Comments by Peacebeuponme

Comment #123993 by Peacebeuponme on February 8, 2008 at 5:57 am

Lost it, shouted "what about people with no faith you stupid bugger" at the radio.

What bothers me is that I dont want religous laws applying to me. I don't really care if Muslims want to agree to abide by Sharia, so long as I don't have to. I don't particuarly want special laws for the "no faith community" since the law of the land should conform to this by default.

Having said that, the big worry with the voluntary application of Muslim courts, the Beth Din and Canon Law is if one faith becomes a majority and imposes on all.

1752. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123496 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 9:11 am

irate-atheist

Even more to the point, schizophrenics can discuss their delusions, but the doctor knows they're not real.

Much better analogy. I really do consider religious people to be liars though.

1753. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123494 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 9:06 am

those who would deny the existence of the Red Fat Man.

Come on Steve, John Prescott is alive and well.

1754. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123482 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:51 am

I can dialog with other faiths about our beliefs, but a discussion with Atheists inevitably becomes another episode of "show me some evidence",

I can dialog with liars about the lies we tell, but a discussion with honest people inevitably becomes another eposide of "I don't think you are telling the truth".

1755. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123478 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:45 am

al-rawandi

I suspected you might come back with counter-examples. I think I pretty much agree with all of your last post. You are right, it is difficult to perfectly apply the same standards to every situation. There may even be times when it is right for a politician to "side" with unsavoury people for the greater good.

I don't think Galloway can justify his comments in such a way though.

And I'm not someone who thinks Churchill is the greatest briton ever, either.

1756. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123469 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:21 am

al-rawandi. You do have a way of adding a bit of needle to a discussion!

Whether or not he thinks Palestine should have its capital in Jerusalem (I am making the rather large assumption that you understand the quotation you cited), is really irrelevant.

Yes, I have seen the translation (I'm not in the habit of posting foreign language that I do not understand to make a point). In, fact even ignoroing the "until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem" bit, what does it for me is:

- the amount of deference and respect for a genocidal maniac; and
- indicating that others in the west are behind a man responsible for oppression and death.

1757. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123459 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 8:06 am

"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds"

That was enough for me.

I did like him sticking it to the US Senate though.

1758. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123435 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 6:44 am

Actually, I think you would find that even babies would have been repulsed by REAL dog-poo. Disgust at certain things, particularly smells, is a instinctive response, just as fear can be an instinctive response. It is probably true that MOST of what we are disgusted by or afraid of is learnt, but not all.

Interestingly that is not the case. The programme was a long time ago, and I can't remember the details on things like smell, but defintely disgust appears to be a learned emotion. Small children will not like to pick up a piece of plastic that looks like dog-mess, but toddlers will happily eat chocolate shaped like that.

1759. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123353 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 2:48 am

DavidMJH - Go back to masturbating over your Vin Diesel posters and leave the intelligent debate to the grown-ups.

1760. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123352 by Peacebeuponme on February 7, 2008 at 2:47 am

Cartomancer - actually I think we are more in agreement than you think. Religion today is a major contributor to continued homophobia. However, just take a look at the UK today. Your typical football yobbo is not wearing a cross, but still shouts "queer" at Sol Campbell.

1761. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123214 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 4:00 pm

troyreynolds

I think we are on the same page. I just sometimes want to point out that everything is not all religion's fault, becuase it dilutes our poistion

And, since it comes from a holy book, it remains the most difficult to undo

Absolutely key. That was the thrust of my post (I don't usually get clarity on my first post).

My point was that we have millions of loving couples in this world that are being kept from entering into a legal relationship with each other

Don't care about that. Like Doug Stanhope says, your relationship is no business of the government.

If anything shows that people can be nice and moral without any thought for themselves, it is the way that so many straight people support the rights of us queers.

Most of us are good guys ! Steve, I hope one day that the fact that me and you differ on whether Mark Ruffalo or Evangeline Lily is the most attractive is treated the same way as whether one likes Bjork or Missy Elliot.

1762. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123204 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Sorry, I thought it was the nap of their kilt. Or is that scotsmen?

1763. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #123202 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Galloway's argument against Hitchens is that he used to be red and he likes a whisky now and again. Not very strong is it?

1764. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123196 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Oh yeah, because the worst thing a child could see is two people wanting to enter into a monogomous, committed, trusting relationship based upon love and respect. Oh the horror. Why are Christians so damn scared of gays? Could they honestly think that their kid will see a gay couple and catch gay? Could they be that moronic? Wait, just remembered all of their other precious beliefs. In comparison this one is more tame, yet far more sinister.

