251. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200458 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Half atheist - lol - that doesn't even mean anything. just cause a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it means anything.

Unless idiot is saying he has multiple personality disorder he is basically trying to pretend that the belief in creator gods is something different from the belief in fairies and that it needs an extra level of surety to declare yourself as not believing in it.

ROFL - half atheist.

252. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200325 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 10:11 am

Re: theidiot

I am so glad theidiot's rantings are down in print for all to see, that way he can't deny saying it.

Oh my fucking God! Phatbat read what I wrote again. In fact, since you don't know how to read, take it your mother and ask her to explain for you. And if your mother is as dumb as you, then go ask a HS teacher.

OK lets read it again.

They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.

So either we are miserably clueless as to the reason we hate or we are not. You stated that we were clueless or seem that way. Which is why i wrote this:

seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.

meaning that we do have the ability to explain human emotions incluing hate and thus you are wrong.

Twat.

253. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200315 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:49 am

76. Comment #200314 by theIdiot

Ever notice I go by the name "the idiot"? Accusing everyone of being dipshits, without claiming I have the potential to be one too, would just be too cruel.

you're doing more than just claiming the potential - you are claiming to be a dipshit with us. Which begs the question why would you try and insult people by accusing them of being like you?

254. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200297 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:17 am

70. Comment #200260 by theIdiot

"but for good men to do evil, that takes religion, than it logically follows that this is also true "but for evil men to do good, that takes religion."

er, no it doesn't, it's a completely seperate issue. Make the logical case if you think that is true.

Strangely one finds this oddity in the unbelievers argument, that it's nature that leads us to compassionate behavior, not one's religious upbringing, yet for some reason they work in reverse when in comes to hatred. They are quick to provide the evolutionary explanation for why we love, yet they seem miserably clueless as to why we hate.

seem clueless? perhapse you could explain why evolutionary explainations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power.

Do we take it from this that you are a creationist and don't believe evolution happened.

Ah silly man, do you think such practices were foreign to pre-islam Saudi Arabia, where the pagan religions that dominated had no bearing on morality at all? Religion wasn't the source of the patriarchal structure of the pre-Islam Saudi Arabia, nor is it the source of it post-Islam. Judging that this structure is all most universal for all civilizations at one point in time, a learned perspective involves far more than religious scapegoating. A social context doesn't emerge out of religion, religion emerges out of it's social context.

The origin of such practices is not disputed nor the issue. The issue is that it still goes on now and it is likely to go on as long as nearly an entire religious body of people idolise mohammed as a perfect example of personhood, and consider anything he did as good.

And relativist might argue with you, that your notion of a lack of compassion here, is the product of western arrogance and ignorance. A society might view the notion of an individual taking in a child of family who couldn't afford to take care of her, in a marriage contract that postpones sex until she is of an appropriate age, to be an act of compassion. In fact, I'd even argue that most individuals who support such acts, see it as such.

But hey, who the fuck are you to tell a Saudi what you think is right or wrong, to impose your western morality on him?

We are people who's moral code is actualy based on whether an act does actual harm to people. Not based on whether it supposedly pleases some imaginary friend. Since that little girl cannot simply choose to unmarry herself when she grows up and decides if she wants to be married to the person chosen for her then she is basicaly enslaved to the person of her father's choosing.

Twat.

255. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200288 by phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:01 am

Re - theidiot

Bloody hell - this guy really knows how to come across like a twat doesn't he. Sounds like a petulant little 18 year old who hasn't learnt how to compose sentences yet.

Other than that his posts are basicaly full of shit. He seems to be well practiced in the art of not really making whatever argument he's trying to make.

also check this out:

Now, I'm not arguing my fellow dip-shits

At least he considers himself one of us dipshits, lol

256. Band T-shirt draws charge

Comment #199332 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Yeah the RD.net article is the reason i found out about it - i may well go along to one of those.

Thanks for the info matee.

257. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199329 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:25 pm

54. Comment #199026 by TeraBrat

My my tera, yesterday you were typing an open letter on your disgust at the bad attitude of some, unnamed, people posting on this site who were being rude. Today you have been rude to someone (Mphil) saying he doesn't know what philosophy means in a condescending manner, and then not apologised for it. And then said you are sickened by the fact that a lot of people are too nice to certain people.

