Comments by Peacebeuponme

1201. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141867 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 10:00 am

MPhil - I agree with that post. Restricting the freedom to decide when you die is not something I feel the state should be doing and of course people should receive counselling first (by the way, this is not because of any 'respect for life' but purely as a compassionate means of support and also to ensure family pressure has not been brought to bear).

1202. Fleabytes

Comment #141841 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 9:32 am

MPhil

I'm making it sound more complicated than it is - but when you get down to it - isn't this an extremely basic insight?

Yes, but the emotion can be very powerful.

Play a bit of roulette. When you check out the form and see there have been 5 blacks in a row its easy to think "it must be red next". The feeling of "I knew that was going to happen" or "This always happens to me" is hard to shake even though its illogical.

1203. Fleabytes

Comment #141833 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 9:20 am

fides_et_ratio

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray.

Not sure whether this was in response to me, but I did ask whether you had found any irrational statements by non-theists here. I would be surprised if an atheist made a staement like "A recovering alcoholic should not pray". That would be like saying "A retired post office employee should not wear odd socks". Both statements being irrelevent and worthless.

In any case, can you explain why it would be irrational not to pray if you are a recovering alcoholic?

At their core thay are both a search for the truth

Does this mean all catholic teachings are up for investigation and revision?

1204. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141825 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 9:01 am

Steve

What happens if you are extremely gloomy but also very lustful?

I think your goths call is fair. Whole albums by Marilyn Manson seem to bre devoted to those two mind states.

1205. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141822 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 8:58 am

MPhil

I suspect on a standard IQ-test, he would score above 130, probably even approaching 140, possibly higher

I don't want to start everybody waving IQ scores around. Ratzinger would probably be classed as intelligent by any reasonable method, but I think the religious compartment of his brain reduces his intelligence down to average.

1206. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141786 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 7:52 am

I got the 5th level. What has Logicel been getting up to!

Level Who are sent there? Score
Purgatory Repenting Believers Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo Virtuous Non-Believers Very Low
Level 2 Lustful Very High
Level 3 Gluttonous Moderate
Level 4 Prodigal and Avaricious Moderate
Level 5 Wrathful and Gloomy Extreme
Level 6 - The City of Dis Heretics Extreme
Level 7 Violent Very High
Level 8- the Malebolge Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus Treacherous High

1207. Fleabytes

Comment #141772 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 7:22 am

fides_et_ratio

I'm motivated by misrepresentations of my Faith, and by the irrationality of some who claim reason as their standard.

Do you have any examples? In all seriousness, if there are arguments (especially from me) that are indeed irrational, then these need to be addressed and I would be interested in improving my position.

1208. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141756 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 7:01 am

MPhil

Make no mistake, Ratzinger is highly educated, very well read and a very good thinker. Sadly, this almost brilliant mind was first hijacked by religion when he was a child and then hardened in its self-imposed delusion when the '68-revolution got to the universities when he was trying to hold lectures there. They went out of their way to cause trouble - interrupting lectures by physical force and so on... and this was one decisive factor in driving Ratzinger into very conservative catholicism. He used to be far more liberal before then.

I didn't make that comment lightly. There are plenty of theists like Alister McGrath or Francis Collins who are clearly highly intelligent. This Ratzinger fellow may well be able to hold his own intellectually. However, one has to question his intelligence when he consistently makes stupid statements. Since he has put on the tall white hat some of the things he has come out with have been scientifically absurd, politically thoughtless and morally distasteful. This does not tally with any measure of intelligence as I see it.

Its sad as you say though, that it seems clear that some massive potential has been wasted by the religious cancer that has affected him.

1209. Fleabytes

Comment #141751 by Peacebeuponme on March 11, 2008 at 6:51 am

I see Clearthinker has returned with more tired srguments concerning morality and design. Here's a good one

Yes I am. I am totally amazed at the Universe. So much so that I cannot conceive of it as being self-existent, or having come from no where and nothing. Therefore I worship its Creator.

Interesting non-sequitur there. Though I love and respect my parents (well only one actually, but that's by the by) I don't feel the need to worship them just because they created me.

How curious of the theist to see things this way.

1210. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141349 by Peacebeuponme on March 10, 2008 at 9:38 am

The Pope also complained that an increasing number of people in the secularised West were "making do without God".

He said that hedonism and consumerism had even invaded "the bosom of the Church itself, deeply undermining the Christian faith from within, and undermining the lifestyle and daily behaviour of believers".

Is "making do" a euphemism for "flourishing" or "exponentially advancing"?

I'd also like to know how he makes God the only alternative to hedonism.

This pope is not even above average intelligence I don't think.

