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

Comment #59460 by newatheist on July 29, 2007 at 6:19 am

I wanted to stay out of the bickering but what the hell…

155. Comment #59454 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 5:32 am

I (and everyone else emphasis added) will simply assume that you're one who is afraid to admit when they are wrong.

Well, don't speak for me, IQ182.

Speaking for myself, I couldn't give a shit. You already showed your "look how good I am" wanker pretentiousness on another thread. Whatever you say it's all "look how good I am". As I recall I said "screw you". Not wanting to speak for Yorker, I think s/he's about to do likewise.

52. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59457 by newatheist on July 29, 2007 at 5:58 am

Well, as long as I'm here...

I can't believe this is still going! DG has stamina beyond that of mere mortals. bouwe, I love your stuff. The metaphors are great. I kind of see this thread as the "Tour de Dianelos", with DG out the front fueled by the steroids of his suppositions. The other riders call him in, but he won't get off the bike! Me, I dropped to the back of the field days ago.

I took up with another clown on a different thread, and he indirectly brought up Brane Theory. I googled away, and came upon a newspaper story about work with particle accelerators. The start of the article caught my attention. It said something like "Scientists say the universe would make perfect sense if there were eleven dimensions." This struck me as interesting because I hadn't really thought about how the universe doesn't make sense, you know, in terms of physics. So anyway scientists are testing the theory. (Pay attention here DG.) They haven't just assumed because it would make perfect sense it must be true.

Which brings me to Dianelos. DG basically prefaced this marathon of his by saying he believes this "worldview" because it explains things that naturalism can't. No shit. That's what religion does. And here we are 1000 posts later. (Dianelos, comment 1651)

…I truly and seriously believe in this stuff. Why shouldn't I? It works just so splendidly well. Why should I adopt a different worldview that offers me less understanding…

Because we don't understand yet, Dianelos. Some of us just admit it. Making shit up is making shit up.

Back to the pub, Alovrin?

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

Comment #59445 by newatheist on July 29, 2007 at 4:46 am

Another article on this website said "Atheists, stand up and be counted." Until April this year I didn't know a funkin' thing about the wider world of atheism. I thought I was alone in recognising the destructive stranglehold religion has on the world. Then a guy mentioned Richard Dawkins on the radio. You bet your arse I couldn't get to my computer quick enough to look him up.

And now today, for the first time in my life, I hear (from BT Murtagh) you can already buy overtly anti religious apparel! And where did I see this? On this site. Keep RD.net on the shirts. I'm with those who suggest a direct reference to atheism, too. Hopefully demand will pick up and a range of shirts can be printed to suit all tastes. Here's to the Out Campaign, and the fact it will inform more people about the real number of atheists in the world.

54. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58779 by newatheist on July 26, 2007 at 5:36 am

Hi Nails (Sorry to butt in late.)

As you said in comment 39 "seems like I have to defend myself"…

51. Comment #58217 by newatheist

Better re-read your first comment then. Dickhead.

A little harsh I thought. If we allow the conversation to break into insults so easily we might as well not bother…

Okay I had my rant pants on, but this wasn't just an insult. Coupled with the preceding line and the one that followed it, it was also a "cunningly abbreviated" commentary on Ash's manifest hypocrisy. ; ) Although no doubt the humour was lost in the harsh tone.

You said it (comment 35). He must've been drunk. In a post dripping with sarcasm and outright "smart-arsery", Ash condemns admirers (yes, admirers) of Richard Dawkins for heaping praise. God forbid. And this from a Christian: a scathing attack on adulation. It's hypocrisy squared! (But I should be fair. There's every possibility Ash went straight from this site to a few christian forums and slammed them for swooning at the sight of the pope or Benny Hihn.) At least _J_ admitted he'd had a few red wines when he said he loved RD (comment 3). Armed with this, Ash says

Most of them claim to "love" you! (emphasis added)

And then he says to you …
40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell

don't you think that sweeping generalisms and sarcasm are some sort of fig leaf for flimsey arguments?

So anyway, now Ash has sobered up and wants to debate religion, history, physics and politics (if he gets back on). I'll read with interest. But he's a twat his debut was shite, and I calls 'em how I sees 'em.

55. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58228 by newatheist on July 24, 2007 at 4:21 am

Amazing. Such typical religious B.S. from the learned Ash.
When someone dies of an illness…
43. Comment #58078 by Ash Roskell

You cannot say that she was not prevented from more suffering perhaps

When they survive, it's…
53. Comment #58220 by Ash Roskell

perhaps God's answer to you was "Yes & Amen"?

WOW! GOD CAN'T LOSE! (Love the use of "perhaps" in both cases – more typical garbage.)
It's brilliant! This sick idea has the big G answering your prayer either way. If you can buy this crap then the Bible is obviously a walk in the park.

More from comment 53

God is love

Whatever. Harry Potter is a wizard. Says so in a book.

56. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #58217 by newatheist on July 24, 2007 at 3:38 am

34. Comment #57782 by Ash Roskell

Well, Mr. Dawkins, What an embarrassment of riches you have in your acolytes….Most of them claim to "love" you! Not just what you say; but YOU!

Where? Exaggerating much?

40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell

avoid aggression or sarcasm in debate; it demeans both the argument and the man.

Better re-read your first comment then. Dickhead.

Oh no I'm demeaned. But then let's be clear. I'm not debating you, I'm berating you.

