1001. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48650 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 4:38 pm

even a lowly human programmer knows the importance of portability.

I'm a lowly human programmer, and my programs only run on Windows systems because I'm but lazy. Me bad :)

1002. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48648 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 4:35 pm

If people's situations were completely different to ours today then that part of the Bible isn't relevant in the direct sense

So, what you're saying is I can do the post-modernist thing and pluck whatever makes me feel good and say it's valid. Lovely. Also extremely hubristic, that you you a mere believer can interpret "divine" word. Still not surprising the intellectual dishonesty that believers show.

Hey Logicel, thanks for posting those links. The guys did a fantastic job on that site. Great reading.

1003. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48634 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 4:13 pm

I forgot in my need for caffeine. How do you justify interpreting Jesus' message to his followers that he would return in their lifetime? He wasn't talking to you or anybody not from that group. He failed there didn't he?
Not to mention there is no secular evidence for him, except a mention by Tacitus that Jesus was the leader of some superstitions cult and Josephus several generations later mentioned a cult.....

1004. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48632 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 4:10 pm

What we think God inspired them to write won't all be relevant to us today. If you'd read anything about interpreting the bible (other than on a fundamentalist site) you would know that!

So god, in his omnipotence couldn't fashion a few documents that transcend time and be as meaningful to the writers as to us, two thousand years later? He needs a better scriptwriter.
What is termed the new testament, is a collection chosen from a far greater set of contradictory and later termed "heretical" documents. To say that it is the correct set or somehow anything more than shoddy is patently silly.
When you interpret, you say that some things are not the direct word of god or are to be ingnored wholly. This is because as you say, it's gibberish in our times. In doing so, you demonstrate that all of it is up for grabs and therefore of no use as evidence of anything but shoddy propaganda.
Tell me, what is your interpretation of Jesus cursing a fig tree that didn't have fruit because it was out of season? How does one interpret causing demonic possession in a herd of pigs as anything other than Jesus the witch doctor? When Jesus said it was ok not only to have slaves, but to beat them, how do you interpret this as him being wise and fair above all other men? When he abuses people who don't listen to him, how are we to interpret this? When one gospel says he spent a year in Jerusalem, another a week. When one says they fled to Egypt another not. When one gospel gives different names for Jesus adopted grandfather. Interpret please.

1005. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48624 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 3:48 pm

There doesn't seem to be much point in debating each other, seeing we essentially agree on most issues!

Feel the love!

I bet you are all about inclusivity and cultural relativism and dialogue and understanding an all that bullshit aren't you?

Straw men for everyone. Get your straw man!

I want the death of religion. It won't happen in my lifetime or the life of my children; but I will do all I can to contribute in my small way to its demise while I am here. YOU are only helping these idiots perpetuate their nonsense and I have no time for it.

I agree with the death of religion, it's pernicuous and parasitic. But ouch! Is that a straw man or something else?
Who said you could have an atheist schism while I was asleep? I want to see the atheist knock down no holds bared verbal wrestling in real time.

By the way, I think Danielos has as much business as posting as the next. If only so I can sharpen my dull logic skills as protection against "sophisticated" theology and it's circular gobbledygook.

1006. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48511 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 8:07 am

Xenocratic: "no one dreamt of saying that blacks had as much responsibility to end Apartheid as whites did. " What you say seems totally reasonable to me. I only would point out that South Africa wasn't against a black alliance that included surrounding states and armies that would and tried to wipe it off the Earth. I'm not at all imdemnifying the actions of the Isrealis, just saying that you equivocate a bit with your analogy.

1007. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48505 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 8:00 am

Hey, do you have a problem with a gay God?

Not at all, bring on the Highest pride march! I have a problem with a racist, misogynists of any gens.

1008. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48501 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 7:43 am

Oh, wait, God does not exist.

Or he's a racist, misogynistic, homosexual bigot who gets a kick out of lying.....hang on it all makes sense now!

1009. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48498 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 7:41 am

So people in the year 2200 will be looking back at us in our time with "look at how primitive they were".

I concur. One point of order. I may be wrong, but in OZ, you can breast feed pretty much where you like. You can't do a boobie romp. but members of state parliament have breastfeed in the camera....

1010. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48486 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 6:39 am

because I like it, and there is nothing that hordes of the Godless can do about it.

I'm honoured

1011. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48475 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:31 am

Hey guys, it's been pointed out that I attributed incorrectly the ask.atheists page to Flagellant.I've just done this now but extend gratitude to bitbutter, Russell and associates for an excellent site which I will quote often. And Flagellant for the helping hand.
Petitio gratiam ;-) Mea culpa. Ego sum homo paucus sapens habere.

1012. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48471 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:04 am

middle easter sky fairy.