1211. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141340 by Peacebeuponme on March 10, 2008 at 9:33 am

included taking or dealing in drugs

All drugs or just some? Are caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and morphine included? Or is God taking his orders on which drugs to include from man?

1212. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141338 by Peacebeuponme on March 10, 2008 at 9:31 am

Does this mean they are going to make Se7en II?

1213. Fleabytes

Comment #140653 by Peacebeuponme on March 8, 2008 at 8:25 am

Richard

I hadn't factored in the Joneses,

I'm a Jones myself. You can never discount us...

1214. Fleabytes

Comment #140648 by Peacebeuponme on March 8, 2008 at 8:04 am

Richard Morgan

I think I agree, but just to make sure - was this a comment or your signature?

Umm...hopefully clear that it was a comment.

You clearly were not watching the same match as me, boyo!

Who needs God when you have Henson, Byrne, Jones (all of them), Williams?

1215. Fleabytes

Comment #140638 by Peacebeuponme on March 8, 2008 at 7:10 am

Richard Morgan

Triple Crown in the bag.

On to Cardiff to beat France.

Lovely.

1216. Fleabytes

Comment #140411 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 9:10 am

Steve

I don't believe so, although the rate this thread is growing, it may have been posted and swamped out.

Absolutely no chance. The atheist response timing to a theist post is pretty rapid. There are many eyes on this thread.

1217. Fleabytes

Comment #140397 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 8:53 am

There is a "way of knowing" that can't be easily countered: uncorroborated direct personal knowledge. We don't have to argue against this way of knowing. We merely have to assign it a lower evidentiary status as compared to well corroborated information.

My point is that it is the same "way of knowing", its just that (as you say) the standard of evidence is different. The theist values direct personal experience too highly. They may call this an other "way of knowing" but its not: its just a misinterpretation of evidence.

1218. Fleabytes

Comment #140386 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 8:29 am

18 pages to go.

1219. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140384 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 8:27 am

Philip1978 - You should know by now that this is one place where you do not have to ask permission. I'm glad you managed to get your thoughts and feelings out there.

Giving it 'a piece of your mind' from time to time can be awfully refreshing.

1220. Fleabytes

Comment #140376 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 8:18 am

Dr Benway

I used the term "collective understanding" for this reason. A shared understanding requires at least two persons voting to accept some proposition as a fact. The two parties, of necessity, will establish a few rules of evidence between them.

Well, two theists may not. Shouldn't we just be clear that there is only one way of "knowing": that by which the evidence is in favour of a proposition to a high degree?

1221. Fleabytes

Comment #140366 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 7:53 am

SWRB - of course, they are talking about "know" in the biblical sense.

1222. Fleabytes

Comment #140361 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

Saying that the bible has its archaeology correct is about as powerful an argument as The Bible Code.

1223. Fleabytes

Comment #140327 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 6:29 am

Steve

Well, my wit has never been the subject of much praise, so I can accept that.

I think you have your moments.

1224. Fleabytes

Comment #140319 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 6:15 am

Steve

I know. I should have included some indication of irony.

I think my point is that your irony is almost misplaced. The argument about complexity has already been won hands down. Its almost like the argument your are having with MPhil has become theological.

1225. Fleabytes

Comment #140315 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 6:10 am

Steve

Yes. And if you take some versions of quantum mechanics into account, he would have to know all truths about all possible futures as well.

I have to say, it does not look good for the creator argument here...

Not a problem for theists I don't think. I'm not sure arguing like this is any more convincing. Even putting quantum mechanics aside, we know any deity would have to be extraordinarily complex. If the theist shrugs their shoulders at that, I don't see what increasing the level of complexity (and hence improbability) adds.

1226. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #140249 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 4:27 am

* McGrath thread stands up and applauds Paula Kirby on reaching 4,000 *

1227. Fleabytes

Comment #140211 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 3:54 am

Steve

I am going to make a suggestion. This thread reminds of something that is done on other sites, which is to have a regular "open thread". No topic, just chat. That way no-one need feel guilty about talking about any subject.

This, and many other, threads have effectively done that much to my delight. Often the header article (not in this case I hasten to add) have only been of mild interest, whilst the discussion below has been a treasure trove.

I'd like to see an open thread - I wonder whether other threads will remain on-topic even with one though. There are so many people here with varied interests and opinions.

1228. Fleabytes

Comment #140134 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 1:59 am

I believe that is served at the upstairs bar.

If its served with a port mixer, then you're talking.

1229. Fleabytes

Comment #140127 by Peacebeuponme on March 7, 2008 at 1:49 am

Has everyone just decided to carry on all discussion via one thread now?

At what point do the Guinness chaps get called up?