Your first post was the biggest load of shite I've read in ages (mine included). I'm 41 years old and I'll never be embarrassed to admit I've been moved to tears by some articles on this site, or that Richard Dawkins has lifted a weight off my shoulders by opening my eyes to the wider world of atheism and antitheism. I owe the man a great personal debt.

Back to comment 34 –

(To Mr Dawkins) …Have you ever done anything to discourage such sycophancy? It's not healthy, surely?

Hello God? Same question to you…

57. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #52094 by newatheist on June 26, 2007 at 6:12 am

74. Comment #51829 by IQHQ

(paraphrased) "…religion is so appealing (and valuable) to some people and…this is particularly the case for those who would find it hard to "replace" religion in their lives. These are points which I centred on in posts 36 and 37 of this thread…"

Okay, people who can't give up religion (i.e. would find it hard to "replace"), simply don't give up religion.

But, nobody's renouncing god and then killing themselves the next day. The worst you'll get is a religious relapse. Again, people who truly give up religion are unanimously elated. Please read "convert's corner" if you haven't already. Do you think all the contributors to this site were always atheists?

Your posts 36 and 37 basically said "let's do nothing". It's a good thing Prof Dawkins disagrees. A lot of people would be up Shit Creek if they had to wait for you to help them escape religion. But at least you could say "well, that's what they deserve, dumb bastards", when creationism is being taught to unknowing American children who would deserve better.

58. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #52074 by newatheist on June 26, 2007 at 5:16 am

Corylus (comment 65)
Thanks Corylus. And I don't think you can be overeducated.
Anyway, IQHQ has ignored us.

78. Comment #51835 by Donald

Donald, I'm in Thor's (and Baddiel's & Larkin's) camp. I think religion is based on the fear of death, and is an extension of the survival instinct. I think that everything else in religion is largely secondary.

Thor the Mariner-

The desire to survive is…far more primal (emphasis mine) than our inclination towards philosphy.

Very well put.

Now add childhood impressionability. Children find out about death at an early age, and, as children, are suitably terrified by it. This exact time is when religion is introduced by (believe it or not) well meaning, though obviously misguided, religious parents, who underwent the same process themselves as children (ah, the meme). This fear of death was my experience as a child, but the religion part didn't "take". However, it seems based on your outlook, you never had any such fear or doubt.

I'm intrigued by your point:

religions before Xianity and Islam, mostly did not have any notion of afterlife.

I didn't know that. Most religions, or some? Sincerely, if you revisit this thread can you please list a few so I can check that out?

Those early religions aside, ancient burial evidence shows that "our ancestors [from Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, and through to the Neolithic age] assumed that an afterlife existed—that they actualized the concept of an afterlife thousands of years before the same notion was incorporated into the religions of early Egyptians and, later, into many of ours."*

Hmm. Primal indeed.

* http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Religions_And_Their_Source/1._Religions%27_Origins/2._Ancient_Assumptions/2.1_Life_After_Death (references John B. Noss, "Man's Religions, 1974")

59. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51695 by newatheist on June 24, 2007 at 6:48 am

Well I liked this article, but then I'm low brow. And for my money, he hit the nail on the head (light hearted or not), in the last paragraph.

"…the key thing about religion (with regards to ultradarwinism) is that we have it and animals don't. That is because we have consciousness of death and they don't. Thus we had to conjure religion, "that moth-eaten musical brocade created to pretend we never die", as Larkin puts it. Also, animals feel no need to explain the world; we do. We look at it long past the point where we are straightforwardly (emphasis mine) governed by our selfish genes…"

Bugger you lot. That says it all for me.

36. Comment #51593 by IQHQ

IQHQ, I think you were too quick to dismiss almax, and you have to admit the dangers of religion is what drives the current debate.

Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to (such) people losing faith

I completely disagree. Please read "convert's corner" on this site. Release from religion is just that. It's liberating and life affirming. Please return with anything you have found written anywhere by people who have turned away from religion and found otherwise.

Your "let the babies have their bottle" argument is drivel. There's no need to be patronising to the "dummies who just won't get it." Please listen to Prof Dawkins thoughts contained in an interview here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,240,Penn-Jillette-Interviews-Richard-Dawkins,Penn-Radio-Richard-Dawkins

(Sorry - my linking skills are still evolving. Please cut and paste if you want to check it out)

You say

If…humanity NEEDED religion, then what convinces you lot that we have shed such a need by this stage in our evolution? What makes you think we will ever be rid of it?

We haven't, and I don't, but,

Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?

No. Let's help people and reduce the harm wherever we can.

Your views are condescending and elitist. As a liberated, under-educated ex-xtian, I say "screw you".

60. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51690 by newatheist on June 24, 2007 at 5:37 am

Hey ho, back again (black coffee in hand)…

mathematical theorems...are not objectively true...because there may be (emphasis mine) universes where no countable things exist, and where therefore numbers are meaningless concepts.

It's "mights" and "maybes" from DG again. This should obviously read (Steve99's latest entry aside) -

"mathematical theorems...[may not be] objectively true...because there may be universes where no countable things exist, and where therefore numbers are meaningless concepts.

Continuing in "amateur observer" mode, and undaunted by the fact that greater minds than mine are at work on this (after all it was the child who pointed out the emperor's nakedness) I'd like to add:

Mathematics is objective. When you have seven things you have seven things. Nobody can count seven things as six. Nobody can do that. There are seven things. It's correct to all people.

