Comments by Peacebeuponme

1851. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115352 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 4:38 am

Many of Darwin's ideas are quite subtle, and so much of what he said is misunderstood and misquoted. If we are going to deal with religious people who are have well-rehearsed arguments about what it is necessary for God to have done to make the universe, life, and us, surely we need to know the arguments to counter them.

I'm uncomfortable with the implication here: On The Origin of Species is not an atheist bible. You can read and understand Natural Selection and a whole host of other rational scientific arguments against theism without reading a 150 year old book. After all science progreses and our understanding of evolution is constantly being updated.

Sure, OTOOS (so I'm told) is a good read from a historical perspective and also because of Darwin's use of language. It may also have some interesting detail around the edges, not repeated in later books, but are you really suggesting that we couldn't gain enough understanding through Dawkins, Wilson, Steve Jones, and others working today?

I've ever read Principia Mathematica (its a tough read, no?), but don't think my understanding of Newton's Laws has suffered as a result.

EDIT: Some of that sounded a bit dismissive of OTOOS, which was far from my intention. I hope my point remains clear.

1852. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115336 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 3:23 am

I'm kinda with Nefrubyr here. You don't have to have read this or that book to hold views on, or discuss, theism on this site. I haven't read Darwin, but have enough of an idea of his writings from school, other books and elsewhere.

I will say though that reading "The Blind Watchmaker" is extremely useful for debating and getting things clear in your head. Not only that, it is a wonderfully fascinating book and a highly enjoyable read.

I realised I hadn't fully understood evolution at all before I read it.

1853. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114885 by Peacebeuponme on January 23, 2008 at 5:47 am

The few Pat Condell videos I've seen have not been particularly funny or stimulating. I inagine he'd be a good ally in a pub debate, but I wouldn't pay to see his stand-up, and wouldn't want him behind a lectern against D'Souza or Francis Collins.

1854. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #114849 by Peacebeuponme on January 23, 2008 at 3:18 am

I would say that The One Ring exists in some sense - as part of a story. I think...

Somebody may own a weapon in World of Warcraft. That could be referred to as a "thing" even though it doesn't exist in the physica sense.

I await for Steve, MPhil and Epeeist maybe to sort this out for me!

1855. This Week's Flea

Comment #114198 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Taken to extreme, the best proof of God's existence would be him not existing at all, and the truest version of the bible would consist of blank pages, where anyone could write what they like.

Brilliantly put, again Steve.

1856. This Week's Flea

Comment #114184 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 1:49 pm

we simply haven't gone into it enough, or we get the wrong end of the stick

Haven't gone into the world's most read book despite having best part of 2,000 years!

ADH - its just sheer speculation, and should not be the basis of a worldview, laws or rational enquiry. Can you not see that?

1857. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114167 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 1:28 pm

It's historical nonsense

Reminds me of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who said when The Da Vinci Code came out:

"There's a real danger people will believe this fairy story".

1858. This Week's Flea

Comment #114159 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Because I accept and have confidence in the Bible as a truthful reflection of the character of God.

The Bible is known to contain many historical and factual errors (pi does not equal 3). It contradicts itself in various places. It is not a good reference source in this regard.

Also, people interpret the bible in many difference ways.

1859. This Week's Flea

Comment #114126 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm

God's not interested in getting people to believe in his existence, but to love him with all their "hearts minds and souls".

How do you know?

1860. This Week's Flea

Comment #114023 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 8:19 am

Actually, Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons would never submit himself to our agenda. It is foolish to look for evidence of the existence of the planet Cybertron. We shoud just pray that Rodimus Prime's Autobots win out in the struggle.

1861. This Week's Flea

Comment #114017 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

I still think Steve is letting theists get away with something a little bit:

Theism is a belief and does make claims that require proof.

Atheism is not a belief and does no such thing. You don't have to arrive at it after studying evidence (though once confronted with the God hypothesis, a little study should lead you to affirm it), it is a default position. Babies are atheist.

1862. This Week's Flea

Comment #114015 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 8:09 am

Therefore I do not require the kind of evidence that you are insisting upon. Theists cannot be required to produce empirically decisive evidence because that is to insist that God subjects himself to our agenda.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn similarly demands little empirical evidence.

Come on, Artful_Dodger, we cannot get anywhere with arguments like that.

1863. This Week's Flea

Comment #114003 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 7:43 am

Artful_Dodger

For me I was responding to Steve. However, a couple of points:

able to trot out the usual argument

Use of such weasel phrases does not rebut the argument.