I think we need to get over this idea the homophobia is a purely religious construct and start attacking religious people on the right grounds. For me it goes like this:

- For some reasons some (actually a lot, too many, whatever) humans don't like homosexuality.
- To ensure fairness, compassion, a good society and just plain learning, investigation and moral education about this unfortunate reaction needs to occur.
- unfortunately religious people enshrined this bad reaction in their holy books.
- religious people now use the holy books to justify their reaction.

This is why shellfish does not cause so much of a concern to the religious - there was no 'original' psychological reaction to begin with.

Thoughts?

1765. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek

Comment #123185 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Zejirta - Most people posting here would be right behind you. Seriously, this place is a haven. They were posting without your extra context, for which all you can say is "aah, these things happen".

Let me just say thanks for what you are doing.

1766. Atheists to celebrate at Darwin Day in Coconut Creek

Comment #123172 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 2:34 pm

This sounds the perfect way to promote the ideas of a scientific hero

As a Welshman (who's footy team just managed a 3 - 0 win!) I am duty bound to note that a "Wallace day" is not being discussed!

1767. Ad 'likely to offend gay people'

Comment #123123 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Apparently homosexuality is so repulsive that people don't even want to think about it, yet at the same time it is such fun that straight people can be easily "converted" and become addicted.

I saw an interesting programme a few years ago about how our repulsions are conditioned. Babies are not naturally repulsed by anything - they charted with age learned bevahiours with classics like fake dog-poo.

Sadly many straight people (even those not particularly homophobic) can have such a response, which has been conditioned by family, friends, society.

1768. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122970 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 9:51 am

Actually, I think any post that says "I have to go" should generally result in troll-markings for all previous posts, if made after repeatedly ingnoring counter-arguments.

1769. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122968 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 9:49 am

We got the usual...

1) Einstein thought there was a god.
2) Pascal's wager.
3) I have to go (at least he threw in the low battery part)

I mean, did anyone not see this coming.

We all saw it coming. You can add

1a) Wooterism (or child-like version of the argument from design)

as well.

1770. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122955 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 9:41 am

Al -
Prove the Bible False!
You can't!
Historically or otherwise!
Just because you refuse to accept it as an authority on Creation, you deny it's historicity and scientific statements as well.

Laughable. hes2@usa cannot have read the bible to make such a statement.

As usual, the theist is side-stepping all the difficult questions as well.

hes2@usa - prove there is no flying spaghetti monster. Prove that you are not actually the devil's spawn and are acting sub-consciously.

1771. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122771 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 3:15 am

Steve - I would be interested in reading a book written by you. I find myself nodding my head a lot when I read your posts. There are a few people here you could use for a resource also!

Are you really starting a blog though? Hmm, never been sure about those things.

1772. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122767 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 2:44 am

Cartomancer. Ha ha! Interesting. I must say Skeletor had the campest voice imaginable in the second version of the cartoon.

al-rawandi - have to say I have not seen a lot on SNL, I should check out some of it on youtube.

1773. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122525 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 11:56 am

Careful, or I'll break out my "He-man as gay subculture" rant and then you'll all be disappointed...

Heard it all off a gay mate before, so I can take it! He does seem to find gay undertones in 90% of everything he listens to or watches though, so sometimes I take it with a pinch of salt (though looking back at he-man he may have a point).

1774. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122484 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 10:34 am

Does that mean she has to wear the appropriate costume :-D,

Actually my he-man knowledge is failing me. I should have mentioned Teela (Man-at-arms foster daughter). I think Evil Lyn had the best costume though.

Sorry, all that is distracting us from talking about the serious business of imaginary men in the sky, flood geology, spontaneous generation ans superfast plate techtonics.

1775. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122443 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 9:15 am

Reverend Dark

Last time I checked, no one here claims to be a master of the universe. Though if we do so, I get to be Beast Man.

I guess epeeist would be man-at-arms. Annabanana could choose between She-Ra and Evil Lyn as well.

1776. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122433 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 9:00 am

Peace
We are limited by time and space. God is not

How do you know that?

We examine all that we are aware of from this tiny planet of ours and then believe ourselves to be the masters of the universe--mentally, physically, and in the area of knowledge.

No, its Christians who believe (with no foundation) that God put us at the centre of everything, and created the universe with us in mind. Scientists are far more humble and in awe at the majesty of the universe. Your presumptions are invalid.