Morality is subjective. You can say child torture is wrong, but people can still do it. It's incorrect to most people.

Dr Benway made a similar point about the temperature of water, and whether or not it was okay for swimming. Seems to sum up the objective / subjective question.

Dianelos?

Anyway, back to the central commentary position….

61. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #51481 by newatheist on June 23, 2007 at 5:10 am

fides -

If you do revisit this thread, could you please "cut and paste" the exact quotes from the article that document your case?

Thanks

62. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50832 by newatheist on June 20, 2007 at 6:21 am

Dr Benway and SharrieG,

Baeoz says what I mean…

anyone who's been told since birth that god exists, and can talk to you, will put together images and voices that were generated in their brain

Honestly examined reason should (would) have a person asking him/herself about the experience on the balance of probability.

Either -

a)Primed by my belief, my subconscious has generated the experience,

Or

b)The creator of the universe is talking telepathically to me.

Which is realistically more likely? Might I guess SharrieG's answer?
All of the evidence points one way for me, the other way for Sharrie. Why? Different "evidence".

My personal experience for me: Open to question.
Your personal experience for you: Taken at face value?

63. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50829 by newatheist on June 20, 2007 at 5:49 am

Thanks to the Standard Operating Procedure of childhood religious indoctrination, I believed that religion was normal. Mummy and Daddy told me about God as a fact in life, at the same time as I was taught the names of animals and colours. When I first heard of atheists, I thought they must have been abnormal (religion being the norm). I also thought the idea was abnormal, and scary.

From the article

Hobson's rhetoric exemplifies a cultural position of mistrust towards atheism, that this default and rational position has negative connotations, associated with amorality and pessimism.

This is what kids, and even people in general, still think today. This is why faith schools (and their very existence) are problematic in perpetuating this misconception, and why atheists need to stand up and be counted.

The indoctrination that occurs at the ever-increasing faith schools can only promote the mistrust of atheists

Of course. It's a faith school. What are children to think when religion is given the privilege of running educational institutions? This privilege equals respect for religion. And it's undeserved respect. And that is why atheists need to stand up and be counted.

our children should not be subjected to the bullying negativity of faith schools towards the atheist.

A fellow named Marc Draco (www.marcdraco.co.uk) posted a comment on a thread following Ruth Gledhill's interview with Prof Dawkins on "Times Online". http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/05/dawkins_transce.html#comments

As a parent, at no time have I been made aware of my right to withdraw my children from "fairy" worship (even though I am aware of it) and this applies to no less than four different schools.

This is to say more parents would exercise the option if they were aware of it.

Moreover, when I exercised that right at local primary, my children (10 and 6 at the time) were made to feel like pariahs; as was I. Eventually, for my children's social wellbeing I had to cave in and return them.

The Religious Norm strikes again. "Don't be an abnormal atheist and rock the boat." This is why atheists need to… well you know the rest.
37. Comment #50618 by fides_et_ratio

creationsim isn't taught in the schools mentioned in the above article by an atheist, and … in all Catholic and CofE schools in this country evolution is taught. These facts are contrary to the claims of the article.

fides, are these "the claims" you're talking about?

"I recently gave a talk to science students at a secondary school about the risible promotion of intelligent design and creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution in science lessons…" "In conversation with some of them afterwards, they revealed that creationism was indeed a topic in science and religion classes…"

Have I lifted the wrong passage? It doesn't seem as specific as what you've been saying.

64. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50615 by newatheist on June 19, 2007 at 5:20 am

730. Comment #50464 by steve99

All you need to do to make all of your ideas simpler is to remove the 'good person called God' aspect. I am being serious here! You will see that everything works fine without it.

A groan comes from under the table … [sound of peanut shells being brushed from a shirt]
Effrithink (*hic*) exshept the Ahh-*burp*- AFTERLIFE ! C'mon Shtevie, you can't live forevahh if the nashooral is all there is. Pin Dianelosh down (I am being serious here!). Why (*hic*) why elsh do you think he has to do all thizh work? Don't forget DG says life is all set up around "attaining virtue". Of course it all works fine without God, but that would mean little D snuffs it like the rest of us!

"Shit, where's Alovrin? Last time I saw him he was chatting up some stunner in a cheap suit."

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

Comment #50608 by newatheist on June 19, 2007 at 4:47 am

@218. Comment #50511 by darwin2

Sweet Mary mother of gawd on a stick. Wow.
Now that's cutting to the chase. No more questions... Err... thanks.

66. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50602 by newatheist on June 19, 2007 at 4:14 am

74. Comment #50439 by SharrieG

My faith…does lead to honestly examined reason, but that's not the end of religion.

Myself, I weigh evidence strictly on the balance of probability, but you and I most likely have different definitions of "honestly examined reason".

The arguments for religion are undone by honestly examined reason. (Especially the Argument from Personal Experience.)

Anyway, you don't agree with Cardinal Martino (your comment 37), but how much could we bet that he'd tell us he employs honestly examined reason to reach his conclusions? Ah well. I won't lower the tone of this otherwise pleasant discourse any further, but… reason is at odds with religion.

67. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50434 by newatheist on June 18, 2007 at 6:13 am

@ comments 69 & 70, Dr Benway and SharrieG -

Sorry guys I just don't see how you can have the religious cake and not get indigestion from it, too. Can you really have "religion tempered by doubt and uncertainty"? This would surely lead to "honestly examined reason". And "well that gets rid of religion then, doesn't it?

