Comments by Peacebeuponme

1901. 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.

1902. 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.

1903. 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.

1904. 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.

1905. 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...

1906. 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.

1907. 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.

1908. 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.

1909. 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?

1910. 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.

1911. The Group Delusion

Comment #112475 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 8:46 am

(Sorry, I can't leave this)

Can I troll you now, Steve?

1912. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112468 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 8:12 am

Artful_Dodger

The Golden Rule cannot work in a vacuum. It presupposes that I am in a position to "do as I would be done by", and it presupposes that my desires are not in fact ultimately nefarious. How would the principle operate between two drug-traffickers for example

That seems to back up the assertion that there are no absolutes.

The golden rule is just something that seems to work for society to function. It is not "right" in an absolute sense, but helps us all get along in most situations. Happily, we also have altrustic urges arising through natural selection that mean we generally want to live by something approaching the golden rule.

You can ask "is it right...?" or "surely its wrong...?" questions all the time. The response for me is always to ask "Against what criteria?"

btw - I have no problem with drug trafficking. Its extortion of the farmers and pushing that I don't like. If authorities ceased their immoral behaviour of outlawing drugs, then the problem would go away. Our prisons could also be better used to contain real crimninals.

1913. The Group Delusion

Comment #112459 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 7:09 am

The Reverend Dark

I think the most telling statement in regards to your particular flavour of pig-shite ignorance was this one.

I must apologise. That quote stemmed from my attempt to humourously ape Wooter's posts (Wooter then cut and paste in order to reply to me). A little playground of me, I know, but interesting that you found it the "most telling"!

1914. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112454 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 6:58 am

Artful_Dodger

Your last post is making my head hurt! You almost agree that there are no absolutes, but still cling on to them!

1915. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112439 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 5:43 am

That's why commitment to "universals" is so important.

Except that there aren't any. We have to work together and reach consensus. I understand that this is where you and I (and a few others) have a difference of opinion.

1916. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112436 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 5:28 am

But let's not get too starry-eyed about the capacity of the law to acceptable values. It has often done just the opposite.

Oh, of course. Its easy to point out where it has not worked our well for most. What's the alternative though, anarchy?

1917. The Group Delusion

Comment #112418 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 4:02 am

The question then is, given that he supposedly is a teacher of primary school children would it be right to inform the authorities of his opinions?
I would think so.

I really hope you are joking.

1918. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112399 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 3:30 am

In doing so you also understand that when a person has "empathy" they are attempting to connect to another's pain - for what reason or motivation?

I read your exchange with Steve before posting. We have a disagreement both with the utility of empathy and the ability for conscious control of emotions.

(that's rhetorical)

Well, umm, sorry I guess....

1919. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112392 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 3:12 am

be true to the scientific method come what may.

Except that a lot of people in the US are very worried about what that "may" might be.

1920. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112389 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 3:09 am

However, it is more useful to look at these choices people are making to commit these crimes, decide how best to apply civil consequences and then act accordingly.

Of course we should always make lawful judgements on the basis of objective fact and not be clouded by emotion. I'm not a fan of these initiatives to get the victim to have any sort of say in the punishment of the criminal. That does not make empathy a "disease" in itelf though. Its not the same point at all.

1921. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112383 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 2:41 am

That would be the same BBC who are under orders to refer to the people responsible for the 7/7 atrocity as "bombers" instead of "terrorists".

I don't think "bombers" makes them sound more cuddly.

1922. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112381 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 2:28 am

Styrer - If I assumed in error, then apologies are due. But if you start with such confrontational language, it's more difficult for useful discussion to flow.

I haven't said much on the NOMA issue because I don't really have a good idea of how it should be approached tactically. If the aim is to get a dialogue going any persuade people away fom religion, then maybe there are times when making concilliatory statements we don't really like will help things along.

1923. The Group Delusion

Comment #112377 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 2:21 am

just start hitting the troll button on wooter's posts.

Option B is the Coventry option of course. I think that would resolve things more speedily.

1924. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112374 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 2:12 am

Totally missing all the fun at the moment, it seems.

Artful_Dodger

I'm just arguing for objective morality.

I admire your bravery in doing that here.