1777. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122411 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:39 am

hes2@usa

Oh, maybe the trillions and trillions of years God existed before He spoke us into existence.

Why do you think that?

1778. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122399 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:30 am

And according to the book of the Revelation in the New Testament. We will be!

Except we would never have made it through the last 6,000 years. You are essentially saying that continental drift is about 42,000 times faster. The kind of earthquakes and tsunamis that would bring would make the planet uninhabitable.

1779. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122391 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:21 am

TylerDurden

I assume your "Preflood Earth" is around the 6,000 year mark? Hmmh, quite a bit off there in timescale don't you think.

If Pangaea was only 6,000 years ago, imagine how fast continential drift is! We would be in for some pretty substantial earthquakes.

1780. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122379 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:12 am

I am unashamedly a Christian.

Why?

1781. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122357 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:58 am

hes2@usa - Do you realy think you are the first person to state the argument from design here? Please, please go over and look at the debate points section.

1782. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122350 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:55 am

Try this interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesnâ€™t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesnâ€™t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Hereâ€™s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years.

That is technically known as a Wooterism (formerly the Argument from Design).

1783. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122346 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:52 am

Human life consists of many activities which are mentally pleasurable. Walking in forests, listening to music, creating poems, doing scientific research, aesthetic enjoyment of nature, and myriads of other activities are often not related in the least to survival or adaptation in the Darwinian sense.

I think neuroscience is making a serious and respectable attempt at solving questions about mental processes. I've not heard any theist come up with a sensible explanation for anything in this field.

1784. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122340 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:47 am

hes2@usa

the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.

What can that possibly mean? A mutation improves my quality of life but not my ability to survive? Homeless people do not have central heating. I do. My quality of life is improved, but not my ability to survive. No, wait, that doesn't work. Can you help me out here?

1785. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122336 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:43 am

Steve - the problem we are dealing with here though is human nature. Why do people love conspiracy theories so much? Its kind of exciting to go against the grain and be proved right. My suspicion with many of these creationists (the ones with a little bit of science nous anyway) is that they like the idea of being able to say to people "don't be so sure of what you hear" and the thought that they are backing the little smart guy no one listens to.

That is, its not just about god and the bible.

1786. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122085 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

sarah95

To see what I mean, you can watch this video:

Thanks for putting that up. Excellent. Particularly part 2/3 and the piece about the "right not to be offended". Was discussing that on a thread a while ago and wholeheartedly agree with Penn's rant.

1787. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122065 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Can they not just go ahead and form a group anyway? What are the university's powers here? I guess they can stop them distributing leaflets on campus grounds, but it would make a good statement if they just went ahead anyway and formed a non-affiliated society.

1788. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122055 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:52 pm

al-rawandi.

I apologize if I was uncivil. I wasn't trying to be

Maybe I was oversensitive because I'm tired.

I don't really have the depth on knowledge to debate the Iraq issue, so I think I'll respectfully withdraw. This issue flares up enough on this site without me stirring the pot. For me I just wish both sides would stop being so entrenched.

Steve...looks very wealthy in the avatar photo.

And good luck to him! Steve has just over a decade and a half on me, and has put his head to good use!

1789. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122044 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Al-rawandi. Lets keep it civil. All I am saying is that you don't know how any alternative strategy would have played out because they weren't put in to action. I don't fully know what we should, or shouldn't have tried and don't think its obvious that there was a better way to solve things than invasion (the sanctions didn't seem to be working). There's been enough debate on both sides to convince me of that, and not everybody on the pro side has their hand in the cookie jar.

1790. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122036 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Josh - Is it fair for me to ask for you to remove becomethearrow's avatar? I don't like censorship, and I know I don't have to come over to this alternative comment thread, but I find the picture distasteful.

Given that I own a good few rap albums, that may be a little hypocritical, but it does concern me that a picture of a man pointing a gun straight at you for several rows does not look good to visitors here.

Ah, I'm probably getting my knickers in a twist over nothing.

1791. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122024 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm

You just said you liked how Haliburton has gotten rich of suffering. I will correct that in my mind to you object

You are correct, thanks. I've edited my comment.

It isn't black and white. I didn't say it was. What I did say was there were still other alternatives, and alternate solutions.

Which may or may not have worked.

Saddam would have found himself under increasing pressure from the world community had he remained in power. It would not have been hard to topple him without an invasion.

Speculation. Kim-Jong Il has managed quite well. So did Saparmurat Niyazov.