"Religious rituals can provoke a sense of the sacred, and many people find that valuable."

I could trot out the old "that doesn't make it true", and I'm also reminded of thoughts expressed by Prof Dawkins about this patronising attitude, which I can't properly paraphrase at the moment (too tired).

SharrieG, I guess I've seen a couple of blockheads touting forcible removal of religion, but some people on your side of the fence get worried when Prof Dawkins calls religion a virus, as if they think he means the treatment is drastic surgery rather than the antibiotic of reason. (Boy I must be tired to come out with that blurf.)

Religion is no more enriching than secularism is sterile. Even RD celebtrates Christmas. As he says, it stopped being about religion a long time ago.

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

Comment #50429 by newatheist on June 18, 2007 at 5:33 am

Darwin2 -

I love your stuff. I want to believe it, it's fantastic. I need to know more.

So, Earth is hell. Ah jeeze, and I was just getting to like it here. What's great though, is there's a short cut off this rock and into an even super-duperer splediferous place!

Please tell me how to master the god given laws of physics and energy so I can avoid coming back as a caterpillar. Please!

Oh man, I can't wait...!

69. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50425 by newatheist on June 18, 2007 at 4:53 am

53. Comment #50321 by Dr Benway

"Religion isn't going anywhere.

Faith in the sense of "I know this for a fact" has got to go, however. It's just wrong."

Well that gets rid of religion then, doesn't it?

SharrieG and (and for that matter Wee Flea) need to abandon their unfounded belief that religion is at all necessary.
And to me, the reason they have a problem with an atheist aspiration to "stamp out religion", is they're confused about what stamping out religion entails. They seem to think it's about burning churches and persecuting believers. Put most simply, the personal pilot light of religion in your brain can be extinguished with honestly examined reason. It's my opinion however that reason will never defeat the fear of death, and this is why religion will always persist.

As for where I stand – "STAMP OUT RELIGION", with reason, I say. Too bad it will never happen.

Addendum (sorry Dr B) – I hold faint hope of an as yet unimaginable scientific discovery that will put the question beyond doubt.

70. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50260 by newatheist on June 16, 2007 at 5:36 am

666. Comment #50138 by alovrin

BTW, Did you read that Jerry Coyne article…

If you mean the ID one, I skimmed it. Michael Behe, Alister McGrath and Dianelos are all tarred with the same brush.
See 50. Comment #46732 by Rtambree

Alister McGrath is a perfect example of what Michael Shermer was refering to in "Why people believe weird things" where he had a chapter "Why smart people believe weird things".

Come on Steve99, we need a 4th for euchre. I actually thought you were coming down after your comment no. 684.
Dr Benway's polished off his first McEwans and he'd be less alert if it wasn't for the high sugar content.

"Now, 52. That's double 6, double top… done. One apiece. Best two out of three, Doctor? My round. A McEwans for Dr. B, same again, alovrin?"

71. In the know

Comment #50259 by newatheist on June 16, 2007 at 5:04 am

From the article –

In science, it seems to me that the best sort is that which answers questions by opening up more questions, and in particular questions that are beyond science itself to answer.

WTF? All the better to keep God at the front, dangling carrot style, I suppose. And this guy left the church?

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

Comment #50255 by newatheist on June 16, 2007 at 4:13 am

164. Comment #49777 by darwin2
You haven't scored amy points here. The fact is scientists say "I believe", invariably followed by "based on the available scientific evidence." Arbitrary editing on your part. Nice try, big deal.
186. Comment #50191 by darwin2

If I am correct and I find myself conscious on the other side...I intend to gloat and to look you up in heaven..."

So what you're saying is we all survive death. So what have I lost? Should I start believing just so I can "save face" in the afterlife, because I'll be in heaven thinking "Ah, SHIT!" That Darwin2 dickhead was right all along... Oh god, here he comes now. Boy is my face red..."

Is this hell? Embarrasment in heaven? You said in another post you don't believe in (eternal) hell. So what are the disadvantages of disbelief?

Oh, and do you understand Pascal's Wager, fully or at all?

73. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50124 by newatheist on June 15, 2007 at 7:02 am

Philip1978 comment 654 -

I am not saying you don't have an appreciation of all that is beautiful etc but why and how does God fit into all this?

Afterlife.


"Pass the nuts, ta. Oh and a packet of crisps... One more, Alovrin?..."

74. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50010 by newatheist on June 14, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Some evidence of god about now would be nice.

What?! I thought DG proved it! Oh no wait, that's right. HE thought he proved it.

Now where was I... oh yeah.

"Two pints, thanks bartender... cheers."

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

Comment #49935 by newatheist on June 14, 2007 at 6:38 am

From devolved - (160)

The earth's gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.

I most was blown away by the stats I read quoted in TDG, (before my wife through it out to save my soul), about the likely number of life sustaining planets. With an estimated billion billion planets, if the odds of life are one in a billion, then there are a billion life sustaining planets. Billiant!.. er, I mean brilliant! (nods to Billy)

76. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49928 by newatheist on June 14, 2007 at 6:06 am

Hi All. Just dropping back in to lower the tone again. Can't possibly wade through the volumes since my last stab, but this gem from DG – well…

Dianelos – comment 574

"…if resurrection myths are really that remarkable then a Christian might argue that this evidences the truth of Christianity. How so? Well, God created people in such way that they intuitively knew about the truth of God's death and resurrection in Christ, but as Christ had not yet come they created myths to instantiate the truth they intuitively knew."