You are now starting to sound a bit petulent. If you are prone to ill informed accusations then do the right thing and just say sorry afterwards, you must know that gets a lot more respect in this life. And if you are going to complain about too much rudeness on this site on one day don't be stupid enough to be rude the following day and then complain about people being too nice.

But seriously if you haven't already turned to religion out of protest please stick it out here and you will learn to deal with all these things you don't like and grow an extra layer of skin or 2.

best

258. Band T-shirt draws charge

Comment #199315 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm

27. Comment #199308 by Enlightenme

Ah - small world indeed - i had thought about going to that science cafe thing - i signed up for the email updates but haven't been to any yet. What is it like? Do the audience get really stuck in?

259. Band T-shirt draws charge

Comment #199297 by phatbat on June 25, 2008 at 1:07 pm

22. Comment #199286 by Enlightenme

And what can I hear *right now* from my back garden? - Bon f'kin Jovi, playing at a soccer stadium 5 minutes away from me.

No way - i can hear it too, i live in clifton just past the top of clifton vale - what about you enlightenme?

260. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198840 by phatbat on June 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Tera

Some people are used to pisstaking and name calling and other people are not.

When most of these 'offensive' posts are written they are directed at specific posts by the individual who is the target for said 'offense'. Thus taking the idea to task and exposing it for what it is.

Now this is exactly what you haven't done with your (probably inadvertant) broad brush stroke of disdain for this site in general. You should pick out the ideas and posts that you have a problem with and deal with it. This is what everyone else is doing. This kind of emotional response is what all too easily develops into a prejudice against a group. If you are not careful you will develop a prejudice against atheists because of some of your anecdotal experiences. This causes you to want to seperate yourself from the atheists and the only way to do that is to become a theist.

Now i think you must agree that this would be a bit silly wouldn't it.

261. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195894 by phatbat on June 19, 2008 at 2:05 am

8185. Comment #195756 by asfalios

Hi all,
correct me if I am wrong but in 6:14 to 6:26 of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsAtc0ezpdc

does the professor suggest that there is possible evidence of design?
Your opinions?
thanks

I think that is the bit that Richard is talking about in the article on this page 'Lying for Jesus'

It is about the 8th paragraph from the bottom (ignoring the block quotes) and begins 'Another example....'

I think this explains what Richard was talking about

262. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195006 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I can see what Steve is saying actualy.

If we allow Brian's method then we need to refuse to acknowledge design/appearance of design because that is a claim that needs to be backed up. We don't ask for the case to be made for the designer until they have made the case for design.

We also shouldn't mention that a 3rd option is that anything just appeared, we should instead just say that it could be something that no-one has thought of yet (after all the universe is a mysterious place, and we've all heard that before haven't we).

We could hammer home the appearance of design being a statement with out substance by all the "bad design".

I think this should be less prone to attack.

Any takers?

263. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194728 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 8:06 am

147. Comment #194704 by ketch22

At one time evolutionists postulated there were 180 'vestigial' structures in the human body. Today this list has shrunk to virtually zero.

Virtualy zero or zero?

No organ should be removed without good reason!

Which is a very different issue from it not serving any purpose and in somecases causing great harm.

264. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194723 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #194710 by irate_atheist

A vague resemblance, visually, to George Galloway.

Now you could be onto something there, i'm not convinced that is who i'm thinking of but there is a vague resemblence. (sorry Epeeist)

265. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194721 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 7:58 am

Comment #194689 by epeeist

Well it must be a famous person then. I can't help but think the person i'm thinking of has an irish accent.

nevermind, one day it'll come to me..

266. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194683 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 7:29 am

144. Comment #194663 by epeeist

Well, you spoiled my second intention move, but never mind.

Sorry Epeeist.

I think that even if he didn't already know what was coming there is very little he can do to avoid it except what he already did.

BTW epeeist - I've always thought ur avatar might be a famous person but never been quite sure. Someone set me straight the other day and said it was actualy you. I can't put my finger on who you look like, have you ever been told you look like someone in the public eye, or do you live in either the Portsmouth or Bristol areas of england, which if so, i might have seen you around.

267. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194653 by phatbat on June 17, 2008 at 6:17 am

140. Comment #194624 by pobalob

Personally, I think questioning why one believes one god over another is merely a distracting sideshow.

Yes, it is a valid question but I ponder the merit of asking the Thor followers why they do not follow A.N.Other god or the J-Christians the same query.