Nevertheless, in your more unguarded moments you find yourselves taling about being "confirmed in your beliefs"

Leaving aside that Walk does not speak for all of us, you understand the differing contexts in which the word "belief" can be used don't you?

"Where's Simon?"
"I believe he's gone home"

"Where's your evidence for God?"
"That is a matter of faith - I believe in Him."

1864. The New Theology

Comment #113978 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 6:07 am

Hi Brother John

Can just ask a couple questions?

contrary to what you BELIEVE, there is enormous evidence to back up belief.

Would you be able to provide some?

Well, dear friend, have you noticed one interesting fact? You and most of your mates in atheism WANT to believe there is no evidence for God because you WANT to carry on believing there is no God.

Carry on WANTING and BELIEVING as you wish. It's your choice, your privilege. But don't kid yourself you're doing something else that is intellectually more worthy of respect.

What's with the capitals?

Personally I prefer to classify assertions not by whether they agree with what I believe, but by the relevance and cogency of the evidence they offer for those assertions.

Amen to that. What religion do you subscribe to? Can you explain how evidence and reason led you to that conclusion?

1865. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113966 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 5:18 am

This is interesting (from the beliefnet link)

"Marriage has historically, as long as there's been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there?"

Such fear of the unknown, of things different. There's no reasoning behind his stance, just: "its the way its always been"

1866. This Week's Flea

Comment #113963 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 5:05 am

Steve

Ok. To compare atheism to religion is almost apples and oranges. It should be atheism vs theism.

Theism without religion is interesting though - how would that work? "I believe there is a god who created and intervenes in this world; but I neither worship him nor abide by his rules (even though he knows what I am going to do anyway)."

The distinction is good for the old "Mao, Stalin" argument though: these had their own non-theistic religious set of beliefs, so don't tell us that "atheism" was at fault. We then concede that "theism" was not at fault for the inquisition or the crusades, but religion.

1867. This Week's Flea

Comment #113952 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 4:37 am

It is no more a set of beliefs than bare theism.

But theism is more a belief than atheism surely? Like Harris says, there's no a-teapotism or a-fairyism.

I think I'm just misinterpreting what you say.

1868. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113936 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 3:15 am

Duff

A "twat" has sexual connotations that I assure you do not describe a person of his....gender, or....station. A "twit" is, however, a perfect description of the long nosed person you refer to.

Nah, cunt, I'd say.

1869. Honour Killings

Comment #113929 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 2:51 am

Fanusi Khiyal

Peacebeuponme, correct me if I'm wrong, but I am guessing that you would be happy to see white converts to Islam buzz off to Saudi Arabia if they want Shariah, yes?

In a heartbeat.

1870. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113787 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Brings in net tourist dollars rather than not

Monarchists often say this, but its not exactly easy to prove. I don't think tourist numbers would reduce all that much - we would still have the history and the palaces and the parks, just not the scroungers who inhabit them.

However, this is not really an argument for this site while Brenda still sits in the chair. Should Dumbo ascend though, we really should worry about the effect on religious influence in this country.

1871. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113724 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 11:53 am

Fixed - how?

1872. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113716 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 11:43 am

I blame robotaholic - it started with him!

1873. Honour Killings

Comment #113693 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 10:47 am

I'm sorry if this is going to sound a little obtuse, but you kind of lose patience with these people. I really want to shout out to muslims like Mr Ahmad:

FUCK OFF TO SAUDI ARABIA THEN
FUCK OFF TO IRAN
FUCK OFF TO PAKISTAN
JUST GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE UK IF SHARIA IS YOUR THING

..hoping that doesn't come across a bit BNP.

1874. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113675 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 10:20 am

epeeist - if that was a "Camillagate" ref it may be lost on our American friends.

1875. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113639 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 8:47 am

I should have also added in my post #113607 above, that there should be a difference between justified offence and what I would call conditioned offence. For example, if someone walks around with a t-shirt with a picture of your other half on it, along with the slogan "This person is a fucktard", then I think any offence would be justified. The other type would be conditioned offence to the word "cunt" for example.

Not suggesting either type be treated differently in law, except that the distinction should be in mind when deciding how to react as the "offender".

1876. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113613 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 7:19 am

I do occasionally see the point of view expressed that any criticism of the offensive material is an attempt at censorship.

Yes, of course criticism should be allowed, so long no attempt is made to ban. After all, we have paid art, film and music critics.

