Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by notsobad


301. Blind Faiths

Comment #108988 by notsobad on January 8, 2008 at 4:59 am

I don't think that current islam is that different from early christianity (or judaism). Islam so far hasn't had it's own enlightenment that's for sure. But the reason for this isn't so much inherent to the religion itself. I think its origin is political: After the collapse of the great islamic empires, islam became the religion of the oppressed. It's quite hard to enlighten yourself when you feel threatened by and/or inferior to another religion. The first reaction is to cling even stronger to your fundamental truths.

People saying that Islam is much worse than Christianity don't realize that when Christianity was as old as Islam is now, it was much worse and with much inferior technology.
Enlightenment followed Renaissance, which was return to Greek and Roman roots of European culture.
Muslims have nothing like that to return to so the only way is to adopt Western values or do what you said: "The first reaction is to cling even stronger to your fundamental truths."
They have adopted some Western values, mainly through colonization. On the other hand, their return to roots was Wahhabism, which tried to return Islam to its primitive origins, making it even more dangerous and close minded.

302. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108096 by notsobad on January 6, 2008 at 3:06 am

"why are we here?"

"Plastics, assholes!"

--Carlin
.. the absurdity of life if we are merely the products of a purposeless biological process of adaptation

Get a girlfriend and some hobbies.

303. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107988 by notsobad on January 5, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I mean it's just ludicrous - Sam Harris should have just said 'what a copout'.

He did address the cop-out in a very precise and funny way by substituting God with Elvis and another god (Poseidon).

304. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107951 by notsobad on January 5, 2008 at 4:34 pm

The flood happened in response to man's response to God.

God created man in his image, so he was basically pissed at himself for doing such a lousy job, especially when he, as an omniscient being, knew that it would turn out this way.
Imagine you took a gun and shoot yourself in the leg and then tossed the gun into fire for doing exactly what you knew it'd do.

I think there is more to belief than emotions. You presumably know people that you believe in and trust. That will be more that mere emotion.

Are you saying it would be something more than just your brain?

305. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107850 by notsobad on January 5, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Scientists don't always get it right. In the 19th century it was thought smoking was GOOD for your lungs. One doctor was struck off for saying that it was bad for you!!!

That's a non-sequitur. It was not a wide-spread belief among scientists.
But of course, many scientists can be wrong in individual cases.

306. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107799 by notsobad on January 5, 2008 at 11:46 am

If someone who is interesting in debates about religion says that "Harris was just uninteresting," he/she is either lying or brain dead.

307. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107793 by notsobad on January 5, 2008 at 11:19 am

Anyway, here is a good article that targets Wolpe's claim that god is not a scientific claim and explains why Wolpe and others claim so:

Clay Shirky, http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_16.html#shirky :

The people we need to watch out for in this part of the debate aren't the fundamentalists, they're the moderates, the ones who think that if religious belief is made metaphorical enough, incompatibility with science can be waved away. It can't be, and we need to say so, especially to the people like me, before I changed my mind.


---
Summer Seale, your going from one extreme to another on a slippery slope makes these issues such a problem, because it's not easy to debate them (even though you might have been joking partially).

308. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107788 by notsobad on January 5, 2008 at 11:05 am

Haha....you obviously haven't seen a South American football(soccer) match or an India-Pakistan cricket match! Wars have hung over the outcome of these games.

Not quite wars, but have a glance at the affiliations for Rangers and Celtic football clubs in Scotland and Liverpool and Everton football clubs in England.

Football is a religion, a way of life for many people in South America.
Incidentally, these people are also strongly religious, and the love and compassion Christianity is supposed to spread never gets in their way.

309. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107618 by notsobad on January 4, 2008 at 8:38 pm

etny,
Harris is fond of meditation as a useful practice without any supernatural influence.
From Wikipedia: "Harris argues that such states of mind should be made subject to formal scientific investigation, without incorporating the myth and superstition often accompanying meditational practice in the religious context."

I don't agree with Rabbi David Wolpe but the quality of his input compared to the garbage that comes from the likes of Dinesh D'Souza could not have been greater.

Indeed, but Wolpe did say some rather uninformed and silly things, especially related to history.

310. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107522 by notsobad on January 4, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Dennett was right when he said that we have theists on the run when it comes to arguments.

All Wolpe could say and get away with was that god is just one of the conclusions of a metaphysical debate. And even that was countered perfectly by Harris by giving the example of talking about Elvis in the same manner.