It could be a case of putting the cart before the horse but it is a very useful tool in getting the theist to try and squirm out of using the very arguments that an atheist could then use against them.

Hence, above you saw that Ketch pretended it was a silly question that didn't deserve a response. Now he knows full well that he tried to look for an answer and couldn't find one that wouldn't be just as valid against his own god so he sidestepped. People will see this.

Trying to get them to come up with a positive case for design is also an extremely good technique. His constant avoiding of the question is very telling to all that might view it.

268. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194260 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Quetzalcoatl

Thanks Quetz - I'ts been bugging me for ages now - He does look like someone famous though (maybe not that famous) but i can't put my finger on it.

269. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194247 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Frankus1122

You might want to edit for spelling too:
"grammar"

Nah - the word evolved mate.

;)

270. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194240 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Isn't it strange how someones avatar sets a mood?

Does anyone know if epeeist's avatar is of someone famous as it looks very familiar but i can never think who it looks like?

271. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194232 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:44 pm

7540. Comment #194224 by ReceivedTheGift

I am sorry, but there are just too many in your community that think otherwise for this to be so clear cut.

So how many then? - or perhapse what percentage of our side think otherwise?

272. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194216 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 2:32 pm

7528. Comment #194204 by Steve Zara

The more people like you post, the more we hone and refine our arguments in support of reason. Ironically, you help such arguments evolve

Well said.

And thank you gift receiver for doing this in such a public setting, so that all those people who read this and may have been unsure about the supposed clash of evolution and cretinism, can see how week the ground is on your side of the fence.

BTW i love the way you fail to acknowledge when your arguments have been dealt with and then move on to the next one, and then return to one of the previous arguments (that was dealt with already) and say it all over again.

EDIT for grammer

273. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193950 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 8:32 am

7433. Comment #193943 by Steve Zara

So is this like a solid membrane of ice or many seperate floating ice crystals?

274. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193921 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 8:09 am

Is tx actualy suggesting that a sphere of ice might have formed around the earth and then melted and flooded the land?

275. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #193911 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 8:00 am

glad to see research being done into this. Perhapse we could one day put 'gay is a choice' nonsense into the same archive as natural disasters being punishments from god.

Oh, hang on a minute, it already is.

276. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #193902 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 7:49 am

It's interesting how they think a work of fiction should be hindered in its production if it portrays a fabricated series of events. I suppose they think a work of fiction should actualy portray events as they actualy happened.

Or are they saying works of fiction should never be produced which have anything to do with Christian history. Perhapse they have first hand experience of a lot of people believing fiction to be fact. I wonder what that might be.....

277. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #193886 by phatbat on June 16, 2008 at 7:34 am

Amazing video's - very nicely explained.

278. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192533 by phatbat on June 13, 2008 at 10:08 am

I agree that the debates don't seem to sway many people but they are bloody good entertainment.

They are also very usefull as sources of ideas for debates of our own.

But the written format is by far the best if you are on the side of reason. All this talk of winning the debate is important though, winning should not always be a matter of opinion when the question being debated is a matter of logic or fact. The winner should be who's arguments stand up to strict logical analysis not consensus.

279. Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school

Comment #192098 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I think that if a holy book contains possible justifications for violence towards someone or something except in cases of self defence (or defence of others from phisical harm) then it is not a religion of peace.

If said book contains a lot of explicit justifications of violence then it is not a religion of peace.

If said book contains no possible justifications of violence what-so-ever except in self defence as stated above then it is a religion of peace.

280. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #192051 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 11:52 am

1998. Comment #192036 by rontimus

1999. Comment #192044 by Steve Zara

superb.

I hope he responds and tells us all how these brilliant arguments work.

281. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191872 by phatbat on June 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

133. Comment #191847 by Vaal

Guys, no point biting to David Robertson. It is a futile exercise. He just posts his paranoid drivel and waits for the reaction. He doesn't have anything new to say, and he doesn't bring anything to the debate.

I kind of agree but i think all that is needed is for everyone to just stop telling DR what we think of him and just concentrate on the actual fallacies he produces.

What people tend to do is bring him up on something valid and then add some insults on the end. Then what happens is he responds mainly to the insults and not to the real meat of the post.

Steve Z seems to be achieving this with good effect which produces an actual (if not still wrong) responces from DR. severalspeciesof also did it above.

I know it is so tempting to let rip but it is this letting rip which is giving him loads of excuses to avoid dealing with the real questions which are so valid.

