's anatomy....uhm....Oh shit, that's crap as an explanation! Bugger. I'll wait until more evidence presents itself before the enigma of the tit-avian is solved.

930. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57554 by BAEOZ on July 19, 2007 at 8:10 pm

Dr. Benway:

Silly devil! There's no anus on a titmouse

You are correct as usual good Dr. Do you have a cloacal fixation then? And it should change it's name to titbird or titavian thus not confusing lower mamals, such as the marsupials like myself who see the word mouse and think mammalian morphology with it's anality.

931. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57545 by BAEOZ on July 19, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Dr. Benway, I'm sure I'm not the first to comment on your new avatar. Are you stuck in some form of Freudian anal fixation? Actually, scratch that, amp up the volume, so to speak. Can we have an Ostrich or Emu moon shot? That would scare the b'jesus out anyone who doubted your authority!

932. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #56927 by BAEOZ on July 17, 2007 at 9:24 pm

equally astonished at what a load of crap it is.

That made me smile. Gotta love scientific honesty.

933. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55350 by BAEOZ on July 10, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Christianjb:

Um, that's not an 'optical' illusion

Yes it was, that was a plastic container of milk, not a jug. You were fooled into thinking it was a jug. Oh, wait, maybe that's not an optical illusion. :)

934. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55004 by BAEOZ on July 9, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Henri:

(If you go into a hologram it's impossible to get out but you can be heard by some animals.

Which only leads the question: You know this how? Have you gone into the hologram and are now only able to post on this site via communicating with a few fury critters who can interpret your commands and tap away on the keyboard? You didn't say whether you can hear the animals when they communicate extra-hologram to you inside the hologram. They may hear you, obey your commands, but not be able to tell you what happened next because you are unable to hear them. Tell me more of this strange learning.

935. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54759 by BAEOZ on July 8, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Henri, have you read " The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels"? It might help you understand how morals function. Then again, you might have read it.

936. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54492 by BAEOZ on July 7, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Oh, and as for the article. Drivel, and as the author cedes all the points to Dawkins and Hitchens she/he's left with wishful thinking. Poor little author, wants to be the reason the universe exists and those nasty scientists are taking that away from him/her.

937. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54491 by BAEOZ on July 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Dr. Benway, what happened to the mooning bird? This current avatar is so cute, I expect n'er an expletive to be uttered again by you. Did WeaFlea get over your revelation of a tryst with his mother?

938. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53542 by BAEOZ on July 2, 2007 at 1:38 am

That's basically the so-called Copenhagen interpretation. But some naturalists disliked the idea of a random reality; they felt that a clockwork universe a la Laplace is much more preferable.

Now, I'm not a QM expert, much less aficionado, but! (there's always a but). The Cophenhagen interpretation is just scientists being honest and following the evidence. It's what you get when you say, well, the experiments showed this, at this point in time we can only propose this interpretation if we wish to be true to the evidence. Can you say the others follow the evidence and therefore imply determinism?
Apart from getting that all wrong. I wish to hail Danielos as the new prophet. Whom shall we kill Oh great Danielos?

939. Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Comment #53442 by BAEOZ on July 1, 2007 at 1:36 pm

"environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate"

Oh, so god, in his old-testament guise can't selectively target those who earn his wrath? But, when he's a bit frisky, he can get bowl a maiden over with a googly from his tweaker, Gabriel? Convenient.
The Bible says that you must kill your kiddies if they are cheeky, Jesus said this in one of those gospely things. So, this is punishment not for gays, but every person who ever let there kid survive after they were, well, child-like. Maybe god is selectively targeting everyone who is human. Now it makes sense. God makes us bad. Tells us he wants us to be near him, just follow his arbitrary laws. Punishes the be-jesus out of all who say no thanks, we'll keep our kiddies. Sadistic little sprite isn't he?

940. God Hates the World

Comment #51961 by BAEOZ on June 25, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Dr. Benway:

As a beacon of honor yourself, my Tazmanian friend,

As a scavenger, I wasn't aware of being considered a beacon of honour. I feel priveledged. Long live the Dr.

941. God Hates the World

Comment #51958 by BAEOZ on June 25, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Dr. Benway:

My strong point is my enormous cock, which your mother seems to enjoy. But that is neither here nor there.

