1. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86368 by newatheist on November 9, 2007 at 5:04 am

And I swear, he has to know he's lying.

There really should be some serious study into the religious mind. Rule number one is "evolution is wrong." Rule number two is if something more or less proves evolution is right, see rule number one.

Or hold fingers in ears and repeat "I know god did it, I know god did it..."

2. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #84041 by newatheist on November 1, 2007 at 4:09 am

Hi Paul –

Indeed – Welcome back! It's great to hear from you. Quite the cheek though, you having a life! ;-)

I'm not just giving myself credit - it goes to anyone who can reason.

Wow. I didn't think you'd say that. You are in denial. The difference between you and me is that you're too dishonest to admit you could just as easily believe female circumcision was morally acceptable, and you would believe it was firmly based in what you would have been convinced was very sound reason.
The kicker is, if I was in that situation and I took your approach, nobody could convince me otherwise.

So anyway, what's happening in societies where female circumcision is accepted? My answer – the people are convinced it is reasonable based on the influence of their culture and society.

Your answer – None of the people in that society are able to reason.

I'm not a consequentialist, but I don't see how my having children causes death for orphans anyway.

Firstly, objective morality requires dualism. If there is one true answer at the heart of every moral question, dualism requires consequentialism.

Okay, so re-read my rhetorical question, or just substitute death for suffering. In any case;

If your choice is to either:
(a) Rescue (and provide a happy life for) a child from a country where it would most likely die from war or starvation,

or:

(b) Have your own child, and let the starving orphan fend for itself, suffer and probably die,

Which one of these is the morally correct choice? Your answer so far is "(b)".

It is reasonable for me to have children.

Or, you are convinced it is reasonable based on the influence of your culture and society. Stacked up against adoption, it's not ultimate morality, surely?

Imagine in two hundred years our descendants are sitting around a table, talking about the aberrant morals of their forebears.
Nathan says "Can you believe people used to think it was perfectly okay to have their own children, while orphans and refugees suffered and died by the million around the world?"
Paul says "Yeah, selfish ignorant bastards. At least if I was around back then I would have applied reason, and I would have only adopted children."
Nathan says 'Damn straight. Anyway thank God all those years ago President Winfrey outlawed having children in the U.S., and made it legal only to adopt. Even better when the U.K. followed suit! It sure saved a lot of people!"

I aim to act by such rules that I would be happy to be made into universal laws.

Great. Those rules must surely then make everyone happy. Why don't we ask the Sudanese orphans what they think the universal adoption laws should be? Why don't their wishes count, Paul?

So, would you be happy for there to be a law that said you couldn't have children, and instead you had to rescue orphans? How could you argue this law wasn't ultimately moral? Why should orphans not be adopted?

3. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79924 by newatheist on October 19, 2007 at 4:57 am

Paul –

I certainly won't take the middle ground of making up morality then treating it as something that I hadn't made up.

Right. Except the problem is to be honest that should obviously be

"I certainly won't wouldn't take the middle ground of making up morality, then treat it as something that I hadn't made up, no matter where or when I was born, or what my morality consisted of.

You'd know you recognised the objective truth just as you know you do now. Don't you see what I'm saying? This isn't irrelevant.
How can you trust this outlook when you know you would say the same thing no matter where or when you were born? Even if, for example, your morality included something like female circumcision. You give yourself too much credit if you claim you would simply "rise above" prevailing views and reach the conclusions you reach now, which are based on your current influences. You can't even acknowledge the influences in any case. You're just Paul the moral island, or something.

The second problem with your comment is, I never said I made up morality. I do agree with most of the conventions of my society* though.

(*sorry Dr B).

4. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79910 by newatheist on October 19, 2007 at 2:49 am

Paul -

I was hoping you'd be more specific in answering my questions about objective morality and ultimate morality, particularly with regards to the "right and wrong" from the standpoint of a moral dualist. I refer to your "reset" post 2407.

It is… no answer to accuse me of dualism as though it was obvious why this was wrong.

The other things that prompt me to pursue this point are -
[1} your previous comments about what actions are dictated by moral reasoning. "We need to do what reason dictates", or words to that effect, and
[2] your previous comments about the "ultimate" need to act morally, specifically with reference to an afterlife. In parts you say "what difference does it make ultimately if I act immorally or not, then you say

It is obvious that, given the size of the universe, my day-to-day moral choices aren't going to have a huge effect on God. The effects of my actions on people are far more relevant.

Elsewhere -

The way I answer moral questions is using reason.

Whose reason? Your reason. Is this objective or subjective?

I don't remember ever claiming that I involved God in any way in my moral decision-making.

So again, whose reason? Your reason.

So, I say, using reason, that having your own children at the detriment to the point of death for refugees and orphans is morally wrong.

Is it or isn't it? You're the father who's a believer in dualist, objective morality. Is it right or wrong? I'm begging for your answer. And what follows from either position?

Ben is beginning to over-ride his inclination to lie and he tells the truth.

Ben's natural inclination as an evolved human child is to listen to his father and use his intelligence. Your natural inclination is to impart what you see as the correct behaviours to your child. This will affect him neurologically, and provided the right connections are made he'll receive the desired "payoff" in his brain (i.e. he'll feel good).
One of the most appalling things you've said on this thread was

The implication that you do whatever makes you feel good is worrying. I don't like the thought of a great number of people living according to that principle.

Thanks to evolution, most people (sorry Dr B) feel good when they do good and vice versa. You'd better hope to hell that's exactly what people continue to do.

I also believe in God, for different reasons as it happens

"Bizarro Blackford" (and you for that matter) would only be met with the response that whatever the answers are about dark matter, Planck's constant, etc, etc, there is still no evidence "God did it". Apart from that, infinite universes are postulated. God is asserted.

5. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79638 by newatheist on October 18, 2007 at 2:20 am

Paul –

Bloody hell! The thread's gotten away again! Thanks for your forthright answer in post 2446. You've got your hands full with more challenging folks than me (damn good reading), but I hope you can indulge me.

So anyway you answered honestly. You don't have a handle on objective morality (except the easy stuff like paedophilia and a dozen other "philias"), and you don't live your life in accordance with many of the standards of objective morality that you recognise (with regard to African famine victims and so on). You said something like, "most of the time I feel like I'm doing more good than harm".
You may or may not have noticed, but just as you asked a while ago I haven't mentioned God to this point. But now I just have to ask some stuff about your beliefs. Firstly, as the instantiator (?) of objective morality, is this all God demands of you at the end of the day – a squared up balance sheet, with income exceeding expenses?

You say God intends for us to act in accordance with objective morality which we arrive at by reason (which is set fast by virtue of God like the laws of physics), so we can spend eternity with him. So which degree of objective morality does God require? Does God say "That's close enough, Paul. Come on in." Do you say to God, "Hey, I might have ignored poverty but at least I wasn't a necrophiliac!"

Objective morality is ultimate morality, yes? It's the final final answer, like a circle is round. Reason may "have its work cut out" with regards to euthanasia etcetera, but what I'm wondering about now is your answers to these questions, (Oskar Schindler style),

According to objective morality –

[1](a) Is it not objectively reprehensible to eat a hearty meal in your comfortable home while at the very same instant a child dies of starvation in a Sudanese refugee camp, when at the very least you have the power to prevent that one death?
(b) Isn't it objectively true that your inaction at that moment is the same as you killing the child yourself? What actions would objective morality demand of you? What does God demand of you? Shouldn't you sell your house and belongings, and get yourself to the place in the world where you can prevent the most suffering? If not, shouldn't you and your family subsist on no more than the bare minimum in order to give everything else you earn to the people who are suffering the most in the world?