There is still room for consideration. You can have a t-shirt slogan. Somebody may say "that slogan makes me uncomfortable". You then have to decide whether the displaying the statement or consideration is more important. The key is that only you can decide. People are then free to decide whether they consider you a good person, or an arse.

1877. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113609 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 7:02 am

So if a clone lives to adulthood it would be no more than a soulless zombie human or subhuman and there is the ethical dilemma for a religionist. I would suppose...

Its this type of question that keeps university theology departments running.

1878. Violence fear over Islam film

Comment #113607 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 6:57 am

nothing to be gained from burning a copy of the Koran unless you're freezing on a mountain top.

Apart from yet again highlighting that Islam is not a peaceful cult.

Its like flag burning, pointless, but nothing to get wound up about.

You can burn a tree, but turn it into paper, add ink and burn that and watch idiots complain.

1879. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113604 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 6:52 am

And would this soul be a new soul or Samuel Wood's?

1880. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113585 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 5:51 am

Ah, the Hate Mail, that pinnacle of Britsh news reporting.

I'm am tired, tired, tired of the automatic right of religious types to get a say on any topic. Absolutely no relevant experience, just wear silly clothes and believe in fairy stories, therefore somehow able to have a clear view on the appropriate way forward.

The Pope

And the Vatican condemned the cloning of human embryos, calling it the "worst type of exploitation of the human being".

Lets just compare: destroying a few cells the size of a pinhead, or living in luxury off the back of millions of people's donations?

Religious people should be out of the dicussion by default, since they bring bias to the table.

1881. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113583 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 5:42 am

inappropriateness of their being funded publicly.

I would fo further. I don't want children of this country indoctrinated with private funds either.

1882. Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

Comment #113582 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 5:40 am

It just amazes me that the government wants us to move to increasing the number of faith schools rather than reducing them. I cannot believe that in the 21st century reason is still not winning out. We don't have our own Hogwarts, or astrology schools. I doubt very much you could get approval for a satanist school, so why a catholic or muslim one? What if the Scientologists try to start one?

They encourage divisiveness and teach rubbish (to varying degrees), and I am astounded that here in the UK we are allowing it. How far does it go? Will we have our very own madrassas in the future?

One thing the theists point to is how well they perform. This needs to be addressed and action taken to change. Why is it that non-faith schools generally do worse? I suspect the answer lies in the selection methods of the faith schools.

1883. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113457 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Scooternyc

Your whole argument seems to be that we should avoid giving assistance unless we can be 100% sure they have done all they can to help themselves first. I think people have done enough on this thread to show that this black and white attitude just does not reconcile with many examples out here in the real world.

Anytime anyone disagrees, we are not responding to your argument, but engaging in

accusations, emotional responses, attempted insults, attempts to offend, disagreements, not liking the ideas, not agreeing with the ideas�

Well I'd agree with the "not liking the ideas" one! Your position is interesting in that it is so opposite to mine (I would have really enjoyed it if you could have put it across with a little more humility). One thing that puzzles me : do you think that if we all had your outlook, then the aggregate happiness level of the world would increase?

Oh, and one more important thing.

You are basically advocating social Darwinism, and I think it needs to be said loud and clear that this does not follow from atheism, lest some theists happen across and get that idea.

1884. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113436 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 3:08 pm

You'd be surprised, indeed, the great many, many, many people who respect me, my ideas and the example of life that I live

People with actual respect never have to say that.

1885. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113435 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Paula

Well done for not getting as childish as me and trying to reason over the last couple of days.

It says a lot that even you have to reluctantly sign off.

1886. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113430 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Diacanu - you write what we think.

But this insulting helps scooter. Best thing really is to point out how unworkable his philosophy is (well not his but, you know). He's shown himself to be a pretty normal guy who's read some interesting leftfield (but not left wing) books (well, one anyway) and been sucked in by that. At least he's trying to think so I'll give him that.

His argument dies when he cant't answer all the examples Paula gives him, where the "It's your own fault, fuck off bothering me you lesser prick." approach is clearly wrong.

1887. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113324 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 9:36 am

It is precisely what I was saying.

Scooternyc needs to raise his gun barrel up through 90 deg., he appears to have shot himself in the foot.

1888. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113318 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 9:25 am

From the Wikipedia link:

Whereas most of its actions are involuntary, some ANS functions work in tandem with the conscious mind, such as breathing.

Isn't that what Steve was saying?