Anyone? Textbook material. "Well, God did it that way…"
Come on. So weak. So typical. So deluded. (technicolor) *YAWN…*.

Dianelos can complicate what he has the means to complicate (and he does so in spades and with extraordinary ease), but when it comes right down to it he's got to use the same desperate, deluded, black is white, reverse thinking as any faith-head. Whatever is put to him, he'll reason it away. He still can't do any better than "God might have" for anything he posits. Even above, it's "a Christian might argue…"

In any case, the rest of his musings are hardly unassailable as many have shown.

I'm with Alovrin - comment 468

Using logic to show your logic is not subject to the rules of logic therefore your logic is a better form of logic...ow my head hurts.

Steve99, _J_, et al, you can have him. Come on Alovrin, let's go to the pub. I'll buy you a pint.

77. The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos

Comment #49745 by newatheist on June 13, 2007 at 8:01 am

Hi Flea (and if anyone is still reading) -

Let's just assume the insults and cut to the arguments.

Where's the fun in that, you irrational, stupid, ignorant, faithhead? :-)

I thought I'd have a crack at answering your questions for Sam Harris. I'm under qualified but I'll try to put it as best I can. I'll probably muck it up (jump in epeeist if you're still here) but here goes.

What is love? What is hate? Are they not just chemical reactions?

Their effects on us are certainly measurably physiological, and love and "hate" seem to exist to varying degrees among different species of animals. Even my dog smiles and wags his tail. I love him. I think he loves me. It does a body good. Yes, "chemical reactions" seems to sum it up nicely, and I'm bloody glad of them. I wouldn't think they were non physical unless someone had, well … evidence they were non physical.

If stealing something from someone else makes me happy, and provides for my family why should that be considered wrong?

Because it's irrational in that it sets a ridiculous precedent. If you think it's right for you to steal for your family (i.e. it should go unpunished), then you have to concede that everyone can steal from you for their family. It doesn't take much to realise this is destructive to society. Little wonder human intelligence has evolved to appreciate the effects of negative reciprocity. This awareness is a strong mechanism for self preservation and that of the species.

Why is it wrong to kill the weak in order to preserve the species?

Apart from the fact we don't have to kill the weak to preserve the species, I'd say it's mostly the reciprocity again. If by "the weak" you mean disabled people, you'd hardly want to be killed yourself if you lost a limb. If by "the weak" you mean mentally challenged people, our over-riding morality comes from the chemical reactions that compel us to act with empathy. If not our empathy for the mentally challenged, then our empathy for the people who love them. And there's the ol' reciprocity. We'd hardly want our child killed if it was born with a mental defect, so we wouldn't kill the mentally defective child of anyone else.

What is wrong about killing the child in the womb?

That seems to depend on when you can call it a child. This is where debate rages as we all know.

Why not kill the elderly who can no longer look after or provide for themselves?

Sorry. I'm going to say reciprocity again. If I ran around culling o.a.p.'s I'd hardly stand much chance of to living to a ripe old age because I'd be culled as soon as I needed help getting out of my chair. And there's that pesky chemical reaction from old Ethel's kids. As a (grown) child you don't want mum put down. There's love (from the kids), empathy (for the kids), reciprocity. No god though, unless you put one there.

Why not kill those who have the wrong beliefs?

A religious speciality.

Sam may think that it is rather easy to provide a nontheistic objective basis for morality. If it is that easy why does he not do so?"

I haven't read much of Sam Harris. I saved this quote though -

"Empathy and compassion are our most basic moral impulses." (end quote)

"Chemical reactions" from centres in the brain which can be more (or less) developed, or active, in one individual or another. And I'm bloody glad of them.

78. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48839 by newatheist on June 9, 2007 at 7:05 am

Thanks epeeist. I was thinking along the lines of whether or not an assertion (and assertion is not quite the word I'm after either) could be disproved. Maybe more philosophy than science. Something like it's impossible to disprove fairies etc.

I'll check in tomorrow. Ciao.

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

Comment #48835 by newatheist on June 9, 2007 at 6:49 am

This was a great article, but IMO the fatally flawed passage (it had to have one) was

The belief that unites us is that instinct is not the final word. Selfish genes can produce selfless people. Is that miracle or mere chance? Loving creator or blind watchmaker?

Unfortunately I couldn't beat RD to the punch, but repeated attempts to move morality beyond evolution drive me stark raving mad.

Is that miracle or mere chance?

Neither

Loving creator or blind watchmaker?

Evolution and Natural Selection.

Arrrgh.

80. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48820 by newatheist on June 9, 2007 at 6:07 am

Sorry epeeist. I did it again. Right up there with my "science is truth" rant on another thread (I was tired, you know).

I'm not the best at the phrasing, but there's a correct premise in there somewhere, right?

Thanks if you can help.

81. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48805 by newatheist on June 9, 2007 at 5:33 am

My replies @ Dianelos -

It suffices to claim that it is reasonable to believe that naturalism cannot explain consciousness, and therefore it is reasonable to adopt competing supernatural worldviews that can.

"Dianelos' Razor"

Perhaps because you want consciousness to transcend the natural world. You want to be more than a collection of stardust that obeys the laws of chemistry and physics.

Sure, I want that – who wouldn't?