Logicel, really I shouldn't point out other's typos, after my middle easter sky fairy shame. I wonder if it pokes the easter bunny in the middle?

I'm probably logically impaired but I can't see any real substance in Danielos' comments. It seems to me, that Danielos wants god to exist, petitio principium, and will ignore whatever it takes and invent or redefine whatever it takes till we just give in and let him have his imaginary friend and say how fine it is.
Of course I may be a troglodyte who didn't evolve from my homo erecti origins and still be in need of a cave. And Danielos, I'm not attacking you, so please don't feel that.

1013. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48462 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 3:23 am

Hi again Danielos, I read the first bit, which I'll address:

1. I judge that naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with consciousness (including the related issue of free will), in other words that naturalistic worldviews cannot explain the existence of consciousness.

You refuse to even consider explanations that the naturalistic world has put up. They work very well, and while they are still being extended are better than inventing a deity. Why do you reject them? 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.

2. Similarly I judge that naturalistic worldviews are incompatible with the existence of at least some objectively true ethical precepts (there is ongoing discussion about this matter in this thread).

Again, wishful thinking. There are plenty of satisfying explanations for ethical precepts. You don't entertain them because they disagree with your desire to be more than a part of the natural world. And to have a special friend who looks after and guides you.

a) deeper, b) tend to grow both in number and in kind, and c) tend to produce increasingly fantastic (credulity straining) descriptions of reality.

Translate: a) don't assume god did it, so seems too complicated to one who has already decided the answer without entertaining the question, b) grow in number because science throws up all sorts of hypotheses and then tests them against the evidence. This is a strength, not a weakness. Saying god did it explains nothing and c) some are quite fantastic, but as Dawkins said our brain models the world of medium things. We don't need to see all the space that is in atoms or measure the location of an electron to survive in every day life. Of course these phenomena will amaze us. Again, it's only if you assume god did it and stop looking for an answer that you deride these explanations. Some of which will be thrown out, some which will be known to children in a few generations. But none are so credulity straining as the middle easter sky fairy.

1014. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48454 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 2:27 am

"RTambree

Yes, one can respect people's right to have a believe," type there. Hope that doesn't upset anyone, just trying to do my bit to help.

1015. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48453 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 2:25 am

Thanks to bitbutter, Russell, RTambtree and associates. Excellent site. Am busy reading away.[EDIT] I attributed the site incorrectly to Flagellant. Who pointed out the error of my way. A fine humanist if ever one existed. [/EDIT]

1016. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48451 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 2:21 am

Danielos, let me get a handle on what you're saying....
First it seems to me that you're making an error assuming that telling me about a dumkud will even make it to my long term memory, let alone hang about in some belief system. I may believe that there is no evidence for such a thing as a dumkud, but that is not the opposite of faith in a dumkud. It seems to me you're making an error of equivocation.
Belief (Faith) in god is not opposite of lack of belief in the existence of god. Faith implies a belief without any substantiation or evidence. Lack of belief in the existence of anything implies that we reserve the right to wait for the evidence. When there is no reason to think evidence is forthcoming we get on with life and not waste time on fairies and unicorns and the like. I really don't care whether Vulcan is down below Mount Etna banging away at his forge. Nor do I care if the abrahamic god exists. The evidence doesn't lead me to care.
That's my 2 cents anyway.

1017. Atheism is the absence of belief

Comment #48427 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 11:20 pm

I just had a look at the from page of Wikipedia, and by coincidence (or did the FSM make is so?), the lead article is atheism. And I pretty much concur with that definition...Bugger! Now I've said that some theist will edit it and it'll be defined as the belief in the non existence of god. The FSM truly works in noodly ways.

1018. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48423 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Hey Veronique. I haven't seen you posting in the last few days. How's it going? Enjoy the book and wine. If you find the book good, let me know and I'll try and source it from somewhere.

1019. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48403 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 6:36 pm

Yeah, but I know a couple of pipe-hitting numbats ready to get medieval…

Bugger, I was hoping they hadn't offered you their services yet. Ok, we'll call it a draw.

1020. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48401 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Man, that's just so wrong! Can't really think of how to describe it better. Sickening.

1021. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48396 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Salvatore, you want to have a dasyurid battle to extinction? The ultimate fight between survival? Oh, what's that your dasyurid can't make it? Sorry ;-)

1022. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48330 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Edit: I meant if you have the power to do anything but you must be good (contradition there too!) then you can't allow evil to exist.

1023. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48329 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 1:15 pm

One God who is the Supreme Designer and Creator of all that exist. I believe God is infinite, all knowing, all powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just.

You sir, believe in a logical contradition. Which therefore can't exist.
All knowing can't be all powerful.
All loving and merciful and powerful can't allow evil. It's not a choice thing. If you can do as you will and you must be good (all loving, merciful and just) then you can't allow evil to exist.