I can give you a list that you will probably agree with: paedophilia, sex slavery (trapping young girls into a life of prostitution on the spurious promise of a good job), expoiting and fleecing the weak and vulnerable, raping and plundering the planet's resources etc etc.

Can we agree that these things are wrong, and would be wrong even if some fiendish political establishment managed to brainwash us all into thinking that they were OK? Can we agree that they are wrong full stop?

I'm probably repeating earlier stuff, but, what do you mean by wrong? Wrong in what sense?

Quetz

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but don't we call this frame of reference "The Law"?

Indeed. Law which comes from common consensus (by and large). We vote in politicians who makes the laws that we want to live by. What we don't want is one persons idea of the law based on their idea of God. That would be called Iran.

1925. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112371 by Peacebeuponme on January 17, 2008 at 1:58 am

Wow! Seems I turned in early and missed the continuation of this little one. And we still don't seem to be settled fully on how we could define "more evolved". All I can say is that a comparison based on rate or amount of change in the genome would be useful, but so long as that didn't lead to a league table of organisms.

Styrer - just because you didn't get a quick response to your post, there's no need to chuck your toys out of your pram. Often comment threads weave their way around various subjects, and away from the main thrust of the article, but the topics discussed pretty much always are relevant and interesting in the context of what this site is about.

1926. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112189 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Maybe rather than trying to refer to evolution in terms of quantifying it (more evolved/less evolved) which in my mind revolves around mutation rates, number of selection events, etc., and is possibly unmeasurable due to invisble evolution (molecular evolution), we could used terms like specialised, adapted, differentiated, generalised, generic or some such.

I'm not sure how well that would aid comparison, apart from between similar species, and even then it would be hard. To take your example: is the fig wasp the best at being a wasp, or is it the spider wasp?

1927. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112182 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Steve

I said "decreasing phsysical complexity". You said "Decrease in the complexity of the adult phenotype". I feel like I'm about to ask a thickie question, but aren't they the same thing?

1928. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112177 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 1:56 pm

To me, "differently evolved" implies (perhaps wrongly) the same amount of evolution, but in different directions.

Interesting discussion, this. Anytime you are dealing with terminology, there's a can of worms.

I still feel there could be some measure of having "evolved a lot". Some combination of genetic and physical complexity.

Yes, and I understand why you'd want that. Talking about amount or rate of change over time is not the same as placing on a chart of higher to lower organisms. Though would be hard to apply where an organism had been through stages of increasing and decreasing physical complexity, or gaining and losing stretches of DNA code.

1929. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112163 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Steve

You have a point when you take it to extremes, but its still a case of "more" what, "better" at what. Your Amoeba example highlights that.

I'm just very uncomfortable with a hanging "better", especially since its what creationists do: we are better than other animals, it's an insult to say we came from them.

That's why I like _J_'s "differently evolved". There used to be rodents the size of cows, then selection pressure made them a lot smaller. How would you apply "more evolved" or "better" to that?

1930. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112151 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 1:14 pm

This conversation is kinda reminding me of the discussions about morality. We don't like to deal in absolutes of right and wrong there, and I don't think we need to in terms of better/worse or "more evolved" here.

I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said above, but felt like chipping in. _J_ and anna seem to have the right idea to me.

1931. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112098 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 10:24 am

Yes! I was hoping he'd win on the basis of his Viginia Tech comments.

I suspect he'll enjoy hearing this a bit too much though.

1932. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112071 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 9:20 am

I predict a slew of people joining this thread. And not to contribute to the debate :)

Well, if anna will have a cute little pic avatar...

I think Diacanu has been spending the last 20 mins drafting his response.

1933. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112060 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 9:04 am

Diacanu, not to worry, there is one less deist economist dating an atheist...

Interesting to watch this little Dawkins dating agency sideline.

1934. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112054 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 8:56 am

I don't quite understand how such feelings could be under conscious control.

Actually, yes, that is ludicrous. A bit like somebody saying to you "Don't get angry when I say this, but.."