Me. And anybody (else) who's satisfied to live, love, and learn.

[That naturalists strongly disagree about how reality is] is not an argument against them. There is no reason why reality should be understandable.

But there is: Theistic worldviews do give us that understanding.

Horse shit.

"…the theistic claim that God does intervene might (emphasis mine) very well be true."

The fairyistic claim that fairies do intervene might very well be true.
Similarly –
"Incidentally it is possible that God…" or fairies
"God (or fairies)could have directed evolution…"
And -

there is no scientific evidence against the claim that God directed the evolution of homo sapiens

science cannot disprove the claim that God chose that particular child for survival

The Onus, Dianelos. The Onus. Nobody can disprove anything.

82. 60 SECONDS: Richard Dawkins

Comment #48787 by newatheist on June 9, 2007 at 3:44 am

Dawkins 101. Every new atheist should read this.

Logicel, any space on asktheatheist.com?

83. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #48491 by newatheist on June 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Like the layers of an onion we may yet get to the core of Slippery Dave's beliefs if we pare away at the right angles. But I doubt it.

Indulge me, DR. The reason people seem to ask you questions about the same stuff (i.e sex) all the time is you only reveal little pieces of the answer at a time (if at all).

eg
(Q)Are the Pope and Graham Norton going to hell?
(A) I haven't a clue!

Read your Bible a bit more David. The answer's in there. Of course you know.

So anyway, now we know there are gays in your church. Very good. They (all?) "believe" they should be celibate. Of course I can't ask you if they think celibacy's a prerequisite for divine acceptance, you'd rightly tell me I'd have ask them. Boy, happy coincidence if they "believed" in celibacy before they joined the church, though, and not because they joined the church. God forbid they get horny one day. Shit, damned again. Still, a lifetime devoid of natural intimacy is a small price to pay for a walk in the sky. At least it's better than pretending you're straight and ruining some poor girl's life and yours. The celibate heteros can relapse and bonk their brains out, though. Lucky them, eh? God won't care!

Good to know hardworking celibate homosexuals get into heaven on a technicality (or there's a cooler part of hell set aside for them). Good old God and his escape clause.

"No pokey pokey, that's okey dokey. Stick it in, that's a sin."

Gotcha!

84. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48480 by newatheist on June 8, 2007 at 6:05 am

Re: Dianelos
I've been waiting for the punchline.

BTW Alovrin, don't forget Dianelos' dung smells like sweet, sweet roses to him. As he holds out the fetid, reeking stool, he finds it hard to believe anyone sees it as such.

To Dianelos

"…naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with consciousness because they cannot explain how matter brings forth consciousness."

Religious worldviews are incompatible with consciousness because they cannot explain how God brings forth consciousness. 'Round and 'round we go.

Anyway you've got the answer right here, DG,.

matter brings forth consciousness

We have the evidence. Now, if skulls were empty of matter I for one would be listening to you much more intently.

And of course, most people are familiar with Occam's Razor being something like "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one." Your definition? Occam's Razor means "Jump to the easiest conclusion."

Dianelos you are a mental gymnast. It's been fun watching your compulsory routine. 0.0 from the Australian judge, your dismount was crap!

85. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #48221 by newatheist on June 7, 2007 at 5:34 am

SharrieG -

"I think it starts with the assumption(s) that science is all there is..."

If you're still visiting this thread I hope you can shed some light on a problem that occurs to me when I read the "supernatural is beyond science" assertions of religious apologists.

Why is there any reason (evidence?) to assert that science is not all there is? This seems to me to be the point where we encounter the "there are things* we can't explain, so... science is not all there is", type of answer.

*"things" such as consciousness, morality etc.

"God, or gods, or whatever are by definition supernatural, or beyond nature"

And here's the thing. You seem to believe the supernatural exists. How can you without evidence? The answer is no doubt that you have evidence (non scientific of course) which satisfies you, but not me.

Prof Dawkins says there are things which science may never explain. This of course is the limit of us as human beings. But again, why assume there is anything else? That's all anyone who talks about the "supernatural" is doing. Assuming. There's no rational basis for this assumption, unlike assuming science is all there is. This is an assumption supported by evidence. What supports your position? I hope you don't say intuition or some such rubbish. As I said, I hope you can shed some light.

86. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #48200 by newatheist on June 7, 2007 at 3:02 am

David –

"You stay comfortable in your own wee world and do not allow the bad influences of those who think differently from you ever to enter it."

That's actually a great response because now I'm totally intrigued. You didn't respond to my observations on the "Argument from Personal Experience" on another thread, after I suggested you shouldn't bother because it wasn't going to affect your views, and what I wrote was for the benefit of other readers.

I know you think differently from me, that was the point. I'm hardly worried about being influenced by your thinking, so please; I'd like an answer if you feel inclined. My post was no.234. Thanks.

But, I would insist that you directly answer my main point:

The sad thing is David obviously thinks you can "repent" your homosexuality, turn to God and HEY PRESTO! No more sinful, wicked, man love!

Boy, that idea sure hasn't seriously fucked anybody up!! But "Hey, give it a try, Mr Homo. Can't hurt. Don't forget, there's always suicide to fall back on."

Thanks again.

87. Pell plans fidelity oath for principals

Comment #47929 by newatheist on June 6, 2007 at 4:12 am

Pell is a scary, archaic bigot from way back.