1230. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139721 by Peacebeuponme on March 6, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Just need to get those Bishops' arses off the bench now.

1231. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139545 by Peacebeuponme on March 6, 2008 at 4:03 am

Richard Morgan

Which one? The long one before you were born, or the one after this life?
Others may have said this to you before, "since Nature abhors a vacuum", and the notion of "death" is just such a vacuum, that which is scaring the crap out of you (thus worrying the All-Bran producers) is what YOUR mind is putting into this vacuum! Or projecting onto a blank screen. Or whatever.

I am talking about it merely in the sense that I have an emotional reaction sometimes (not always) when I contemplate matters, nothing more. I understand the points your are making and have that logical approach to the issue. However, one cannot help emotions getting in the way from time to time.

1232. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139508 by Peacebeuponme on March 6, 2008 at 2:33 am

Mitchell Gilks

If you've got something new, then trott it out, not to be a dick, but please don't insult my intelligence and figure I just haven't thought it through to the extent you have, and trott out some tired old reasoning.

It scares the crap out of me from time to time to think of death. Its also sort of scares me to think of the size of the universe sometimes, or what nothing might be like (though I don't have a physicist's understanding of such matters). We are emotional humans who know a little too much to make us comfortable.

The way I try to think of it is: while you are existing you are existing. You will never know anything except being able to experience. As far as you know death doesn't really exist.

Sorry if that's just repeated all the old arguments you have heard, but it sort of makes sense to me in that way.

1233. Fleabytes

Comment #138408 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 9:20 am

hungarianelephant

Peacebeuponme - Yes, fair point. But I wouldn't even categorise the average churchgoer's belief as equivalent to my belief in what Steve says about black holes. These are (at least) three different categories. English is deficient in that respect, and unfortunately it gives some theists a fingernailhold - "you also have beliefs in things you don't know".

Oh I agree. I was making a similar point with Brian English earlier. We need to be very careful how we talk about evidence-based belief. I often try to use the word "accept" rather than "belief" to avoid confusion, but that sometimes seems to be hiding behind semantics.

My belief that Steve would lie to me about black-holes is based on my assessment of Steve's character from my interactions here and also the many times I have researched things he has said.

A churchgoers belief that the preacher is telling the truth is similarly based on character, but sadly lacking the research.

The preacher's belief is based on...faith.

I think we would all put these three beliefs in the same order on a scale of most to least supported by evidence.

1234. Fleabytes

Comment #138367 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 8:39 am

hungarianelephant

The difference, of course, being that we could ask Steve for support of an assertion about a black hole. And he could provide it, or not, and we could take the trouble to read the primary sources and try to understand it for ourselves. Or not.

Of course. We can check Steve's assertions in the way that we can't for theist assertions. I was merely highlighting that, as perhaps for your average churchgoer, I wouldn't call my acceptance of Steve's comments without checking as 'faith' in the same way that McGrath's views decidedly are faith.

1235. Fleabytes

Comment #138356 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 8:27 am

irate_atheist

Wow! That's amazing! Does it work with tiles too?!

Only at certain temperatures.

1236. Fleabytes

Comment #138345 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 8:10 am

irate_atheist

One could hypothesise that, for most people, the only kind of evidence they believe is anecdotal evidence.

Did you know that you can cut glass with a pair of scissors. If you do it underwater?

1237. Fleabytes

Comment #138338 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 8:04 am

Steve

It is people like McGrath I find really bizarre.

Interesting because I'd never thought of it quite in this way before. McGrath may have a more 'sophisticated' notion of god. His interpretation meter may be calibrated much more for 'metaphor' than 'literal truth'. He may not really believe that unbelievers will burn in the fires of hell.

But somehow, he is actually more faithful than the most ardent Southern Baptist churchgoer.

1238. Fleabytes

Comment #138331 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 7:49 am

Steve

My limited experience is that most people don't usually go around believing things that they don't think are actually true in a way that really doesn't need faith. I don't think they consider religion a different kind of "faith-based reality". To raise theology (as Robertson does) is a total distraction. Very few people think like that. Perhaps the only people who really need faith are the religious "intelligencia" who really doubt almost all of what their religion says to them.

So your average believer, who is truly fearful of hell, to the extent that they indocrinate their chilren. They believe because they have been told something by someone they have no reason to doubt (in the same way Steve you may tell me something about black-holes and I would accept it). This belief we cannot truly call 'faith' because it is not strongly counter to any other belief/experience they have had. They have not thought "How can this be possible if..". Whereas folk like McGrath recognise absurdity or inconsistency and still believe. This really does require faith?