1024. Christopher Hitchens on Religion

Comment #48296 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 11:00 am

"I'm unsure how you can look at nature and the things that are unexplainable by scientists and unexplainable by mankind and not see that there is a God that has formed these things on earth."

False dichotomy anybody? Would you like a god of the gaps with that order?

1025. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48210 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 3:57 am

If you haven't had a chance yet, do read Hume on morals,

I haven't read it yet, but I did find it at project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4705
I'm deciding whether to read this text file or buy the book. I love books!!!

1026. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48153 by BAEOZ on June 6, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Close- the FSM is my cousin on my Goddess side----
Run with the hunted-

Obscurantist deities!

1027. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48148 by BAEOZ on June 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm

ok hightrekker, reveal your true identity. Are you the FSM?

1028. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48034 by BAEOZ on June 6, 2007 at 11:06 am

God (the foundational existent) is posited as the explanation of the whole of our experience.

It would seem you assume god and work from there. Ignoring or redefining whatever requires you to discard your god. Isn't this begging the question?

1029. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47940 by BAEOZ on June 6, 2007 at 4:57 am

There is one more relevant point here, related to the concept of omniscience: If God wants to forget something then God certainly can forget it. Which shows that God's omniscience does not mean that God knows everything, but rather that God knows everything that God wants to know.

I'm sorry, I know you're trying oh so very hard to be reasonable and I respect that. But redefining words so that you can still use them renders your argument false. Omniscience is knowing all, whether you choose or not. If god chooses to ignore things, then he's still omnscient. You try to limit god more and more in order to allow him to get away from the original faulty source (bible), but as has been stated above, you make him more and more human to avoid the contradictions.

1030. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47878 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Hey James, trundle means wheel out in this context.

1031. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #47871 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 8:57 pm

If faith keeps you married to ol' Billy pants down. I'm not sure she can claim it helped her...

1032. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47869 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 8:56 pm

I guess I'm a sucker for psuedo-science.

This is not directed at you, James, my atheist friend ;-) But I notice that a lot believers will trundle out real science, especially the uncertainty principle, as some sort of psuedo proof of their idea. Not at all understanding that the principle only exists because scientists are dedicated to the idea of reconciling evidence with theory and that it has nothing to do with everyday stuff.....

1033. Pell plans fidelity oath for principals

Comment #47859 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 7:12 pm

I heard once that Pell had the choice between playing ruck for Richmond and becoming a priest. For all Richmond's problems, imagine if he'd played for them and then became management.....Good for catholics perhaps, bad for long suffering tiger fans...

1034. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47858 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Hey Salvatore, I've not read it, sounds interesting. I think I got the idea from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
By the way, my dasyurid is better than yours ;-)

1035. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47849 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 5:56 pm

but something so extraordinary while not expecting or wishing it???

Yes, strange as it sounds, it happens all the time. I'm doing a cognitive psychology unit at the moment as part of my psych degree and it's quite funny to see how experimenters have to twist an experiment and deceive all involve just so they can get rid of the false positives from what they're looking for. I'm not saying I can briefly explain it for you, but hopefully after studying next weekend I can. Because I'll need to, to pass the bloody exam.....

1036. The planet hunters

Comment #47847 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 5:52 pm

James, James, James. I'm neither smart enough nor do I have enough spare time whilst pretend to do the work for which I'm paid to trick you.
;-)

1037. The planet hunters

Comment #47844 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 5:41 pm

James, I'm following you from thread to thread. Knock yourself out, tell me about the fairies.

1038. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47843 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Hi James, how you going?

I think you intend to mock, but I would say you've stated a widely held fuzzy modern philosophy which ends in agnosticism.

Not so much mock as ask the emperor where his clothes are.

One day, God might pick up the whole board and move on.

Begging the question anybody? Christians are very adept at this, although I'm guessing you did it as a bit of fun. To say that god will take his chess board is to say that god exists. It might be philosophically soothing, but doesn't add anything as you say we are agnostic to god's existence, therefore all atheists. ;-)

1039. The planet hunters

Comment #47838 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Hey James, the bible doesn't mention anything about extraterrestial life. It can't be generalized. Otherwise you're interpreting, and if you interpret one bit, the you interpret any bit, and it's not teh word of god anymore.

1040. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47837 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 5:09 pm

And that's not what Harris said in his perfect weapon argument, and it's certainly not what he thinks about Hamas vis a vis the Israelis. He says time an again that not all religions are at present equally dangerous, nor do they teach the same things.

You say the above then totally agree with my point, that the Isrealis are not trying to kill all the palestinians, but Hamas wouldn't blink an eyelid at killing all the Isrealis. Or did I miss something? I'm in bizarro land, you seem to be refuting my argument by agreeing with it.