Anyhoo you can vote in an SMH poll about his warning to pollies, at http://www.smh.com.au/polls/politics/form.html
(sorry I'm still getting the hang of linking)

The positions to vote on are -

1. A spiritual leader has the right to point out moral and religious consequences

2. He should keep out of politics. Churchmen shouldn't make veiled threats against MPs

3. Let our elected representatives decide on their own

The poll has over 6200 total votes so far and position 2 is in front with 59%, position 1 is 25%. It's a quick click and submit with no registration and it seems to be still going.

88. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47620 by newatheist on June 5, 2007 at 4:38 am

@Logicel (comment 21)

Were his parents allowed to deny him medical treatment because of religious beliefs when he was a kid?

Excellent! And a point that Innaiah Narisetti left out of the article altogether. [edit - I see this is an excerpt] If ever there was a case of religious child abuse that should be straight out illegal altogether, this is it.

Not that I could've done better, but Mr Narisetti missed the mark on this and a few other points, e.g..

In the Islamic world, some female students are allowed to attend certain madrassas. However, they are forced to learn in classrooms, or even buildings, separate from their male peers.

This reads like "boy's schools", and "girl's schools", and doesn't mention any inequality in teaching, if that's what the author intended..

Mr Narisetti's repeated reference to the Vatican seems like an attempt to introduce an existing (although valid) agenda with only a tenuous link to the topic, and to me weakens the overall effect of the paper.

Hey Logicel…

no child should have a file which states that they are of a particular religion. The religion of their parents can be noted, of course. (emphasis mine)

Um, why? <:-O

89. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #47345 by newatheist on June 4, 2007 at 6:36 am

David, please do me the courtesy of NOT replying.

"All human beings are the same. We are all equally made in the image of God, and that image has been perverted in all of us. All of us, without exception, need the redemption and the salvation that is offered by Jesus Christ. Irrespective of religion, sexuality or any other label that people choose to place upon us."

David likens the question he was "answering" (about gays and catholics)to "When did you stop beating your wife?" His answer is like "Never, I beat her all the time but that's okay, I beat everybody."

Well anyway, he seems to say it's okay to call gays and catholics (equally?) evil because, well, we all are, including him. In fact his answer is probably more like "gays and catholics are both bad, but you're bad, and I'm bad too. So, I need to stop swearing, now the gays and catholics can seek redemption."

The sad thing is David obviously thinks you can "repent" your homosexuality, turn to God and HEY PRESTO! No more sinful, wicked, man love!

Boy, that idea sure hasn't seriously fucked anybody up!! But "Hey, give it a try, Mr Homo. Can't hurt. Don't forget, there's always suicide to fall back on."

Steve99, get with the program, sinner!

90. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #47103 by newatheist on June 3, 2007 at 2:49 am

Bloody hell alright.

Well done Chamber, you've completed the circle.
All creations need a creator. But not God, who we can't know or understand. He lives in another dimension.

You claim to know, (as opposed to just assume), all this horse shit.

If you want to explain life, try science. At least the best we can say is we don't know, but we can tell some things are almost impossible.

And scientists aren't looking for God, they're investigating mainly gravity. You obviously didn't follow the link (big surprise). If they find God anywhere it will be one hell of a shock.

You've gone from fun to boring, and you obviously haven't read The Blind Watchmaker. Try again on another thread. However I doubt anyone will be as patient with you as I've been. I like fun but they like real debate, and you'll be flagged as a troll quicker than you can say "God made the pretty birdies".

I won't reply to any more crap from you on this thread.

See ya 'round.

91. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #46690 by newatheist on June 1, 2007 at 6:28 am

Well as long as the moon's still full and Chamber is still having fun…

This universe… are a huge library and the writer of the books in this library is almighty God.

You're making a very factual assertion. You seem to know this for sure.

Scientifically it's highly unlikely, and raises more questions than it (conveniently) answers. It's not impossible though, but it's almost incalculably improbable.

Creation and creator cannot be in the same level. We, in terms of seeing, hearing and feeling are so limited and finite things are unable to see unlimited and infinite God.

And yet you seem to be able to make factual assertions! (see above) How do you KNOW? The Bible doesn't seem to mention the fifth dimension. You must be a transcendent being.

We can feel only three dimensions but as we know very well (emphasis mine) that there are 5th or 6th dimensions.

You also seem to have some proof as yet unavailable to science!

"In physics, the fifth dimension is a hypothetical (emphasis mine) extra dimension beyond the usual three spatial and one time dimensions."
-Wikipedea

Scientists hope to test brane (multi-dimension) theory by
(1) Smashing particles using a 5.3-mile-wide (8.6-kilometer-wide) underground particle accelerator at Europe's CERN laboratory.
(2) Detecting gravitational waves using the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, or "LIGO", and
(3) Catching gamma ray bursts to detect mini black holes using the NASA probe called the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope, or GLAST, which is due for launch next year.
- "Physicists probe the fifth dimension", msnbc.com click here.)

92. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46409 by newatheist on May 31, 2007 at 6:30 am

Gimlibengloin -

I'm going out on a limb here and I'll stand corrected by others here if I'm misusing a reference to mutation. I'll start by paraphrasing my earlier quote.

morality is...just another evolutionary tool that nature uses to help species survive and propagate.

It seems to me paedophilia and psychoses (if identified neurologically) can't come under this definition and must therefore be non beneficial "mutations", which would not benefit us as a species. (By the way how exciting would it be if neurologists could rectify these problems.**)

I, like most people, don't need an externally defined morality to recognise these aberrations as the wrong "choices" in human behaviour.