[2] According to objective morality, is it not obscenely selfish to bring your own biological children into the world, rather than rescue any of the millions of orphans languishing in poverty and abuse around the world? What law would objective morality demand be passed so that every orphan could have the love and security of a home in the developed world?

I'm a long way from being in a place where I could honestly say I feel comfortable with my behaviour, confident that I was acting entirely morally, objectively.

What does that mean to God?

Other comments -

if rationality merely exists in this universe because it is a universe that God designed just to be that way, you cannot reject what can be demonstrated to follow rationally from the assumption that this is so.

I probably don't understand this enough to comment, but it seems true enough. You're suggesting we just need to assume there's a God, right? Without evidence, right?

evolution's timescale doesn't fit with the development of human thought and ideas

How did you reach this conclusion?

Thanks again…

6. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79301 by newatheist on October 16, 2007 at 7:19 pm

That's bad reasoning. (I called it bad, so it is bad. Does that mean I win something?)

It's bad reasoning if the majority of people call it bad reasoning. If one person wants to convince the majority, that person can bring his or her evidence to bear.

Reading on…

7. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #79095 by newatheist on October 16, 2007 at 5:18 am

Paul -
Do you define an "impasse" as when you leave the thread for a week, then return and hit the reset button?

Paul boldly declares…
2407. Comment #73796 by PaulEmecz

…I have said how we can reach morality with God, and have shown why there can be no morality without God, and it is no answer to merely say "By morality, we mean what people say they value, rather than what people should value".

Sorry, I missed where you did that.

[Atheist responses] …Of course I can say Myra Hindley should not have murdered and abused children. Just because I don't believe in absolute values, that doesn't mean I can't value kindness and the Golden Rule. If lots of people say "You should be kind" then that is morality.

Yes. I agree with all that.

Paul responses –
How can you agree with all that? You can't agree with all that. You can't be prescriptive about the subjective. You need to perform mental gymnastics.

you cannot say 'Myra Hindley was bad', you can merely say 'People called Myra Hindley bad'.

The fact that people call something bad is what makes it bad. If people weren't around it couldn't matter to people. (Sorry, wrote that just to annoy you.) :-)

Anyhoo, it's been a while since I was last a "supercilious moral relativist" :-D (Sept 21 in fact), so I think I'll wade back in and try to prod PE for some insights. The debate's moved on (Dr Benway of course puts me to shame), but I'm very interested if Paul wants to take another look at my post 2398.

And I'd like to know, Paul, if you think you know all of the objectively moral things, and I'd like to know if you live your life according to objective morality.

2436. Comment #78526 by the great teapot

PhasmagigasCorylus, If your posts never recieved a reply it is probably because they exposed your opponents to an argument they could not honestly answer

8. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73693 by newatheist on September 25, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Hi Dianelos -
Thanks for your response (comment 192) to my rant (comment 182)! If you feel like indulging me further, maybe you can clear something up even more. This might echo Dr B's point above, but at the start you said -

I personally believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. (DG)

So, is God natural(istic) or supernatural? Is the supernatural (God) part of nature or separate from it?

Any way like I said, indulge me or ignore me. I'm reading along and I like your new focus (i.e. TDG critique). You still seem to dodge questions i.e. Janus. Maybe I can help in my own stoopid way for simplicity's sake.

196. Comment #73571 by Janus

To say that anything except fundamental simplicity "just exists" is to give up. If you do want to give up, fine, but at least don't introduce a superfluous entity.

DG: "But then I can't live forever! WAAAAAA!!!"
132. Comment #72787 by Dianelos Georgoudis

…the smartest stance naturalists can assume vis-a-vis people using the argument from design is: "Science does not yet know how life started, but it's working on it…. it may take a while; this may turn out to be a very hard problem. If you in the meanwhile prefer to believe that the best explanation for the appearance of life is to posit some supernatural action then be my guest."

Ahhh, that's better. Now we can all think we never die, At least until science tells us otherwise. Phew. 196. Comment #73571 by Janus

if the subject matter of this conversation is beyond logic, this whole debate is a sham and always has been.

By Jove I think (s)he's got it!

200. Comment #73609 by brother john

Coel, dear member of the human race. The only way you can find out whether theology is a cumulative science or not - is either to ask someone who is competent in the subject - or else study the stuff for yourself.

Yeah Coel, time to brush up on your Leprechology!

Brother John – OUCH!

[-- end interjection --

9. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #73382 by newatheist on September 24, 2007 at 10:49 pm

[-- LAME INTERJECTION WARNING --]

Is Dianelos the King of the Fleas? He always has a lot of flea king things to say,
as he goes on with a lot of flea king ideas about flea king god hypotheses. Too bad everyone is systematically dismantling his flea king arguments.

IMO you science guys are all brilliant. Of course, I don't have the intellectual chops to engage in this debate, but I really do wonder how the flea king thing got started anyway with this comment;
103. Comment #72620 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I personally believe that there is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Eh? Like, now I'm totally confused!

132. Comment #72787 by Dianelos Georgoudis

…the smartest stance naturalists can assume vis-a-vis people using the argument from design is: "Science does not yet know how life started, but it's working on it…. it may take a while; this may turn out to be a very hard problem. If you in the meanwhile prefer to believe that the best explanation for the appearance of life is to posit some supernatural action then be my guest."

Seriously though, why?

179. Comment #73370 by Dianelos Georgoudis

(Theism explains)… how come objective morality exists…

If you think objective morality exists.

[-- End interjection --]

10. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72553 by newatheist on September 21, 2007 at 3:42 pm

Just sing "I Will Survive"... ;-)
[Edit - Corylus danced around her computer to the strains of said disco classic when the creationist "revcort" used the phrase to respond to a jibe on another thread.]

Or Bohemian Rhapsody! -
2347. Comment #71060 by PaulEmecz

No, no, no, no, no!

[No No!]
Oh mama mia mama miaaaaaaa! Let me go!
Be-el-ze-bub, has a devil set aside for meee!

Of course, I'm an atheist, so Paul thinks -
"Nothing really matters... to meeee...."

11. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72449 by newatheist on September 21, 2007 at 6:18 am

Hi Paul –

Your evidence that child porn is wrong is basically evidence that shows that child porn damages children. So, why is damaging children wrong? Ultimately you need to make a value judgment that there can be no supporting evidence for. You have to choose to value something.

So morality is ALL about analysis. I'm tired today, and I really fear you're going to somehow demonstrate that I'm arguing in circles - or that you've answered this already - but what's your reason that this aspect of morality isn't where good old biology comes in?
Not everything is my choice, Paul. Or yours. The parts of my brain that fire up when I think about children being hurt also fire up in most people, right? Could be something to do with evolution, right? Maybe, just maybe, the wellbeing of children has been important in evolutionary terms, so most people think poorly about child abuse. Maybe less important matters (in evolutionary terms) have produced the Moral Dilemma (which is yet more evidence against objective morality).

What if I… value conflict among societies, believing it to speed up the process of evolution, killing off the weak majority and leading to the survival of the strong minority?

Why do you think this is not the prevailing view? Think now… What's your answer?

I'm off to bed ….