1041. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47834 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Why is it that logical rules are somehow transcendent whereas laws such as gravity are confined to the tawdry physical world that humans occupy?

If the rules of logic are not trancendent and god can ignore them, then anything is true or untrue as we wish. Now, you may say god is omnipotent and transcends logic (something I believe the catholic church doesn't) as well as the laws of nature but then you're just saying whatever takes my fancy is true. It requires no reason, it's what I want. The statment either god exists or he doesn't is no longer a proposition. God can transcend logic and both exist and not exist as he chooses. And he disappears into a puff of logic ;-)
Sort of post-modernity run rampant. Or did I miss something?

1042. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47771 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Suppose, just for discussion's sake, that such a person of perfect goodness and limitless power actually exists.

I'll get shot down for this, as I don't have the philosophical chops, but anyway ;-)
Perfectly good, I can take this too mean omnibenevolent, or completely good (perfect means complete). Thus such a quality requires good to be done at all times, no choice.
Limitless power, able to do whatever, no limits, like logically omnipotent.
So, we have a contradiction, if you always have to do good, you are not omnipotent, and if you are omnipotent, you don't always have to do good.
How'd I do? Back to philosophy 101?

1043. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47584 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 3:02 am

This is the first time I've watched this video. Both very polite guys.
I wrote down some points as I watched it, so that my short attention span wouldn't spoil an hour of observations, that is not to say they have any value....
McGrath on god: petitio principium
McGrath on Jesus: wishful thinking
McGrath on people: We are bad, need help (hint god: poor workmanship)
McGrath on scripture: Interpret it so that you can be reasonable.
McGrath on Jesus: He wasn't god, because Jesus died for our sins so that god could understand what suffering was. Surely a god who created the world would understand the suffering he created.....
McGrath as atheist: The world is the only world we know.
McGrath on god: He's evil he kills thousands, but is able to save 1. Doesn't want to save the rest.
McGrath on god: The world is bad, don't blame god, he isn't responsible for his creation....
Anyway, I'm sure I misunderstood it all....

1044. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47563 by BAEOZ on June 5, 2007 at 1:12 am

but if we think G.I. Joe or toy soldiers, or war re-enactments are okay for OUR children, then I really see nothing wrong with the above display.

Well, I'm not from the US but I sort of see it the way Sam Harris wrote in End of Faith. Given the perfect weapon, I reckon Hamas would take out all the Isrealis, whereas the Isrealis would just take out Hamas. But that then creates a problem in that Hamas are indoctrinating all the kiddies to be good little Hamasians....sad.....Hitchens had it right, religion poisons everything.

1045. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47496 by BAEOZ on June 4, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Makes me wanna scream "Yes, you f***ing beauty!". It's good to see that others are making the case for religion as child abuse, because poor old Richard (I mean that in an endearing manner, not ageist/fiscally poor) gets attacked by religious people who don't see that they're just visiting the sins of their parents onto their children when indoctrinating them into a given religion (sins? it's a saying). No religious education until a child is 18 and only after he has been taught critical thinking I say (of course I'm a wanna be authoritarian type, so pay no attention)!

1046. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47387 by BAEOZ on June 4, 2007 at 10:02 am

The basic idea is this: Most people find it obvious that at least some ethical precepts are objectively true, in other words are true in a way that does not depend on one's subjective opinion or social convention. One such ethical proposition might be: "One should not cause others gratuitous pain."

And instead of invoking another unknown realm that can't be measured why not use Ockham's razor and see the explanation that is in the natural world? We evolved in such a way that it would seem "good" to us to have these ethical traits. Our brain is hardwired to see the "ethical" features as "good"....

1047. The planet hunters

Comment #47280 by BAEOZ on June 3, 2007 at 11:48 pm

Finding life on another planet would imply precisely nothing regarding the issue of God's existence or abiogenesis.

True, but it nukes the Bible, Torah, Quran and any other holy book. None of them mention life on another planet. They don't even mention planets as such. So life on another planet would pretty much mean they'd have to be rewritten.

1048. Should Science Speak to Faith? A dialog between Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins

Comment #47249 by BAEOZ on June 3, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Good points Bonzai. The psychology of believers interests me a lot. Sometimes it seems like an infatuation that's permanent. Sort of, don't speak ill of my faith, I don't care about your opinion, it 's perfect. Sometimes it doesn't even seem to provide much happiness at all, more like an abusive supernatural relationship. mmmmmm

1049. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47081 by BAEOZ on June 3, 2007 at 1:46 am

Is that clear?

Nope. Trancendent experience isn't in any suggestive of god or spirituality. I think Augustine and those guys assumed the answer in their premise, that god exists.

1050. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47051 by BAEOZ on June 2, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Right that's it! I'm issuing a tortellini fatwa against this site. The FSM is real, I have seen his noodly image in my pasta.