You say –

"Even if one could find a genetic basis for morality or altruism this wouldn't provide a reason for why we should adhere to it."

A genetic basis is exactly why we adhere to it, like the sex drive or survival instinct. And the latter are less (or more) developed in some people too.

"If our sense of morality is the product of random processes over millions of years or the result of chemical processes in the brain then it is hard to attach any real significance to them."

For you maybe. Highly evolved morality is anything but insignificant. It's bloody amazing, like every other natural thing in the universe. In human terms, "real significance" is attached to morality by society. This is the case with or without God, because morality is as beneficial to human beings as it is for ants to rally in defence of their anthill.

"The atheist may 'choose' to be altruistic but he has as much reason not to be.

"The atheist" does not have as much reason not to be altruistic as he or she has to be so (altruistic). Evidence is mounting that "the atheist", like the vast majority of human beings, is hard wired for niceness. (Awww.)


**btw I know this suggestion opens a Pandora's box.

93. If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural

Comment #46363 by newatheist on May 31, 2007 at 3:16 am

Even more important, some wonder whether the very idea of morality is somehow degraded if it turns out to be just another evolutionary tool that nature uses to help species survive and propagate.

Ridiculous. Nothing is degraded when attributed to nature, least of all us.

94. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #46347 by newatheist on May 31, 2007 at 2:24 am

Chamber, you're more fun when you're sober. I hope you stick around. I wouldn't want you to know where I live though. Things seem to shake you up a bit.

Do you know what infinite regress is? Check this out. You say there's no creation without a creator.

The creator was God. There's no creation without a creator so, what created God?

Or, the carpenter made the coffee table. Where did the carpenter come from?

Did God's mother eat some tomatoes? (WTF?)

95. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46063 by newatheist on May 30, 2007 at 5:28 am

Re: Comment 120 by Philip1978

Nails and all you other crazy scientists, thanks...

Here, here! The most educational info on this site is your responses to "Devolved" and his ilk. I think the key is to keep serving it up for the benefit of new visitors, and not get too bogged down trying to convert the "unconvertable".

Devolved - GOOD WORK! Keep sticking it to these iggorant conspirators! "Peer reviewed" my arse. Anyone knows that trillions of organisms can't develop through mutation over millions of years. Your way is much easier! Phew, my head don't hurt no more!

96. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45714 by newatheist on May 29, 2007 at 4:06 am

Hi Chamber -

I overheard a teacher's aide asking who made the model. On hearing that the student made it, she asked "Who made the student?". Well that was his father. "Who made him?", she asked.

She's still working on the infinite regress, and she won't be getting back to anybody anytime soon.

[edit - pewkatchoo, Chamber is obviously a troll]

97. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45483 by newatheist on May 28, 2007 at 2:16 am

@ comment 73

I'm not sure how attacking all religious belief exacerbates differences between christians and muslims.

A question I raised (comment 40). Given that the article said RD agrees this may be true, I'd really like clarification if anyone posting knows. I wasn't being rhetorical. Anyone? (Russell?)

98. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45292 by newatheist on May 27, 2007 at 5:39 am

"(Dawkins) admitted to the Herald yesterday there was a danger that his aggressive attack on religion could exacerbate differences between Christian and Muslim fundamentalists."

I haven't seen this argument before, and I'm especially intrigued by RD's reported concession. What does this mean exactly, and can anyone expand on this for me?

btw I'm from Australia - would love to see RD on Enough Rope!

99. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44591 by newatheist on May 25, 2007 at 5:12 am

The title seems set to raise the hackles but the author doesn't seem to be saying that there isn't any reason for atheists to be angry.

I thought this article was impartial.
Firstly, the religious viewpoint was telling, as always. (blockquote warning)

Point -

The Rev. Douglas Wilson…sees the books as a sign of secular panic.

Counterpoint -

…homeschooling and private Christian schools is raising questions about the future of public education. Religious leaders have succeeded in putting some limits on stem-cell research...

Point -

"It sort of dawned on the secular establishment that they might lose here," said Wilson...

And to close…
Counterpoint -

"It was just the time…for the atheists to take the gloves off."

100. Despite what the scholars say, God isn't dead yet

Comment #43960 by newatheist on May 23, 2007 at 5:07 am

Rachael Kohn School of Journalism -
Lesson 1.
Get your piece off to a shaky start with a flimsy premise.

A scene from The Root of All Evil?, a two-part television series on religion by Richard Dawkins, shows Dawkins accusing the evangelical pastor the Reverend Ted Haggard of running worship sessions in the way the Nazis ran their rallies.

Gee. No shit. Thousands of people gathered to share a euphoric experience manufactured by an organisation with an agenda. And which came first, the religion chicken or the Nazi egg? It wouldn't have served Kohn to point out the Nazis fashioned their rallies on a quasi-religious model.

Lesson 2.
Now that you've got the door open a crack, use said flimsy premise to drag out tired old arguments you've been waiting to re-heat at the first opportunity.

read rest of article

And by the way –

By definition, believers obedient to a God which cannot be proved to exist, and whose dictums are based on mythical stories that have no basis in fact, are as dangerous as the Brownshirts.

So true, as proven by history, past and present. Poor old Rachael sees this as being aimed only at present day christianity.