1239. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #138266 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 5:42 am

drbreakfast

I personally prefer Pat Condell as he's sharper and funnier than Maher, but he's English

"Sharp" and "funny" are not the adjectives I would use to describe Pat Condell. There are far witter contributors on these threads.

Jesse Smith seems to have buggered up this thread on my browser as well!

1240. Fleabytes

Comment #138256 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 5:31 am

Epeeist

You obviously weren't brought up a Catholic

You got that right. by the way, I wasn't saying that it wouldn't be immoral to remain slient. Just that it wouldn't technically be a lie.

1241. Fleabytes

Comment #138254 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 5:28 am

Brian. Maybe I am fussing over nothing. As I said earlier I just wouldn't like to define a "believer", whether in a creed of anything else as, someone who has "confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so", since this seems too wide to me.

A "believer" has a strict religious sense and should not be confused with ordinary belief based on experience.

(this doesn't change the validity of your argument though)

1242. Fleabytes

Comment #138245 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 5:18 am

Brian - Noted. My worry with these things is that theists have a habit of cutting and pasting words and using them for their own ends. I would not want them picking up your words and using them to form an argument that we have "just as much faith as them" (and that we have effectively admitted this).

For the record, I absolutely agree with your point about the hypocrisy of believers.

1243. Fleabytes

Comment #138238 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 5:07 am

Brian

Cool. But this is the definition of belief in a creed. If you didn't think it was absolute, why not chop and change creeds if it doesn't affect your salvation?

but that's not what I am saying. Of course a believer absolutely believes in their creed, but the distinction between a believer and a rationalist (and hence the definition of a believer) should be in the standard of evidence accepted, and not a requirement for absolute proof.

Under the definition above me and you would be a beilever since we have "confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so".

1244. Fleabytes

Comment #138234 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 4:57 am

If I know a hitman will murder you tonight. You say I'm so glad that I'm not going to be murdered tonight. I've lied by omission by not telling you a fact that you don't know. Haven't I?

Well, if you nod and agree with me then you have!

If David Robertson was asked the direct question and then did not state his position then he is certainly being underhand.

On the dictionary def'n. I don't like it. I would prefer they said "...without evidence that one is right in doing so."

1245. Fleabytes

Comment #138226 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 4:47 am

Brian English

Ok. Lets get back on track. I agree with your post. True believers are necessarily liars if they state that follower of other creeds may also be saved.

2 points though:

- I don't think they are liars unless they state the opposite though - you can't lie by being silent.

- You say:

3. A believer is defined as one who has confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. This something of course is the creed.

Absolute proof is a bit strong. You should be scientific here. We are not believers in evolution.

1246. Fleabytes

Comment #138218 by Peacebeuponme on March 4, 2008 at 4:33 am

Anyone fancy a chat about religion?

1247. Fleabytes

Comment #137950 by Peacebeuponme on March 3, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Steve

Richard Dawkins has really achieved something special with this site.

He's done it, not by imposing rules and direction, but just allowing free expression. The contributors make this site what it is, but facilitated by Richard going out there and really living up to his Oxford chair title, which has attracted good people here. Of course we have Josh to thank for making the site design work and getting the right articles posted up.

I only assimilate a small percentage of what this site has to offer (I should'a kept a pen and paper note of all those damn book recommendations) and really wish I could make better use of this fantastic resource.

1248. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137938 by Peacebeuponme on March 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Goldy

One can write using spellcheck - computers have a lot of functions to hide difficulties. I myself always seem to write teh and adn, among other typos.

Steve's comment was more general than that, which is why I responded.

Aside from the education point, I often IM my workmates and my spelling is often atrocious, because the conversation would be very slow if we had to cut and paste from word every time. Communication is more important than spelling in that context, which was the point I was making.

I don't think its that bad that jay is making spelling mistakes, though agree it can look ugly.

1249. Fleabytes

Comment #137935 by Peacebeuponme on March 3, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Paula

Dr Benway - this one's even better!

See what happens: She (the good doctor), lets us play around for a bit and then pulls another one out of the bag.

This place just beats the shit out of elsewhere.

1250. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137922 by Peacebeuponme on March 3, 2008 at 3:26 pm

once wrote that good spelling and punctuation are a matter of politeness. If you can't be bothered with them, then you are not only being rude to the reader, you are putting up a barrier to anyone understanding your point.

I have trouble with this. Its more about communicating well, rather than adhering to spelling and grammar rules (at least some of which are arcane and logically pathetic). I think Bertrand Russell had some good words to say about this that I can't remember.

My issue with jayalenik would be that he is not communicating well, and this is more than just some bad spelling.

Its also not just a matter of politeness. You are effectively writing off a lot of good thoughful people, who may happen to have had a difficult education process, as impolite. I think that is unfair.