Apart from this, the debate was more about sociology and philosophy, for which Wolpe had rather poor knowledge of history, biology and other disciplines.

311. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107436 by notsobad on January 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

It's a good reminder about what happens when religious beliefs are allowed to be the law.

Has NJ changed the constitution, or are they just not enforcing this part of it any more?

312. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106892 by notsobad on January 3, 2008 at 4:37 pm

This article smacks of the most absurd grandiosity and the kind of 'perfection of mankind' ideology that made such a mess of the 20th century. Human nature is not, I think, as amenable to rational decision as Harris likes to think - like many techno-utopians, he needs to pick up a history book or two.

It's better to talk about things that will happen. Not talking about it won't make them go away (e.g. Nazism in the 20th century you mentioned).
Not to mention, if done right, human genetic engineering can be very beneficial unlike the 'grand' schemes in the 20th century.

313. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #106832 by notsobad on January 3, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Chuck Norris is a creationist idiot .. so their cooperation makes sense.

314. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106771 by notsobad on January 3, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Is this not just a joke? And if it's for real, why pay them any attention?

315. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106279 by notsobad on January 2, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Very typical article: all about winning and losing and one tribe fighting each other.

316. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106112 by notsobad on January 2, 2008 at 11:25 am

Where we had a debate about new genetically-modified super-humans at my Critical Thinking course at college, the main topic was how these new people will look at us: their (inferior) creators.

317. Changing my Mind

Comment #106105 by notsobad on January 2, 2008 at 11:12 am

"Oh well," she said, "then we have plenty to talk about, because I believe that every word of the Bible is literally true." My heart sank.

I would burst out laughing. There is nothing more you can do about these people.

318. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105956 by notsobad on January 2, 2008 at 8:05 am

Regarding "nature ain't our friend":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
George Carlin, "The planet is fine. The people are fucked."

Human genetic engineering, like global climate change, is not a matter of whether it happens but how we react to it happening.

319. Was religion beneficial to the development of society? Is it now?

Comment #105748 by notsobad on January 1, 2008 at 6:46 pm

The beneficial parts can be easily performed by different means, and we can get rid of the many harmful parts.

320. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #105746 by notsobad on January 1, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Christianity? Certainly not
Religion? Discovery of Penicilin owes its origins to bacterial infections.

321. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #105743 by notsobad on January 1, 2008 at 6:28 pm

family, school, work, interests

322. Monkey, Business

Comment #105272 by notsobad on December 31, 2007 at 3:55 am

All those people dismissing the conclusion should re-read and comprehend the sentence "People and their governments make decisions based on "folk economics intuitions" - intuitions that are often false."

323. Monkey, Business

Comment #105141 by notsobad on December 30, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Also, I hope no one who frequents this site is hypocritical enough to judge this book just from an article about it and instead reads the book and judge for his/herself. Readers of Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens/Dennett should know better than to do such a thing, after seeing these authors so often dismissed from the start.

That's a good point. Already in this thread we can see people dismissing the conclusions of this book just because they don't fit in people's frame of reference.
Who does that remind me of...

324. Monkey, Business

Comment #105077 by notsobad on December 30, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Evolutionary biology supports laissez-faire .. some people here are going to have a hard time accepting this one.

And cola is a shitty drink no matter who makes it.

325. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104937 by notsobad on December 30, 2007 at 4:50 am


Yes, Prime Minister:

Jim Hacker: Is there anyone in the church who doesn't believe in God?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, most of the Bishops.
--
Sir Humphrey: The Church is looking for a candidate to maintain the balance.
Master of Baillie College: What balance?
Sir Humphrey: Between those that believe in God and those that don't.

326. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104922 by notsobad on December 30, 2007 at 2:54 am

Downunder,
so basically you are talking about your mind (brain) and the rest of the body functioning together.
Again, that video about prenatal development is very important. Imagine that you started with a sperm cell and egg cell creating a single cell - zygote - from which a full human being is developed. The single cell, just like any other in the body (except for the sperm and egg cells), contains the complete genome, a combination of male's and female's chromosomes. The egg and sperm cell carry half (23) of total amount of chromosomes in a cell.
So an individual's 'life' is a combination of genetic information and learned behaviour.

327. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104666 by notsobad on December 29, 2007 at 5:17 am

GOOD!

The more ridiculous these people get the better.

I'd send them this instructional video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBgrJKahA90

328. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104428 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 1:20 pm

BJohn,
do you think and speak for yourself too or only parrot the criminal institution known as the Catholic Church?

329. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104353 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 11:10 am

veterinarian?
Was he one of those talking about micro and macro evolution to explain why he used vaccines?

330. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104349 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 11:07 am

There is something about religion, especially in moderation that works on the brain like an anaesthetic.

First of all, brainwashing and indoctrination during childhood play a very important role. My parents are atheists and I have never felt any need to seriously seek supernatural, except for fun (ghost calling was a way to be with attractive females). Nor was I ever satisfied with 'god did it' explanation.
I've had my share of health problems since I was a baby and even though sometimes I would love to have an almighty friend who would make things right, I concluded that focus on reality and support of science are the only things that can actually help me.
This leads to the fact that faith is also very comforting and makes you feel special and privileged. And it's a drug. Once you are used to faith giving you these special thoughts, it's not easy to give up.

331. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104220 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 6:24 am

liddlefeesh,
so you feel sorry for this person because you and your wife were equally stupid once.
Some people need to burn like that it seems.

332. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104204 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 5:24 am

The point is that if I bought any product or service and I was not happy with it I could sue and get everything I invested back.

The evangelists should be sued for false advertising and should pay taxes but the "victims" are still mostly selfish morons.
If she was trying to buy world peace, it would be equally stupid but at least not selfish. She was trying to cheat the system and all of us just to get more than other people.
And you forget about the powerful law of supply and demand. These evangelists exist because there is demand for them.

333. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104202 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 5:12 am

krisking, answer my comment 249. and tell us how you know other holy books are false when they are all equally (in)valid - personal testimony (and only reported by others) and no facts.

--Of course, the answer is obvious; you were brought up in Christian culture. If you were born to Muslim parents, you would you use the same defence for Quran.

334. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104189 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 4:03 am

The only victims are this moron's family and tax payers. She is not a victim; she is an idiot. A victim would be a mentally challenged person taken advantage of not an accountant with presumably average intelligence.

These people are stupid enough to give so much money to these charlatans that they can't even feed themselves nor their families. Eventually they'll die and their gullibility genes will die with them.

This is a learned behaviour, not genetic. But the principle stays: if she can't have children, she can't pass her stupid beliefs and memes onto them.

335. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104177 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 3:35 am

Why would anyone have made it up? It's not like someone sat down and wrote it on one occasion. If some-one had made it up surely they would have done a better job of ironing out inconsistencies.

There are hundreds of holy books and stories and they all contradict one another. It's only logical that at least all but one were just made up. Of course, the most rational conclusion is that they were all made up.

336. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104175 by notsobad on December 28, 2007 at 3:33 am

A load of bullocks? Any of you who throw that at me should do me the courtesy of posting your explanation of life, putting me on a better path.

Yes, and you don't read what is written in response because last time you wrote something similar, you were advised to start with basics, such as learn about energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
We are surrounded by the facts of life; clear and factual evidence of something beyond our dimensions. Life enters all living things at birth and instills different levels of intelligence, ability and responsibility.

What do you mean by 'life'? Are you saying that embryos and foetuses are not alive?
Did you have biology at school? You don't seem to understand basics of fertilization and fetal development.
Basic video explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eelyg_k5iw

337. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #104054 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 5:39 pm

I do not care about beliefs that don't affect me or any other people against their freedom and will.

Organized religions do affect me...

338. Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Comment #104052 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 5:34 pm

My definition of atheist is a practical agnostic in regards to supernatural in general.

339. Wisdom From The Founding Rationalists

Comment #104039 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Deism was the way of saying you don't believe in gods without using the a-word.

340. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #104014 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Because Darwinian evolution requires eons to unfold itself and is therefore beyond the reach of legitimate science

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8904/1218doonesburylgnn5.gif

Charles Darwin's transitional fossils, proven!!!!! You most truly do not know your paleontology, do you !!!!!! Why do you think Elredge and Gould felt the need to concoct Punctuated Equilibria? Because these two eminent paleontologists knew the transitional forms do not exist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

One cannot prove a negative anyway, you should know that

On the contrary:
http://graveyardofthegods.com/articles/cantprovenegative.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

341. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103963 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 11:46 am

You are limiting the scope of reason and existence to what is empirically detectable, and that's not legitimate.

Why is it not legitimate? And why should we not limit the scope (in other words, what's the practical point of worshipping the god of the gaps)?

342. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103955 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 11:37 am

However, unlike that analogy, mine did not claim that the complexity of the universe indicates a rational and personal creator, as you seem to think it did, judging by your response (particularly Steve).