CORYLUS -
Sorry! I tried. You really ARE invisible…! =O

12. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #72023 by newatheist on September 20, 2007 at 7:03 am

2366. Comment #71358 by PaulEmecz
Hi Paul -

Firstly, I want to clear up something I said in comment 2364, by adding what I meant to convey, because it seems you misunderstood.

I think you're getting upset because the word "opinion" holds the concession to a possibility of error. In other words [you, Paul, think] the phrase "That's my opinion" should always be "That's just my opinion", and that phrase should always be followed with "but I could be wrong…"

I don't think that way.

What I meant to say with this, was that as far as I'm concerned, my opinion is the truth. I have no issue with making prescriptive judgements based on that. There is no conflict, no struggle, no contortions, no problem. (As others have said, the problem is all yours.) This realisation, this result of my "retrospective analysis", barely elicits from me a quiet "well bugger me, that's an interesting thing. Hmmm…"
What I was saying is that you, Paul, downplay the importance of opinions (and value judgements, and conventions). They're what morality is built on. If we didn't value them, even to the point of being prescriptive, there'd be no point in having them.

I sense in what you say a struggle which the word 'opinion' brings out.

I sense you are wrong. :-)

Most people see morality differently. They would not be happy at all with statements like "I think sexual abuse of very young children is wrong, but that's just my opinion and I could be wrong".

As I tried to say, I wouldn't either. But I'd say instead "that's my opinion, and I've got plenty of evidence to back it up." (Note the absence of the word "just".)

Now, however, in order to be completely honest with myself, I have to recognise the inherent danger of the assumption that even the most emotive parts of my morality are unassailable. This sort of assumption would put me in very unpleasant company indeed. To be consistent, and honest, and to have integrity, I couldn't cherry pick and say some points in my morality are exempt. So I know child porn is wrong, just as Miss Watson knew it was wrong if someone stole her slave. The idea that child porn is okay is unimaginable to me; it's just as unimaginable as the idea used to be to most people that homosexuality is okay.

There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions. I believe (know?) my opinion is correct.

you seem to still be talking about your opinion on whether child abuse is wrong. In other words, you treat 'Child abuse is wrong' as a statement that could be correct.

Don't let the question mark throw you. I was just suggesting the words "believe" and "know" might be interchangeable. See comment 2374 by Corylus

I really hope you don't feel bad about this.

Don't sweat it, I feel fine.

I think the implications of rejecting the notion that such a statement might be correct are dire.

I think the implications of holding your morality as being the pinnacle of human moral achievement are dire.

Anyway, take up with Corylus. Unlike me, she's worth your time. :-)

13. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71238 by newatheist on September 18, 2007 at 6:23 am

Hi Paul

Don't listen to those other softies. You've got me on the ropes. And I'm pretty tired so I'm probably about to walk into an uppercut. But anyway first I want to clear up a couple of minor quibbles -

[I said] – Firstly I would count myself as one of the "people in this country", (Australia in my case) so I'm not exempt from my own reference.

[You said] - Yeah, you are.

That seems pretty rude. Let me remind you of what I was actually talking about.

you merely believe that people in this country would see Langham's actions as wrong.

I see Langham's actions as wrong. Ergo, I'm the same as the "people in this country" you were referring to.

Why not say "My knowledge that cigarette smoke contains tar fires up parts of my brain associated with self-preservation and protecting my children, and I express the opinion that smoking is damaging to anyone's health."

Is this equivocation? In any case it's fundamentally flawed. You've got it all arse-about. Try -

My knowledge that cigarette smoke contains tar [which is damaging to anyone's health] fires up parts of my brain associated with self-preservation and protecting my children, and I express the opinion that smoking is damaging to anyone's health people shouldn't smoke around me or my children."

I'm fine with that.


[Anyway, back to the ring, where the upstart newatheist is suffering from some steady blows to the body…]

You're just calling this an opinion because, in retrospective analysis, you think it has this status.

Maybe. Maybe I'm trying for an honest position between knowledge and opinion, because I recognise the foibles of people who've held their moral values to be infallible in the past. Have you read the essay via Corylus's comment 2328? Poor Miss Watson! Huck was so weak!

You KNOW that raping a child is wrong. You do. To deny this, to claim that you see it merely as an opinion, is just dishonest.

I think it's more dishonest not to concede that without the knowledge that sex harms the child, I might conceivably hold another opinion* (or I might think I know better). You haven't made any such concessions, unless I missed them earlier. I think that makes you dishonest.

You, or I, might just as easily have been brought up to believe that sex at an early age bestows great developmental benefits on a child. You would say this has no bearing on the "truth" that child sex is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that in any case you, or I, would have an alternative (albeit misinformed) opinion, and both positions are opinions expressed as knowledge based on different evidence.

Anyway, to echo Veronique et al, you need to relax. There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions. I believe (know?) my opinion is correct. I think you're getting upset because the word "opinion" holds the concession to a possibility of error. In other words the phrase "That's my opinion" should always be "That's just my opinion", and that phrase should always be followed with "but I could be wrong…"

I don't think that way.
[newatheist stumbles back to his corner]




*natural disinclinations aside, as I said earlier.

14. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71027 by newatheist on September 17, 2007 at 2:46 pm

2344. Comment #70956 by brother john

Alister, it seemed to me as a Christian, was sincere, but not up to the job of sparring with Richard.

brother john - if you're revisiting this thread - what would you have done differently?

Faith defined as "belief without or contrary to evidence" is indeed dangerous, totally hostile to genuine religion or anything else.

"belief without or contrary to evidence" is the very definition of genuine religion.

15. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70845 by newatheist on September 17, 2007 at 4:16 am

Paul -
Thanks for sorting that out. I tried the "http" and all, but, well…

Anyway, let me see if I can boil down your response to my question in 2310.

Your friends think you're saying "Langham was wrong to look at child porn." You may actually say that. If you did, they would take it that you believe that Langham should not have done that, he did something very bad, and that his actions were objectively wrong. However, you don't believe that. You have misled your friends – you merely believe that people in this country would see Langham's actions as wrong.

There's mental gymnastics there…

Firstly I would count myself as one of the "people in this country", (Australia in my case) so I'm not exempt from my own reference. I think child porn is wrong. I base that opinion on influence and analysis (see my earlier posts). The influence I cite is the knowledge that child sex has a detrimental effect on the child. (I also have no sexual attraction to children, but let's leave that part of nature out of this for now.) My knowledge that child sex is detrimental to the child fires up the parts of my brain associated with sympathy and empathy, and I express the opinion that child sex is wrong for anyone to do. That's based on the fact that it's widely recognised as a harmful practice. Now really, is this mental gymnastics? (And might I add, GEEEZ!!)

Having had this discussion about metaethics, you realise that you cannot claim that there is any objective truth about this

I can however claim that there is an objective truth about what constitutes and/or causes harm, pain or suffering.

You don't just think other people reject his behaviour, you reject it too. This is where the backflips and contortions come in… It doesn't feel like it's an opinion... You don't treat it as an opinion, do you?

Why not? Of course it's my opinion. It's my opinion people shouldn't hurt other people. That's not everyone's opinion. Ow my back! The contortions!

Corylus -
I want to thank you for posting the link to that essay (comment 2328). You're right, it's beautiful. Paul, you should read it twice!

16. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70811 by newatheist on September 17, 2007 at 1:33 am

EastCoastAtheist -
If you haven't already, you should check out

www.richarddawkins.net/article,1479,They-let-anybody-onto-the-faculty-at-Oxford-nowadays,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

[Ah CRAP! Can't get the link to work!