I'm pretty sure that's introducing irrelevant information as you've rightly pointed out. First the c-bomb, now claims of impressive manhood and trysts with Wee Flea's mum. Is there nothing the bucolic bird will not do?
That certainly woke me up!

942. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51237 by BAEOZ on June 22, 2007 at 3:21 am

actually what the Net is allowing is for non-believers to get together from all over the world and forge a sense of community and to challenge and criticize religious superstitions in a potent and effective manner.

I have no idea as to its veracity, but it has been said many times through the media that Al Qaeda uses the internet to communicate, organize and whatever. It seems to me that if those cunt scrapes (Dr. Benway dropped the c-bomb first!) who revere a collection of pre-medieval fictitious quotes; that very pious crowd of believers can misuse something that came from eschewing religion (or at least ignoring it), following evidence and ignoring the idea that "god did it". Then we (Hanz Zimmer music please), who actually are in some way trying to further, or at least maintain the advances of humanity and reason, can use that which the giants, and the lesser, but no less worthy people of science have provided. I reckon we should kick the medieval cockheads off their unearned shoulder position. We can use the net and use it to unite as best a herd of cats can unite and fight over shoulder position.
Now I shall lick my fur and ignore you all as a good cat must until I get a fur ball. Then I may need aid. And the red wine is working. Meow.

943. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51232 by BAEOZ on June 22, 2007 at 2:50 am

I'm not quite sure how you came to this conclusion, but it certainly does not follow from the premise.

The premise is if god can violate the first cause law, then it's not a law, so the universe can equally be said to not need a cause. As we all experience the universe, but none of us has ever demonstrably experienced god, parsimony requires that by your argument the universe needs no cause.

944. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51199 by BAEOZ on June 21, 2007 at 11:28 pm

It is my conclusion however that our experiences ultimately lead to the conclusion that there is a world beyond what our sensory faculties can detect. Our basic understanding of the Universe is laid on the foundation of causal relationships. In fact, that is precisely what science is intended to examine. It therefore seems contradictory that science, which is the study of causal relationships, could imply that the Universe itself, existing within the natural laws and principles, is itself un-caused.

Your conclusion is a belief. It's not supported by any evidence. And science doesn't say the world is without cause.
If you bothered to look, you'd see that there are plausible explanations, such as quantum vacuum fluctuations that explain the beginning.
Your first cause argument, still leads to the question, who caused the first cause? If you say god doesn't need a cause, then you have to admit that the universe doesn't need a cause, and god is unnecessary.

945. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51175 by BAEOZ on June 21, 2007 at 8:59 pm

what animal is that on your avatar?

Points to GodlessHeathen. It's a Tassie Devil.
Dr. Benway, please don't get self conscious and self-censor yourself, don't use a star in place of a vowel. Let the expletive free!

946. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51159 by BAEOZ on June 21, 2007 at 7:47 pm

But - forgive me - isn't there a clue in the way that it's mooning us?

That did cross my mind. But, I gave the bird the benefit of the doubt and thought it shy.

947. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51157 by BAEOZ on June 21, 2007 at 7:43 pm

If you were a card player, you'd know that 3 strawmen trump a c-bomb any day of the week

Tell me more of this "savoir des cartes". Sorry, I'm getting silly. I do agree that people who think chucking about strawmen equals a good argument need to fed some excrement or something as fair recompense.

948. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51155 by BAEOZ on June 21, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Three strawmen - you're a cunt; all men of conscience are morally obligated to poop upon you, like it or not.

Dr. Benway! Allow me to express my mock outrage. You dropped the c-bomb, is there no filtering here! I'd thought from your bucolic picture and measured posts that you'd not let rip with a well timed expletive. I bow to your greater timing and sense.

949. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #50975 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 7:21 pm

I think that the idea that we must respect everyone's beliefs

This to me, is one of the biggest problems we face trying to get reasoned discussion. If someone thinks that they have a "right" to hold irrational and possibly dangerous beliefs and that "right" includes us respecting it. And we play along by assuming the duty of saying that their view is valid. We're all screwed.

950. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50969 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 6:35 pm

I believe the speed of light is 186,000 miles an hour.
Your belief is wrong by a factor of 3,600

Now, now, let's not be hasty to judge. In a vacuum that figure would be wrong. But under exotic conditions it may be correct. No? But let's do it in universal measures. 300,000 KM/S sounds cooler than 186,000 M/H. No?