So if it doesn't claim it, how did you make the leap to this and immediately contradict yourself?
Notsobad, that's a good question. For starters, I'd say the fact that out of the infinite array of possibilities you have been created is an indication that he has some sort of personal concern you. He could have chosen not to create you; but you do exist and thus he must have selected you out of all the possibilities.

But why??? Why me???


BTW, don't take yourself so seriously. You were born because the sperm representing you won the race (among 100,000,000 - 500,000,000 other sperm cells in a single ejaculation and there may have been unsuccessful ones) and the fertilized egg succeeded. It's an amazing thing, but that doesn't imply any divine interference. Do you know about evolution through natural selection?

And if you believe that god chooses who gets born and who doesn't, you should instead ask why he/she/it allows so many fuck-ups to be born.

343. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103925 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 10:47 am

Mark – I thought that was an excellent and clear post, thank you. I hope it will help me further explain the elements of the argument that I think you (and many others) don't see yet.

I could have been clearer. What you call "proposition 2" is a trait OF THE UNIVERSE that we have never failed to observe. Because of the nature of material being, its opposite has never, and will not ever, be found to be true. The universe could not have existed to create itself before it existed—I don't care how fast, or small the "quantum fluctuations" are operating, in so far as they already exist to create they cannot be created. Steve's contention that we should just "accept that reality does not depend on what we consider rational" (that is a direct quote from post 240) absolutely floors me—especially coming from one who insults without qualification all religious persons for "acting irrational" by having faith.

So yes, you are right in observing that the argument implies that God is capable of creating something out of nothing. But you must also see that the argument implies that he is not the same sort of "being" as the universe, and therefore what we know to be true of the universe (proposition 2) may not necessarily be true of him.

Suppose you are in a "universe" full of people who can only make watches, and that you suddenly discover a T.V. Logically you conclude that there must exist some sort of "T.V. maker." We are in a universe where nothing comes from nothing and we have stumbled upon something—the universe itself. There must be that "universe maker" – a being capable of making something out of nothing.

I hope this clears up your objections "(a)" and "(b)". To try to use your words, "Proposition 2" is an absolute statement ABOUT THE UNIVERSE, not an absolute statement.

We have not seen evidence that ALL beings must have a creator. I did not mean to imply that. What we have observed is that all beings WE HAVE SEEN have a creator (for all we have seen has been in the universe). But what we also know is that, for anything to be, there must be some being—a being whom we have not seen—who does not have a creator. Otherwise we would fall into an infinite regress of causality, which, as you point out, is also irrational.

Take care,

BJohn

Even if there was some kind of creator, how do you or anybody else know he/she/it cares about people or anything else and how it cares? In other words, how does that imply a need for religions?

344. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103904 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 9:44 am

Having a church eclipse the state in importance is in reference to personal life. He seeks a reduction in the role of government in everyday lives.

Federal government only. He would let state governments pass laws that'd limit basic rights and freedom (religion in public schools, abortion ban,...).
And the constitution is not perfect. Remember, slavery was legal when it was written and many founding fathers were slave owners.

345. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103884 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 7:36 am

Can a universe summon she-bears to maul kids calling you names? No, therefore god.

346. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103876 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 7:17 am

Theist: Everything must have a creator, and something cannot come from nothing, therefore god.

Sceptic: OK, so following YOUR logic, who/what created god and where did he/she/it come from?

Theist: Always existed, lalala...

347. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103851 by notsobad on December 27, 2007 at 5:30 am

krisking wrote:
I've emailed Bishops about their religion, and received some decidedly wishy washy answers.

This reminds me of the episode 'The Bishop's Gambit' of Yes, Prime Minister.

Jim Hacker: Is there anyone in the church who doesn't believe in God?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, most of the Bishops.
--
Sir Humphrey: The Church is looking for a candidate to maintain the balance.
Master of Baillie College: What balance?
Sir Humphrey: Between those that believe in God and those that don't.

348. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103772 by notsobad on December 26, 2007 at 6:34 pm


And the latest Republican presidential candidate to REJECT EVOLUTION is creationist RON PAUL.

The funny part is he majored in biology!

349. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103766 by notsobad on December 26, 2007 at 6:21 pm

immorally high incomes

You sound like the religious.
Oh, and communism and planned economy already failed everywhere.

Global Warming man-made; where is the proof?


Read and follow sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44456/story.htm

350. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103765 by notsobad on December 26, 2007 at 6:19 pm

How does this feeling sorry for a name in the newspaper work?
(I am genuinely interested.)

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Next