If we can all make an agreement to stop with the insults and telling him what we think of him (no matter what he says) we will get shorter more focused responces from him which can then be highlighted for their lack of logic and abbundance of ill thought.

Worth a try?

282. Court Claim: Chimps Are People, Too

Comment #191696 by phatbat on June 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm

52. Comment #191669 by richard_dawkins

Oh dear we have a child let loose on a computer who is attracted to apes.

283. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191128 by phatbat on June 10, 2008 at 9:12 am

251. Comment #191103 by larhule

Stryer, I dig your Socratic fire. You obviously don't need it but consider this a handful of encouragement for pinning responders to their words! The shit you catch for 'attitude' is totally fruitless and only serves to preserve a cold slate for everyone to hold hands and engage in boring, mass eye rolls in response to another stupid religious treatise.

I don't really understand what this means.

284. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191030 by phatbat on June 10, 2008 at 6:10 am

amazingly bad article - 'Canada Free Press' - i hope this means nobody had to pay for it.

Styrer

- Why so angry about this misunderstanding? It's a pretty simple principle and one that's been discussed on here a few times before if i remember correctly. If it was just a case of posters using the word faith instead of belief on a couple of occassions couldn't you have just said 'i could understand what you mean if you said belief instead of faith.....' not to mention the fact that faith does actualy have more than one definition, and if you check the dictionary, faith can be interchanged with belief quite easily within the confines of the established definitions. But i would agree using the word belief in this instance would have possible saved some confusion.

If your disagreement is something other than this then you have yet to have put your point in a way that is easily understandable.

Are you saying that you don't think believers try and find evidence for their belief and think they have found it with very bad results like this article?

If you do think they do this then surely you are agreeing that for these people faith is not enough on it's own for them to believe, they feel the need to find evidence to back it up. Because their need to find evidence for their prior assumptions/faith is so great they suddenly have a very different idea of what constitutes evidence, and just accept nonsense like this article. The fact that they haven't actualy got any evidence is beside the point, it is the fact that they wanted that evidence, sought the evidence and then rested on it that is important. No one is saying (i'm pretty sure) that these people actualy have anything other than faith to justify their beliefs, but that they think they do, thus they are really rebelling against the principle of faith. No one is saying that their faith is reasonable or that there is any such thing, just that for a lot of people they THINK it is. If it's reasonable then it doesn't need faith, if it needs faith then it isn't resonable (unless you're talking about the more wishy washy definitions of faith just being the belief/trust in something or someone where evidence or reasonableness is not an issue)

It really does seem like you're missing something here styrer.

285. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #185258 by phatbat on May 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

63. Comment #184918 by Sh!fty

Here Here.

There is a big difference between people like bullet and clearmind.

I would have thought one of the best things this site might achieve is to win hearts and minds of those that might be indoctrinated elsewhere, especialy the young and curious.

Granted no-one knew he was 14 till after a few posts filled with 'you have all got it wrong' type posts. But we must expect this from just about everyone who has been indoctrinated from early childhood with the religion virus. I think that by restraining your annoyance at the arrogance we get subjected to and just keep plowing out the same polite answers will at least be witnessed by the many people that view this site.

A lot of these people are victims remember.

286. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183892 by phatbat on May 23, 2008 at 5:42 am

346. Comment #183888 by Steve Zara

hehe - i didn't really think it was you Steve - i went and checked out your blog too - very good.

287. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183883 by phatbat on May 23, 2008 at 5:11 am

342. Comment #183876 by Bonzai

It could be Steve Zara - he never seems to be about at the same time as clearmind. He said he was going to work on his own blog for a bit but that could be a cover, while he practices typing in clearmind speak.

But seriously, i don't believe that he's an actual idiot, the occasional clear typing demonstrates that.

Every one should just ignore his posts from now on.

288. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180251 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 12:39 pm

1. Comment #180245 by Solarium Solaris

If they just discovered this how do they have a 25 year old image of it? Just wondering.

Good point. I don't know either.

Also, if it's 28,000 light years away how could anyone have seen it so soon after the event. Surely the light would take 28000 years to get here, or am i being stupid?

289. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #180021 by phatbat on May 14, 2008 at 5:46 am

294. Comment #179998 by jayalenik

Boy, you girls really know how to hurt someone.

I don't think they were trying to hurt you, looks to me they were telling you what you either are or come accross as.