Anyway, I'm off to type something up on Word. ;-)

17. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70564 by newatheist on September 16, 2007 at 4:39 am

1659. Comment #70368 by Mark Taunton

Well, you all seem very determined to pursue your arguments, on the most tenuous possible traces of reason.

I agree it's worthless arguing the merits or otherwise of historical events, or what constitutes your city, or where it stood, or whatever.

Let's assume everything happened just like you said.

The fact is "I will send armies against your city: I will destroy it and put it in the sea", is no more a detailed prophecy than Isaiah 34 "Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench; the mountains will be soaked with their blood."

It's hyperbole. The OT reads like an instalment of World Wrestling Federation "Smackdown XXXV."

It's all "I will kill you. You will die and stink. I will destroy your cities and lay waste to your land…"
"I will put your city in the sea. The waves shall consume it and the fishes will be your companions!..."

I would be completely unimpressed if Tyre, Old Tyre, New Tyre, Tyre Heights, etc etc was destroyed and thrown in the sea. The fact that some biblical ranting roughly matches the event is nothing more than an interesting coincidence: maybe even an extraordinary coincidence, but just a coincidence in any case.
Simply adding "just as Yahweh's prophet Ezekial said it would, doesn't make it a prophecy.

This whole "my dad is bigger than your dad", fear of God rant was describing a single wanton act of destruction against one city. People have done some convoluted work, making it somehow match events by splitting it up, with one city abandoned and later pulled down to get access to its island successor, hundreds of years later. *YAWN*. Now, where have we seen this kind of work before? That's right – the application of post diction to Nostradamus. At least Nostradamus supposedly referred to 20th century cities and people that didn't exist in his day.

And by the way, exactly how does a prophecy cover something like "you will never be found"? …Never?

Is it never yet? Seems like the Statute of Limitations on never is 2338 years.
I prophesise Jesus is never coming back. Looks like I'm right.

Mark, have you read the Mormon Evidence yet? You guys have compelled me to add a "quote" to my posts:

"When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well." - Stephen F Roberts.

18. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70311 by newatheist on September 14, 2007 at 9:41 pm

1570. Comment #68414 by Mark Taunton -

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God, bringing into our finite minds and intellectual framework God's own presentation of his infinite power and knowledge, couched in terms we can grasp if we choose to.

Jeff Lindsay - www.MormonEvidence.com

"Book of Mormon Evidences" discusses some of the factors that suggest the Book of Mormon may be an ancient document. Contrary to the claims of our critics, there are impressive findings that make it difficult to explain away the Book of Mormon as a nineteenth-century fraud from Joseph Smith. Such evidence is not "proof" but represents indications of plausibility that demand further attention.

You guys just don't get it, Mark. You'd all be waving your books at the Martian Anthropologist, and shouting "Look here! We're right; and they're all a crock of baloney! Mr Martian, if you just turn to the right page, squint, and think laterally, you'll see that our case, and our case alone, is irrefutable!"

The OT is long on "battle rhetoric". (read the stomach turning Isaiah 34)
So, Ezekial says "Your city will be destroyed and put into the sea…". Well, was the city beside the sea? Yes. Might Nebuchadrezzar have wanted to destroy it and make sure it wasn't fit for rebuilding? Sure. The best way to do that to a city by the sea? Well, maybe… push it into the sea. Right. So 'Zeke writes up such a scenario, predicates it on God's displeasure with the place, and Tyre is later (historical debate aside) treated in the almost inevitable manner. Even then, Big Neb didn't do it so you have to shape the "prophesy" to suit two cities; two cities which the "prophecy" doesn't mention separately. You have to add that.

This prophecy thing is paint by numbers. I think I'll predict God hates San Francisco and he's going to destroy it with an earthquake.

Anyway Mark, it sounds like this will all soon be academic, as you're sitting on the greatest discovery in all of history, in that it will prove the existence of God beyond any doubt to anyone. I look forward to you appearing in all of world's news media in the coming years.

19. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70114 by newatheist on September 14, 2007 at 5:42 am

1646. Comment #70077 by Goldy

As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.

Mushies BC! It was the mushies!

Actually I see what this is about. Ezekial prophesised in JAPLISH!! Double the foresight!

God's inspired word now appears on Japanese food and clothing products. Like…

If you had spent a long time for you want to do you are able to be so..."

Or…
"YOU CAN FIND "IT" UP
COMPLETELY. AT ANYTIME
AT ANY PURPOSE
IN YOUR LIFE STYLE.
THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE."


(Okay, so now I am being flippant.)

20. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70100 by newatheist on September 14, 2007 at 4:37 am

Paul
I know there's a lot on, but have you considered my posts 2265 and 2293?
I can't presume to have silenced you on the topic of atheism's "inconsistency" and "intellectual conflict" with regards to prescriptive/subjective morality. However, I've gone unchallenged! If you can spare me a minute…

(a) Have I somehow convinced you (in the abovementioned posts) that it's not conflicted or dishonest to believe morals can be subjective and prescriptive?
(b) Have I used clear reasoning, or does it look to you like "mental gymnastics" (and how so?).

Also I'd like to consider what you said to steveroot, but I really don't understand. Can you please clarify for me?

…your position doesn't allow for a perspective from which one value system can objectively be seen as superior to another.

Thanks

21. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69910 by newatheist on September 13, 2007 at 6:39 am

Hi all -
While the wait continues for MT to return with his answers for earlier posts, I thought I'd help him out by doing some research about my question for him. I went to BibleGateway.com and searched up "stars". An explanation for the scale of the universe? Well it did mention stars and sand!

Genesis 22:17
"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies."

Psalm 147:4
"He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name."

Nice. 10^23? This one is Fred, this one is Kenneth…
But check this out from the big G. Love? Oh yeah! By the way, spot the "stars"…. [Dodgy cut and paste warning]

Isaiah 34 2 The LORD is angry with all nations;
his wrath is upon all their armies.
He will totally destroy [a] them,
he will give them over to slaughter.
3 Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will send up a stench;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.
4 All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved
and the sky rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
5 My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens;
see, it descends in judgment on Edom,
the people I have totally destroyed.
6 The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood,
it is covered with fat—
the blood of lambs and goats,
fat from the kidneys of rams.
For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah
and a great slaughter in Edom.
7 And the wild oxen will fall with them,
the bull calves and the great bulls.
Their land will be drenched with blood,
and the dust will be soaked with fat.
8 For the LORD has a day of vengeance,
a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.
9 Edom's streams will be turned into pitch,
her dust into burning sulfur;
her land will become blazing pitch!
10 It will not be quenched night and day;
its smoke will rise forever.
From generation to generation it will lie desolate;
no one will ever pass through it again.
Ezekiel 32:6-8 6 I will drench the land with your flowing blood
all the way to the mountains,
and the ravines will be filled with your flesh.
7 When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens
and darken their stars;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon will not give its light.

....mummy!

22. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69896 by newatheist on September 13, 2007 at 5:45 am

Paul -

You are saying that rejecting murder, rape and paedophilia is a subjective act on behalf of society, but surely you recognise that society doesn't see this as subjective.