1792. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122019 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 1:56 pm

I'm not convinced its as easy as totting up lives lost on either side of the fence. Who knows what Iraq would be like now with Saddam there. No question the people were oppressed - any country that returns 100% election support for its leader is clearly getting something deeply wrong.

Do I think the US went in their for good reasons? No. Do I like the way Haliburton's directors have got fat of other people's misery? No. Do I think it has gone well? Of course, no. But ask me if I think they shouldn't have gone in and I find it difficult to give a proper answer. Too many people see this issue as black and white and it isn't.

1793. God the psycho

Comment #122010 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 1:36 pm

am glad you raised that. I felt it was an embarassment. Dawkins avoids debate with creationists with good reason. We are fortunate to have recently seen PZ Myers choose his target with care and the result was a triumph. But that takes someone with the formidable knowledge and communication skills of Myers.

Its worth remembering that debate to keep in mind how good people like Dawkins are. Often they make it look easy.

The Rational Response debate annoyed me because Martin Bashir was a frankly pathetic host, but the RRS did not know to go about making sure their side was heard. A typical example was Kelly arguing about the limited historical evidence for Jesus and Bashir responding with "Oh come on! Your not seriously saying that." and then moving the conversation on.

Dawkins stance on debating creationists was strengthened when Kirk Cameron pulled out the "fronkey" pictures, but Dawkins would have done a lot better with a response than the RSS's "Oh my god, what a fucking numbnuts."

1794. God the psycho

Comment #121946 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 am

Well I am sure many of us would be curious as to your appearance,

Annabanana may be...

1795. God the psycho

Comment #121945 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:43 am

This is the clinching point for me. It is important to accept all viewpoints, but be careful about who actually speaks on your behalf.

Exactly. I'm pretty comfortable with my reasoning and can confidently hold off theists and theist-friends over a few pints, but would obviously struggle in a live debate with d'Souza. It would not be elitist if Dawkins and Harris saw my name as a co-panelist and said "who is this chump?"

1796. God the psycho

Comment #121938 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:36 am

Well, as Steve has said, I think there's room for a variety of approaches, and fearing him being put alongside Myers/Hitch/Harris as if it would poison the well is a bit elitist.

See Steve's comment above. Eloquence is a good word. Look at that Rational Response TV debate with the creationists. It was a bit of a mess. Fine for Condell to do his thing, but don't harm the integrity of this site.

Imagine if Condell had a section in the Hitchens compilation "The Quotable Atheist". How incongruous would it look?

End message.

1797. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121934 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:32 am

al-rawandi

This was an American war for American hegemony and profit. To call it anything else is to take an incidental and make it a cause.

Would you support intervention (if it were possible) to assist oppressed or mistreated populations in North Korea, Congo, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan?

1798. God the psycho

Comment #121922 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:20 am

Aarrgh lost a whole post again!

I am gay, and the fight for gay rights here in the UK has always involved a range of approaches, from the mild (Ian McKellen/Stonewall) to the far more agressive (Peter Tatchell). Both approaches seem to have been needed.

My vocabulary is going to let me down again, but here goes:

My mild dislike of Pat Condell is not because he is agressive, its simply because he's not very sophisticated.

Peter Tatchell may have more aggresively campaigned for gay rights, but he also came across well in interviews and had a good degree of intelligence. Condell is by no means stupid, and is funny in places, but he's pretty childish in others.

I just wouldn't want him linked here alongside Myers, Hitchens, Harris, as an example of the best we have. I think it would dilute the power of this site as a place of reason and thinking.

1799. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121705 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:35 am

AllanW

You write like wooter; are you the same person?

I have my suspicions here, but the writing style seems better than the Wooter posts. Time will tell, though.

1800. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121700 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:26 am

I just want to know that once if there was a guy named wooter and his all comments were deleted because he is the best debater and his argument was based on logic vs evolution? I just heard from the grapewine of web pages that wooter shared his deleted arguments with other web pages and said, these are the arguments that were deleted from this web page and furtheremore he was undermined by any means of one can figure out. Is that true? Is there any censorship against the arguments with that hammer approach - I beat or you are deleted? What was the name of the thread wooter discussed his argument? I wanna just take a look at it?

Wooter essentially spammed the site with repeated attempts at the Argument from Deisgn. His English was very poor and hard to follow and he did not listen to any of the arguments presented to him. It was tireless. His comments were all moved to the "Alternative Comment Thread" on the various articles he posted on. I am trying to remember which ones they were.

So there was no censorship since the comments can still be found. The Alternative Comment function is useful though to avoid clutter - they really were nonsensical spam.