Like it or not, bad or no punctuation makes writing slower to read and confuses meaning. Now this is a fact for most people. If you don't like this fact, you can either do nothing and carry on as you are or try and change it so that your posts are more easily read. It's obviously your choice, but if you go to the trouble of posting on a forum i presume it's because you want to take part in a discussion, or make your views known. People will start to ignore posts that don't read well, so if you're happy with that then carry on.

It's always interesting to see how someone reacts when their faults are pointed out, and it's funny that your reaction turned out to be that of petulant little child.

290. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179644 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm

17. Comment #179638 by annabanana

couldn't tell if this resulted from the author's having had knowledge of The Selfish Gene by RD or because he'd only read the title

I know, it seems like the author is very confused about what he thinks. He seems to contradict himself all over the place. I think he thinks he knows more than he knows.

291. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179625 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith.

And the theists still don't know they've lost.

Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Oh dear, I think someone needs to read a few books. A selfish gene does not mean we can't have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment. for goodness sake.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space).

Ok, uh-huh, thats seems reasonable

The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

Oh dear, now you've gone and spoilt things by going way over the top.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

No, god can best be conceived as the creater of the universe, there is no reasonable avenue to squeeze god into these experiences.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate.

...for Chris and Richard

The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.

How do you feel the existance of the sacred? I can't believe that's the best word you can think of to describe these feelings.

That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They're going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.

This is exactly what they have to do now, new discoveries aren't going to cause that to happen they may just make it even easier for us to win the debate.

292. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179356 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 6:52 am

229. Comment #179009 by Artful_Dodger

I'm not denying that it happens in some cases, but it contradicts the whole thrust of Scripture, which is respectful of the will of every human being to orient his or her life towards God or away from Him. When we choose the latter we are choosing our own destiny. God does not force a relationship with Him on anyone, either in this life or beyond.

Oh come on.

How can you call 'if you don't believe in this particular god you are going to go to hell and experience agony for all eternity' not forcing then just about nothing is forcing.

A man with his gun to your head saying he'll shoot you in the head if you don't hand over all your money, that's not force is it? because you can simply choose to just not give him your money, and if you do that he will kill you and everything will be fine because you made your bed, you chose not to hand over your cash and the gunman is very unhappy because he didn't want to kill you, he liked you really, but you spurned his kind intentions and chose to die.

Perhapse you would prefer to use an analogy of an out of control car speeding towards you. Unless you jump out of the way the car will mow you down and kill you. The car isn't forcing you to jump out of the way, it is your free choice to make. You can choose to stand there and die. Or you can choose to jump out the way, but there is nothing forcing anyone. Just freewill.

In fact the only time you are ever forced to do anything is when someone is forcing you physically using either superior strength or physical restraints.

Are we agreed?

I suspect not, i'm sure you agree that those situations are infact examples of force being applied if the word has any meaning at all.

The problem is though that your free choice to reject god has a couple of factors involved which make your suggestion even more abhorrent.

1. I don't even know for sure i even have a choice. God didn't tell me directly, how do i know i'm not being conned. At least the gunman is telling me i have this choice, your bible god won't even bring himself to let me know i have this choice.

2. I simply am incapable of believing in your bible god, I do not have the free choice to believe it. I can say i believe, but it would not be true. If your god made me, he made me completely unable to believe any of it.

And then you have the audacity to say that you think the entity who has set this whole system up is so great and that you love and worship him.

If you want to believe in it then fine, but don't think you aren't doing something moraly abhorrent by telling us you think he is a great guy and loves me. At least admit he is a nasty character but you believe all the same and are actualy scared of him.

293. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178787 by phatbat on May 12, 2008 at 3:49 am

51. Comment #178467 by Identity-less

I'm choking up reading this article..
why? Cause i can relate, and her ending is something that haunts me in my dreams as MY potential ending.

I'm saddened to hear that, It must be awful to have no sanctuary in the one place you should have it, in your home with your family.

But thankfully you live in a western country where escape is possible. I see you have a job, are you able to afford to move out and get a place of your own? Would this act alone put you in danger, even if you told them where you were moving to?

294. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178547 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Al-rawandi

Although i agree this whole fuck the country attitude is over the top, it is not the fact that the guy did what he did - it is the attitude of the society around him that is so appaling. that, ithink is playing a part in people's reaction to treating the whole as if it were the man.

295. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178503 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Last week, his wife Fran said that he "left a job he could have done well if he had had support rather than attack. It is sad that a religion which has the commandment 'love your neighbour as yourself' at its heart is so often a poor example of a healthy supportive community."

Well it might be sad if it wasn't inevitable due to the fact that although that tenet is at the heart, it is surrounded by a lot of contradictory stories and stuff which somewhat detracts from the so called heart of the religion.

Oh and im sure a lot of people are very good at their job as long as they don't come under attack, like soldiers, managers, teachers, parents. Surely it's your performance under attack which is a big indicator of just how good at your job you are.

Every professional these days is more readily questioned, people are more prepared to challenge what they're being told and that can lead to conflict,"

Which a professional can usualy deal with if they actualy have any substance to their professional status with facts to back up what they are asserting. But when you're arguing over what kind of pasta makes up the noodly appendages of the flying spaghetti monster there tends not to be any kind of possible resolution to the argument.

This article makes me happy.

296. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178386 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

Absolutely disgusting.

Every culture will have people who are sick enough to kill their own daughter, but not many can lay claim to the friends, relatives, police, politicians, in-laws, neighbours and multitude or religious brothers and sisters of said sicko all agreeing that not only was it not a bad thing to do but that it was the right thing to do.

That, i'm not ashamed to say, is what puts people on this side of the issue on a much higher moral plain than the thousands (if not millions) on the other side.

Lets call a spade a spade people.

Lets see how many theists will come on here and try and point out how we've got that wrong.

I bet (or shall i say, i hope) not many.

297. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177108 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

So basically Christians don't really know what it is they believe in, but it's definately a something, but it's definately not knowable, but we think it hears our prayers, and we're pretty sure it sent it's son to earth, but it's definately beyond our comprehension.

So us silly atheists can't say we don't believe in god because they haven't even said what it is yet, and they never will.

Well we've been told.

298. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176813 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 5:36 am

71. Comment #176786 by MPhil

Agreed?

yes

I'm not saying religion will vanish completely - that reason "will win"... but it can get more foothold, and -as it does over and over again- get more people in its side.

Yeah - I think it's the whole social network playing a role in stopping reason breaking through. Most theists will feel a safety in numbers with regard to their unreasonable beliefs, which is understandable. If you take everyone else away and sperate them from the familiar i'm sure it would be an easier job to get them to be responsive to reason.

299. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176780 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 2:49 am

65. Comment #176775 by MPhil

I think then that we are agreeing - the santa clause example is not inate as you say, it is something that we were reasoned into by being told by your parents that santa will deliver presents in the night, and thus it happens. and there fore can be reasoned out of it by them telling you that they were making it all up all along.

I suppose you kind of arrive at the position of mind being something seperate to the body, but i think this is just because it does feel that way to most people and they haven't really thought about it much. Things like this just sneak in the back door un-noticed and it's only when you sit down and think about it and learn about the subject that reason sets you free.

Religious dogma does get specificaly taught to people in plain words and people just believe this stuff knowingly and consciously. It doesn't generaly sneak in the back door. It gets combined with a lot of emotional baggage that sometimes can't be seperated.

Some people however can be reasoned out of this stuff like a lot of people here i suppose. But it just depends on the individual's logical persuasion.

Maybe the phrase should be 'You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into unless you're very lucky'

300. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176771 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 2:04 am

55. Comment #176745 by MPhil

don't think that's a good phrase - because the answer isn't "you can't". For example, I did not come to the position that the mind is something other than the body or that there are objective moral values not through reason - but I abandoned them because of reason.
That's just one small demonstration - there are lots and lots more.

I see what you mean but I think you are talking about a different kind of position than that which that phrase is talking about.

I think what you are talking about are the assumptions that everyone makes without really either thinking about or even really acknowledging, like mind is something other than the body, etc. It is true that you can reason out of this position and many others. But i don't think that these are the positions the phrase is talking about.

When that phrase says '....weren't reasoned into' i think we just need to assume that it is a position that they actualy arrived at, having not had it before, as a result of something other than reason. I'm not sure you can say the same about mind as something other than the body, objective moral values, etc.

To say that homosexuals are all victims of paedophiles, as in the article, is not really in the same bracket as what you are talking about.

Although having said that i do think some people can be reasoned out of positions they weren't reasoned into, it is just not that many, and it's very very hard to do.