I think they would if they thought about it. You made me think about it, and I can come to terms with it on the basis I'll try to articulate below. You've thought about subjective morality and it scares the crap out of you. Too bad, it's all we've got. So it's a good thing it presently works as well as it does. And realising morality is subjective wouldn't change the way society acts, just as it doesn't change the way I act. Now, exactly which morality you treat as objective depends on which society you're in. (and what era you're in. Consider centuries past, or see phil rimmer 2276 re child sex much in much more recent times.) So far, your version of objective morality is, well, your version of morality, and one of your arguments was "everyone knows they've done wrong when they've done wrong". So would PaulEmecz from tribal Iraq know he was doing wrong when he stoned a teenage girl to death for being with a boy from a different religious group? newatheist from tribal Iraq sure wouldn't.

Morality is prescriptive - people don't just think they hold an opinion about incest, they believe that other people should not have incestuous relationships… Surely you find yourself treating morality as prescriptive and doing so whilst at the same time recognising that morality is subjective must cause some intellectual conflict. It must.

I don't think so. My take on it (acknowledging others posted here) is that morality is prescriptive because of (most people's) highly evolved sense of empathy, which is controlled neurally (bearing in mind the scope for psychological influence). So, whether by influence or (subjective?) analysis, most people arrive at the conclusion that something is harmful to themselves and others, and they try to prevent the same harm from being done to other people. If the majority of people agree on what's harmful and what's beneficial, then that dictates a particular society's conventions. Again, what's prescribed, and what's recognised as harmful or beneficial, completely depends on where (and when) you are.

Paul, I still don't know if I've missed your point (seriously). Can you see any mental gymnastics here?

23. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69613 by newatheist on September 11, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Sorry, I see others have answered (better) but I had this all typed up so what the hell…
2252. Comment #69522 by PaulEmecz

…your position has to be that if society changes, and it could so easily change after a viral pandemic or nuclear holocaust, the Golden Rule may be lost and something much less palatable could arise.

That's a vaguely plausible reality. I guess that makes it "my position." So what's your point? Things have been a lot worse than they are now, and things could get a lot worse again in the future. That's humanity. Even if your post apocalyptic vision is true, some degree of social cohesion would develop, otherwise your future amoral group couldn't dominate and prey upon the weak moral outcasts. Then after they've eliminated the weaklings, the new nation of "Amoralia" would have to get its shit together quick smart and develop societal conventions. Otherwise it would turn on itself and disintegrate into smaller and smaller groups. The reason we have a largely moral society is because nothing else is sustainable.

You want to believe that evolution means progress, but the concept of progress requires a sense of objective value that is beyond the scope of your belief system.

I "want to believe" that evolution means survival. Since you're apparently referring to the evolution of morality, it's probably helpful to look at it like an organism. It's largely shaped by, and sustained by, its environment. So a post apocalyptic morality might necessarily be very nasty. Again it wouldn't survive long term.

As for progress, again you go with the objective vs subjective. My idea of progress is subjective. What makes my ideas about progress more objectively true than those of the Taliban? If I was brought up in the Taliban, what might I believe was the objective truth?

(Athiests believe)…it seems acceptable to hold to the Golden Rule as a superior position to fascism.

Yes I believe that but I wouldn't if I was a fascist.

Seriously, am I missing the point?

You ignore the fact that choosing one over the other means making a value judgment.

No I don't. I said it's subjective.

how do you cope with the inconsistencies of being an atheist?

I'm not being inconsistent.

24. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69417 by newatheist on September 11, 2007 at 7:24 am

Hey All –
Just a couple...

2111. Comment #67702 by PaulEmecz

IF a society is happier and more stable with sharia law than with the Golden Rule, then sharia law is actually better than the Golden Rule.

Yes! That's true. And IF a society is happier and more stable with the Golden Rule than with sharia law, then the Golden Rule is actually better than sharia law. My goodness! Simple really. And if a society is just as happy and stable with the Golden Rule as it is with sharia law, one's just as good as the other. Hmmm…

2235. Comment #69355 by Goldy
And if God's a perfect bastard....?

2238. Comment #69362 by Dianelos Georgoudis
it's a sure bet that Paul does not believe that God is a perfect bastard.

On what evidence does Paul base this assertion, which is central to his argument?

25. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68926 by newatheist on September 9, 2007 at 6:24 am

1601. Comment #68865 by Mark Taunton

I would like to respond to many of the questions posed here (though leaving aside the most obviously flippant ones)

Sorry to bug you MT, but was mine not worthy? A "no response" here will confirm, and I'll pack it in, thanks. I know it's not the most scintillating probing on this thread, but just to recap –

Why did God make stars "more numerous than the all grains of sand on earth" just so he could have one tiny flyspeck planet on which to "set up his kingdom"? My theory, by the way, is it's because people didn't know how big the universe was 2000 years ago when they wrote this stuff, and they thought the earth was freaking huge.

Why is the Bible so short on true post biblical prophecy about the threats to belief from science, rationalism and secularism? Where is it foretold that science would encroach upon belief in God? Never mind the divergence and corruption of the faith: why didn't God warn the believers to watch out for Dawkins?

Anyway like I said, just ignore me if you want. I'll read on.

26. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68442 by newatheist on September 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

Mark
I'm delighted and surprised you responded to my rant. You sure take a lot on.

Wow! You got quite lyrical there, didn't you?!

Thanks for the compliment!

Others have put forward their ideas about your questions (a through f), and I'm grateful for that
because maybe I'd have only answered you by saying that to a large extent I didn't know.
Nice questions. Ah the complexities of the human mind. You won't be surpised to read I haven't seen anything to suggest that
"God did it", though. Or that the answers aren't purely scientific or natural(istic). Sure enough, just read the responses
above.

By the way the sand vs stars analogy was made in a documentary I watched last week.

Anyway thanks for the quiz, now can you answer the questions I (indirectly) put to you?

Fully bearing in mind the numbers, why does the almighty creator of the universe want this little speck in all of the cosmos for his "kingdom?"
And how can you not think that idea is not just absurd?

Actually, maybe I won't ask you why God built a whole city so he could have microbes on a speck of dust
wedged under the skirting board behind a chair in the back room of one of the granny flats of one the houses,
or why he wants to "shack up" with said microbes. You could just as easily argue (as I think you already have) "Well he's God.
Just because our little human brains wouldn't do it that way doesn't mean his method isn't beyond our understanding..." etc.

The question should probably be (as this is your area), where are the answers to this question in the Bible?
What does God say through his prophets to help us "post biblical" types, with questions about
the scale of the universe, and why it's so freaking disproportionate to his whole stated purpose?
(i.e. setting up his "kingdom" on one of a likely billion or more life supporting planets.)
He must surely have known we'd reach this level of knowledge and questioning. Seems he might have slipped a little
something into the volumes among the bits about certain cities that existed in pre biblical times being attacked by
"someone or other, at sometime or other".

By the way your post 1570 seems to say "the Bible is as true as you make it, and totally believable if you want to
believe it". Nice.

Steve - comment 1572 - fantastic!

27. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68089 by newatheist on September 6, 2007 at 5:24 am

Sorry all... can't help myself...1486. Comment #67841 by Mark Taunton

Biblically defined, (the purpose of God) is to fill this earth
with his glory, through the future establishment of his kingdom upon it,
ruled by Jesus Christ and his faithful disciples from all ages, who will be
resurrected and made immortal at his return. (References available on request.)

Wow. You really believe this stuff.
Wow. Just... wow.

That's why it's here.
The whole universe, with stars that number more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches and deserts on this
planet: This planet, unimaginably tiny, insignifcant and fragile, one of billions upon billions of planets, orbiting
a nondescript star in the spiral arm of one of billions upon billions of galaxies.