1935. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112042 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

If you attempt to empathize, place yourself in their position, then what is your motivation for doing so? Fear? Sympathy? Are these not emotional responses that are self-serving - to relieve you of the perceived personal pain - what pain does it relieve of the individual?
There is no motivation. Empathy is natural, and should be automatic. We should feel pain when we see and hear about the suffering of others. If we don't, then we have a psychological problem.

Even if they were self-serving, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you empathise with me (and therefore I guess be more inclined to help me out) I benefit regardless of what you get out of it. Better that we are empathetic than not.

1936. The Group Delusion

Comment #112032 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 8:26 am

rod-the-farmer. Totally agree. Over on the "Atheism Sucks" site it seems difficult to get a comment posted.

btw - check out the Atheism Sucks FAQ, this is gold:

"FAQ (not completed yet)

1. Is this a religious blog?

No. While the writers are predominantly Christians (of various theological bents), the blog is not exclusively concerned with defending any particular religion. The primary aim of the blog is to provide a platform for independent thinkers, from all backgrounds, to freely express their criticism of the increasingly dogmatic atheism we find ourselves confronted with. Thus, theistic Buddhists, panentheists, Muslims, agnostics, Wiccans, ex-atheists, and non-atheists of any sort, are welcome"

but its not a religious blog...

I might say I'm a satanist, surely they should accept that?

1937. The Moral Instinct

Comment #112005 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 7:41 am

I'm not even sure what you mean when you talk about universals.

1938. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111951 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 4:02 am

Notsobad - great to see that happening in Rome of all places.

Also in the UK the christians lost in their attempt to amend the stem-cell reasearch bill.

So there is some good news out there.

1939. The Group Delusion

Comment #111950 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 3:52 am

if i say to CHILDREN "pleas, how empire state buildin built - by dessigner or all bricks fly together by random chance?" they laugh. REASON tells it must be DESIGNER.

So PEASE, no evasive, tell how flower pollen PERFECT for bee to use without jungle websit or Blind "blindwatchmaker"? HOW?

1940. The Group Delusion

Comment #111940 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 3:37 am

They are having fun too while learning.

They may combine the two in other lessons, but I'm afraid they could only ever manage the former under your direction.

But I've broken my promise to cease responding and have continued this ridiculous carry on.

Debating ADH, Fides_et_ratio, even Dianelos can be useful for those watching from the sidelines (as I was for Dianelos - whatever Steve thinks I found that whole saga very interesting). Debating you is a waste of time for all.

I just wonder if Josh might give us his thoughts on whether you should be allowed to continue, or move to the Alt. thread?

1941. The Group Delusion

Comment #111935 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 3:23 am

I believe no comment for these comments is the best comment.

Pity you still managed to submit another long stupid post then.

1942. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111914 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 2:05 am

And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards

...and how do you propose to work out what those standards are, Mike?

Maybe the new US constitution will include details of just how long a woman remains unclean after childbirth, or menstruation, along with the right number of chickens to sacrifice in various circumstances.

1943. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #111912 by Peacebeuponme on January 16, 2008 at 1:59 am

Just make sure you don't vote the dickhead in.

1944. The Group Delusion

Comment #111574 by Peacebeuponme on January 15, 2008 at 3:16 am

This is like who designed the Birmingham palace, and I say, an architect

Amusing to see the sheer number of ways Wooter deploys the argument from design.

Wooter - here's few more

Taj Mahal
The jet engine
The Intel DuoCore processor

Come on guys - It's obvious these things are designed, so surely the planets and the flowers and the long-eared desert mouse are designed also!

1945. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111039 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 11:25 am

Gay Byrne? He's about the only Gay who would...

Boyzone's "infamous" first TV appearance:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hr2ZKhV6eKc

1946. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111034 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 11:13 am

Who says a boyband is to be judged on the quality of its songs?

Gay Byrne.

1947. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111032 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 11:09 am

I'm sorry, Cartomancer, surely "Everybody (Backstreet's Back)" is the defining song of the genre?

1948. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111030 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 11:01 am

That remark itself is ad hom.

But I wasn't using it to rebut your argument about morals, so what's your point?

Henri: Diacanu can't spell.
Peacebeuponme: Your mother is fat.
Henri: Aha! an Ad Hominem. I win: Diacanu can't spell!

* Engraver gets to work *