1889. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113316 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 9:24 am

psychology of the mind

Tautology

1890. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113282 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 7:51 am

So much for your atheistic ways

I've heard:

God is Love
God is Energy

But never:

God is Empathy.

1891. The New Theology

Comment #113266 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 6:55 am

ADH - welcome back.

Of course, you can define God in your own way. You can say, "I believe in a God who could suspend gravity, make a 3-cornered square or make pi excactly three". But following it through, and given all we know about the natural laws and concepts, how likely is it that such a being can exist? You define god in such a way that it is almost impossible for him to be there.

1892. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113261 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 6:08 am

I don't know about you, but I tend not to put too much blame on the kid who hits back at the school bully. I do blame the bully.

Don't give him more ego by portraying him as a bully. I'm sure if he airs his views too much out in the real world he would find himself on the wrong end of a proper spanking.

Scooternyc - This is me proud to join the "emotionally unstable" ranks. You can have my above comment as an insult in the game you are trying to play with Steve.

Its a pity, at least the theists on this site generally seem to know how to discuss in an adult fashion. The nastiest discussions I've seen here have stemmed from atheists - Scooternyc and Henri Bergson, who can't wait to claim intellectual superiority and throw insults. What are great example they are giving the believers.

1893. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113244 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 4:33 am

Someone mentioned earlier that the U.S. is replete with success stories of rags to riches � how bad do you want it; what are you willing to do to get it

I suspect for every such reported story, there are hundreds of failures, where the individual tried at least as hard, that went unreported.

1894. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113240 by Peacebeuponme on January 19, 2008 at 4:28 am

al-rawandi

Who gives a shit about that. Usually people who act arrogant have the most need for self assurance.

Corylus

That was a call to empathy PBUM. Scooter has already dismissed this as "diseased".

Right, that's it. I'm giving up on the attempts at humour. I don't like the old "smilies" so everything seems to get taken at face value.

1895. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113101 by Peacebeuponme on January 18, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Several of you have no understanding of science, how it is observed, outcomes, the physiology of the body. And yet you come onto the blog and spew your stupidity as though it was logic � it's like watching a Fellini film.

You really don't have any basis for that arrogance. Play nice, think how it feels to read that: put yourself in our shoes...

1896. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113027 by Peacebeuponme on January 18, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Sargeist

For once, the American version of a book's cover is actually rather nicer than the British one.

Well, the publishers crappy-fied the title of Hitchen's book over here, as well.

1897. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113022 by Peacebeuponme on January 18, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Diacanu - don't drag it out man.

1898. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112807 by Peacebeuponme on January 18, 2008 at 5:50 am

Scooternyc's position (though difficult to follow his use of the english language, for me at least) seems increasingly flawed. Leaving aside that when we say "empathy" we do not mean "disease", regardless of whether his etymology is valid (Steve is "gay", but I don't think this discussion is making him "happy"), we are led to consider that helping those in need is bad for them because it doesn't give them the chance to responsible: we are actually selfishly making things worse for them. This is an incredible statement.

Where would human progress be? "Oh you tried to build a flying machine and you have crashed and need us to fix your broken bones? Sorry, your fault for building the damned thing - you fix yourself up." Cooperation and empathy have helped us achieve great things.

1899. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112786 by Peacebeuponme on January 18, 2008 at 4:53 am

Artful_Dodger

If soft drugs were legalised, trafficking would shift to cocaine, crack, ecstasy, heroin ... Or are you recommending that ALL hallucinatory drugs should be legalised?

Of course. I believe in individual freedom. The naivety is yours. You should think carefully about your kneejerk "Just say no" attitude that has been drummed into you as surely as "Jesus rose from the dead".

Doesn't all the differing responses to the moral issues you have presented suggest there are no absolutes, and we can only go by consensus?

1900. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112504 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 11:42 am

That is a very subjective reading of morality.

That was my intention. Its a minefield isn't it?

As for drug-traffickers, try saying that to the parents of someone whose life has been wrecked by being targetted by neighbourhood traffickers - forcing him into deliquency in order to finance his habit and keep the payments up.

You might be confusing trafficking and pushing at bit, but I realy don't like the "try telling that to..." attitude. In your example if someone wants to ignore warnings and ruin his life by getting too addicted, its his lookout. We shouldn't be able to stick our nose in. I don't like the nanny-state we live in. The best we could do for these people is drug treatment and education, rather than banning (leading to glamorisation) and prison.

Look at another example: A mountaineer dies. His mother is sad. Should be ban mountaineering?

Were moving away from the general argument now though.