You really believe this. You really do. Knowing, I assume, the basic facts about the vastness of the universe.
I mean, the creator of the universe, created this universe, so he could have this planet to etablish his kingdom on.
This tiny, tiny, speck of debris is what the big guy wanted to make, and the rest is a side effect. "Ah, now,"
he says, "That's where I wants me home..."

"To fill this earth with his glory." This earth. This pissy planet in the whole universe, in all of creation.

You...... really...... wow.

It's absolutely no wonder you can argue black and blue about Bible prophecy. Seriously. That's an absolute walk in the
park when you can accept the above.

28. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #67149 by newatheist on September 2, 2007 at 7:52 am

Thanks again, Paul. You're a very patient guy.
I'm not sure why you introduced inductive reasoning, but I'm sure you won't be surprised I had to look it up. :-) Good ol' Wikipedea…
"Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it… Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its logical admissibility. During the 20th century, most notably Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, even of probabilistic (bayesian) one."

So inductive reasoning is faulty logic, and it's not used to arrive at strictly objective conclusions (i.e."not influenced by interpretations"). And I'm not sure I understood your examples about strength either. Seems like person A is objectively stronger than person B, whatever definition or measurement of strength is used.

As for my re-writing the dictionary, I thought I'd check out "objective" – (adj) –
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts."

And "undisputable" –
"Beyond dispute or doubt; undeniable."
Well maybe I draw a long bow… but I see parallels at least. Anyway things are either true and proven, or debatable. Round Earth – true. Flat Earth – not debatable. Or (with thanks to Dr Benway) the water is 17 degrees Celsius – true. The water is fine and comfortable for swimming – debatable.

Murder is wrong – debatable (by some).

You said

The debate has been a great deal deeper than this, examining the metaphysical assumptions made by naturalism

I read along but I'm sorry I can't engage on that level. I enjoyed Dr Benway's Summary of the debate, though.

Dianelos entered with a defense of theism vs. naturalism. A case for God can be made at the metaphysical level, where a proposition doesn't live or die by concrete evidence so much as by appeals to self-consistency and parsimony. Now, when you notice that a metaphysical case can be made for your being a mere brain in a vat stimulated into believing there's a real world around you by an unseen, mad scientist, you may lose interest in the debate before you start.

You said

So, what is going on when you believe that rapists should not rape? I thought there was no objective morality?

It's just my opinion. I have no proof that rape is wrong except for my ideas about extended reciprocity etc. You can disagree.

It doesn't matter whether (murderers and rapists) feel they are justified - that bears no relation to the truth. There is still a flat-earth society. However justified a person may feel in believing the Earth to be flat, or to be only 6,000 years old, that will not affect the truth.

I suppose these people are relying on false or insufficient evidence. There's plenty of proof the Earth is round.

What's your proof rape is wrong?

it would be wrong, from your standpoint, to say "They should not do that".

Maybe the best I could do is try to explain to them why I think they should not do that.

29. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66976 by newatheist on September 1, 2007 at 6:55 am

Hi Paul – thanks again.

You did suggest that society could abandon the golden rule and "kill morality", but I think we should move on.

I think genocide is actually, objectively wrong, and you do have to go beyond science for that.

Just substitute "go beyond science" with "make something up", and you're spot on.

I like to keep things simple as I said. My definition of "objective" is "indisputable". I wonder what your definition is. (Stuff you think or believe, apparently.) For an example of objective vs subjective, people can argue with you about genocide (making it subjective). You'd think you're right and they'd think they're right. But if you put six things in front of them they can't argue that there are five. There just aren't. There are six things. One position is simply right and the other is wrong, and not open to opinion.

I saw your point a few pages back, though.

I think when we…lie, cheat, steal, betray our friends, act hatefully, behave dishonourably, treat people unjustly etc, we know that something is wrong.

If that was actually true of everyone you might have a point about morality being objective. If all people who did wrong, knew and felt it was wrong. But that's not the case. Morality is subjective. It's simply not an objective fact that genocide is wrong, whether you and I think it is or not. I don't believe murderers and rapists should murder and rape, but many of them feel perfectly justified. That's the human brain for you.

The thing is that society doesn't 'work' as well as you seem to suggest

Things are screwed up alright, but it's not the "basket case" you suggest either. I just tried to point out some positive aspects. Society's problems have been around for as long as society has. The problem with society is it's made up ofpeople, and you can't fix those buggers (especially not with religion). If you're lucky, you'll live in an era when things aren't too bad. We might have been born in the Dark Ages, or WW2. As for the here and now, you might think the clones are coming to genetically modify your niceness, and what the world needs now is some objective morality. Good luck with that. Personally I'm hoping to expire before Al Qeada gets WMD's. Now, those guys "SHOULD NOT" do that, (seems like an objective fact, yes?) but try telling them that! :-D

30. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #66716 by newatheist on August 31, 2007 at 5:25 am

Hi Paul Thanks for your comments. You asked - (2016. Comment #65987 by PaulEmecz)

How can you even think that "Morality evolves and marches forward…largely due to science?.

This seems to have freaked you right out, and you've quoted me again elsewhere like I'm some kind of blinkered nut, but please don't stress. It's a matter of the context I used in the rest of the comment (1942). In my simple way, I'm just saying science has improved people's knowledge of the wider world, especially in the last century, especially through advances in transport and information technology.
i.e., you couldn't have had "Live Aid" in 1894, and an "international outcry" about outrageous international aggressions would have taken some months, if one could have been raised at all. International sanctions are a lot more effective in the 20th and 21st centuries, and advances in media technology no doubt helped to break down the long entrenched policy of apartheid in South Africa. Don't despair of science and humanity when they've combined to bring about such altruism as these cases alone. I commented earlier that natural altruism diminishes outside of national or cultural groups. Science has done astounding things which have lowered the barriers between people around the world, and increased our understanding about our human sameness, right down to our genes.
I asked

How could any human society even work if it was completely devoid of morality or the golden rule?

You said -
Well, that's an anthropological question. There are many societies to choose from.

Please name one. One with no morality. At all. One where all the parents sell their children and kill their neighbours for sport and profit. Or will you admit morality is essential for a society to function?
You added

The moral question (one that science simply isn't equipped to answer, at all) is, would such a society be good?

Now, I know I don't follow the artificial complications, but the moral question would seem to be a moot point in a society that eats itself and inevitably fails.

You seem very scared of the world.

Yes. Do you ever watch the news?

Yes. I remember one news story in particular about a red double decker bus with its top removed. It's strange to me that you're more worried about stem cell research. Anyway, if I ever have to catch a train in London I won't be wondering if the sweating guy three seats behind me is an evil scientist with frozen embryos in that backpack of his.

Institutionalized slavery and genocidal colonialism are things of the past.

SERIOUSLY??

Yes, seriously. Maybe I should have said "largely" a thing of the past, but I don't know of any government sanctioned, above board, protected by legislation, public slave market (in other words institutionalised slavery). Nor do I know who to count as the world's current colonial powers, who are undertaking the widespread extermination of native peoples, much like Spain did with the Aztecs and the Incas.

For the record as well, I'm agreeing there is no objective morality. What was your point about this? I also agree science can't answer moral questions, most likely because morality is not objective, and objectivity is what science deals in. You said "science isn't equipped" to answer the moral question(s), so what is? Philosophy? Religion? I say nothing is. But morality's here because it works and it got us here, despite its glaring exceptions. Why don't ants disperse and fend for themselves? Over all, it's no more complicated than that.

As for "going beyond science", there's nothing "beyond" science except what you can make up. Without science, that's all you've got.

31. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65195 by newatheist on August 23, 2007 at 6:06 am

I posted -

"Yes I hope religion is under attack, and that reason and rationalism will extinguish it in the minds of this and future generations. Religion is an affront to human intelligence and a threat to world peace. I'm an atheist, thanks. I don't worship anything. Worship is weak and degrading.

What a bizarre survey – to ask us how "we worship". Pluralism like this is one of the best arguments against the alleged legitimacy of the crippling superstitions that make up worldwide religion. They're more likely to all be wrong than even one of them is to be right, but it's "choose your poison", literally.

If you have to worship something, worship reason."

Yorker -
Love to read yours... Come on, share. :-)

32. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64855 by newatheist on August 22, 2007 at 5:00 am

1913. Comment #64568 by BAEOZ (re: proof of God)

You need something that cannot be explained by natural means, not ever

1914. Comment #64572 by PaulEmecz

This is sounding familiar. Should we say 'Consciousness'? Been there, done that.

Now, I came in late and I missed the "been there, done that" part, and I know I'm the simplest one here, but Paul… Really? I mean, Really?,

What a crystal ball you have. It works beautifully, and it's been handed down through the generations, used long and hard by our ancestors. The things which could NEVER be explained by natural means still bewilder us today. Things like thunder and lightning are Thor and his hammer, yes? And disease is divine retribution, right?
To use an example quoted elsewhere, could you have explained a 747 to a medieval peasant? The scientific answers ahead of us are unimaginable.

Your science fiction epic "the morality delusion" (1921. Comment #64593) was bizarre. How could any human society even work if it was completely devoid of morality or the golden rule? Such a society would implode. In your version apparently, ruthless people won't kill other ruthless people, or something like that. Just lots of happy ruthless people running around being ruthless.

Years later, the Golden Rule is taught in history lessons.

By whom? Nobody wants to be a teacher. How will being a teacher get them "more wealth and power"? I suppose being a teacher might put you in a position to kidnap and sell children for the slave trade… but then the ruthless amoral parents would have beaten you to it by selling their kids in the first place! More wealth and power… no morality… alriiiiight!
Later you said -

Is it not possible, as in the scenario in my previous post, that humanity will change and will reject the idea that 'everyone counts'?

Hmmm, no it's not. It wouldn't work. And a couple of shitty comments about downs syndrome from your so-called friends won't start the ball rolling, either. You seem very scared of the world.

Morality evolves and marches forward, despite its disastrous hiccups, largely due to science. Thanks to science, people know more about the wider world, and one country can't supplant another without an international outcry. Institutionalized slavery and genocidal colonialism are things of the past, despite the fact that America could (probably) take over Africa in much the same way as England and Holland routed the native peoples of America and Australia in centuries past. In this day and age, of course, that's completely unacceptable practice. Morality has evolved.

Anyway, back to your story. The comedy was great.

Scientists may now bring about the changes themselves, making people stronger, more intelligent, more ruthless.

Aaaaahh, so that's what scientists want.

33. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64451 by newatheist on August 20, 2007 at 5:36 am

1891. Comment #64440 by Veronique

Please give us a photo that shows us the forehead lines that accrue with cognition.

Like Garner Ted Armstrong?

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/gtanews.shtml

If only wrinkles "ironed out" religion!

34. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64441 by newatheist on August 20, 2007 at 5:12 am

1879. Comment #64356 by PaulEmecz

...there will come a time when there is no intelligent life remaining in the universe. If that happens, it won't matter what we did. If you have a morality that's based on some form of the greater good, if the consequence is the same in the end, what difference does it make, and to whom, what we did?.

I know you followed with another line, so without wanting to be too presumptuous, it sounds to me like you see only cause for nihilism without religion. I can happily tell you that when you let go of your irrational beliefs you feel freer and more satisfied with life than you can now imagine. Honestly, it's like your brain thanks you. I vociferously recommend "Convert's Corner" on this site. In particular, everyone should read one woman's account of her release from a life of religion; a life which had led to her picketing and wanting to kill abortion doctors as "God's vessel". I can't do the ending justice so please, follow this link and scroll down to No. 38.

http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner

As for the rest of your thoughts, I have to say morality for the "here and now" is obviously worthwhile on its own merits while mostly unintentionally contributing to the greater good. As I've said its "altru-egoism". Few of us act morally for the sake of posterity, let alone eternity, except to try and pass on our morals to our children. And then that's basically to help them. Again, it's biological.
Baeoz said -

We don't wont to suffer, and as empathy or compassion means the act of suffering with another, we naturally disdain acts that lead to suffering of another. Thus empathy and enlightened self interest are why we have morality.

This is not an argument that we SHOULD act morally. It is merely an explanation of why we DO act morally

If I can work out the semantics here, I think I disagree. It seems obvious we should act morally because "we naturally disdain acts that lead to suffering of another". Err, I think. Or have I swapped one type of obfuscation for another?

Okay, so what's the difference between -

a) We do act morally because we'd be worse off if we didn't.
b) We should act morally because we'd be worse off if we didn't.

Seems like some desperate attempt to get God involved. Where's the aspirin? ;-)

35. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64258 by newatheist on August 19, 2007 at 4:46 am

Hi PaulEmecz,
1859. Comment #64179 by PaulEmecz

The reason I want Ben's thinking to develop is because that is simple reciprocity. I would be disappointed if my children became adults with the moral sophistication of chimpanzees.

But it's a good start, no? Point taken anyway, ouch.

I said (1857. Comment #64135 )

"Should" means if we didn't we'd be a lot worse off, and most of us know it.

You said

This seems to be a retrograde step - you've gone from altruism to egoism. Is this really the best we can manage?

Corylus said (1860. Comment #64191)

I have heard this before as a criticism of non-theistic morality (particularly social contract theory). E.g. "You act this way because (ultimately) it benefits you, oh dear".

I do feel like the "child at the roadside" among you "courtiers", but I have to say I don't understand how this is even a "criticism" to begin with, or why altruism isn't a form of egoism, or why it even shouldn't be. I'm still sure it's nothing more complex than realising that we as a species rely on other members of our own species (as Corylus said), and that we have evolved an intelligence capable of appreciating extensions of the concept such as "I couldn't expect someone to help me if I didn't help anyone else". Or, "If I was a starving African I'd hope somebody better off than me would give some money to the aid charities." Naturally, and perhaps unfortunately, peoples' altruism declines towards people outside their group. That's tribalism and natural familiarity for you.

…if everyone else pays taxes, he could quite easily avoid paying taxes without the economy collapsing… We have many people in this country (UK) who have also cottoned on to this basic reality... So, I can see why everyone else should pay taxes, but why should I?

That doesn't seem to rebut my original point that most people do ask "what if we all did this?" (the answer being the economy would collapse), and act on this basis. Nor does it invalidate my statement that there are always some who ignore the question and the answer, "usually to their detriment". How do you know many people have cottoned on to the fact they can avoid taxes without crippling the economy? Because a great many of them are bring caught and prosecuted, is my guess. (Either that or you have many friends who are tax cheats, and they tell you all about it. ;-))

What can you say in response to someone who just doesn't care?

I think you know. Not much. They just don't care.
There are examples of altruism (and cheating) across many different animal species (eg vampire bats). The behaviours are rooted in biology. So is human behaviour. We do what makes us feel good and right, and that is purely physiological. And while it's true behaviours can be changed sometimes, that's just a neural rework through psychological processes anyway. A percentage of people just seem to have less developed moral centres (i.e. neural pathways and functions) to start with. Unfortunately that seems to confound the rest of us.
The fact that we as a species are hardwired for morality is held up by the fact that amoral people are in the minority.

Why should I care what happens to prostitutes?

You, like most people, would probably imagine it wouldn't be nice for your daughter, sister, or mother. That's an extension of a biological imperative, I suppose.

Metaethics, questions of WHY it is right to act ethically, seem much more appropriate.

Again, why? And why add God? It's so unnecessary. Unless you just have to live forever.

36. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #64148 by newatheist on August 18, 2007 at 3:56 am

From the article -

If I was made Emperor of All Media, I'd broadcast something akin to The Enemies Of Reason on every channel, every day, for 10 years.

What a great fantasy! That's actually the only thing that would stand a chance at stopping the Unlightenment (Endarkenmnt?) altogether. Sadly though, even this would fall short… *sigh*. I need cheering up.

Darwin2,
These guys are having trouble grasping your fine and beautiful beliefs. I've always found your superb poems to be the most wonderful and succinct explanations of your outlook. Do you have a poem about how consciousness survives after death? That would be great!

Thanks.

37. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64135 by newatheist on August 18, 2007 at 1:25 am

1851. Comment #64072 by PaulEmecz

My five year old son can reason to the point where he realises that if he doesn't like something being done to him, he should not do it to other people. Surely with the great minds at our disposal, and the wealth of evidence that we have, we can do better than that.

Why? (Why oh why?) It's simple reciprocity. Even a 5 year old can understand it. It's perfectly logical reasoning which some people try to bypass, usually to their own detriment as well as that of others. Probably something to do with centres in the brain, not something for which there is no evidence, like God.

1853. Comment #64097 by PaulEmecz

What does 'should' mean?

"Should" means if we didn't we'd be a lot worse off, and most of us know it. Ask your son. ;-)

So Paul, why is morality any more complicated than asking the question "What if everybody acted that way?" Works for most people.

38. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63419 by newatheist on August 14, 2007 at 5:25 am

Scary scary stuff. Not just the hate mongering, but the simpletons who are bending over backwards to facilitate it. (Can you really bend over backwards and stick your head in the sand? Ouch!)

Thank goodness Christianity in America doesn't have this sort of thing…

Oh… Wait… did someone say Phelps and Free Speech?

39. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62567 by newatheist on August 10, 2007 at 6:24 am

Thanks Lee –

Here's one for posterity then.

121. Comment #62545 by Ash Roskell

I read a book called Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees. I realised how utterly profound the intricate ballance of the universe is

This book primed Ash's subconscious, and…

It was then that I took my first "leap of faith" & prayed.

Whammo! Ash experienced God, just like millions of other people. First hand experience. Unexplainable by any other means. And we can't say it isn't because we didn't have the experience.
My wife (yes it's true I swear) does this all the time. Specifically she told me about her contemplation of the Trinity. After thinking and praying for a couple of weeks, she was walking down the street and she heard a voice. It was stern and unfamiliar, and it said "we are one."

The voice of God? Or a product of her subconscious? It's a shame Ash isn't talking to me, otherwise he might answer my questions as follows –

Is it likely that the creator of the universe waited two weeks to telepathically tell my wife this profound answer about the mystery of the Trinity?

Or, is it MORE likely that her continued ruminations resulted in a psychological experience akin to dreams or hypnosis?


Anyway, off to bed...

40. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62562 by newatheist on August 10, 2007 at 6:02 am

Ash,
You have a persecution complex on behalf of Christians. I wasn't berating you as a Christian, but because you were a sarcastic hypocrite. You tried to dish it out in your first post and you didn't like your come-uppance. If you can point out how it was your Christianity I was attacking, let me know (If you're not skipping this post all together).
123. Comment #62554 by Ash Roskell

I simply skip the postings from people whom I know to be (or have been) deliberately offensive

I am pretty thick skinned

Hmmm.
As it turns out I am being embarrassed by the polite folks on this thread, and I have to concede I've been a shit. But I can handle it, I'm pretty thick skinned.
Ah well, maybe I can make a few points for posterity.

41. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #62093 by newatheist on August 8, 2007 at 6:13 am

It's infuriating that an Oxford Scholar can come out with an "it makes sense so it is therefore true" argument, especially when he says he's "studied the history and philosophy of science extensively".

Mcgrath must believe that Brane Theory requires no more examination, being simply true because of its explanatory power with regards to the physics of the universe. Pencils down, everyone.

42. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62090 by newatheist on August 8, 2007 at 5:57 am

Ash,
Come on I'm using less sarcasm. …A bit. And so are you, so how about it?

You'd hate people to think I was right about Lebanon and India, right? Or Christians and homosexuals? Or Stalin? Please set me straight. (I'll behave, promise.)

43. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62075 by newatheist on August 8, 2007 at 5:23 am

85. Comment #62012 by Ash Roskell

God…is the creator of all that you would use to observe, define & subsequently explain the event; namely science

Or, evidence isn't evidence, Mr. God can't win, Mr. God exists outside of observable things, I have evidence but not your kind of evidence, etc etc.
90. Comment #62034 by Ash Roskell

Christians do not hate homosexuals

Should read – "Not all Christians hate homosexuals"

If a Christian condemns another person for anything, he is failing in his Christian duties.

Then millions of Christians are failing in their Christian duties, aren't they? And they're not repenting because they know they're right in the eyes of the lord, don't they?

George Bush declares war; George Bush is a Christian; therefore Christians cause wars. How naive can you get?? You might as well say that all people called George cause wars.

Now, I actually agree with you here, although some people who've more closely studied GWB's motivations might point out explicit references to Mr. God with regards to the commencement of hostilities (I don't know of any myself). The reason I agree with you is your answer is exactly the same as the one I've seen in responses to people who blame Stalin's alleged atheism for his atrocities. What's good for the goose, etc. Nobody was yelling "in the name of atheism!" either.

Does anybody seriously believe, in this day and age, that Christianity is either causing wars or otherwise?

So anyway what's your take on the news reports I've seen, which say "Christians are fighting Muslims in Lebanon" etc, and that mosques have been bombed (in reprisals) by Christians in India? And why do I get 49,900 results for "Christian Militia" on my google screen?* It's more Christians "failing in their Christian duties", I suppose. Good thing they're repenting as they go, or whatever.
90. Comment #62034 by Ash Roskell

I wonder what it is about atheists that they are so keen to steriotype and condemn. It is precisely this kind of behaviour which causes social animosity and strife.

Are you really suggesting that atheists are at the centre of any actual social animosity and strife?
Strife? Like persecution, violence, etc? It's alarmist language to demonise the atheist bogey man. Real religious strife continues daily, however.


*(There were 65 google results for "atheist militia", by the way. Mostly derisive allusions, and a rock band!)

44. The new preface to The God Delusion paperback and Q&A

Comment #62053 by newatheist on August 8, 2007 at 3:12 am

Sorry Ash, the polite guys are out at the moment ;-)
84. Comment #62010 by Ash Roskell

…I admit to being sarcastic in my first posting when speaking in general terms of the qualities of comments on this site and about Richard Dawkins too. However, I have treated each individual with whom I have spoken, if rigorously, with politeness and due credit. When addressing an individual, particularly in argument, I believe it important and right to afford ones communicants dignity and courtesy…

Okay. Sarcasm to individuals is not on. Got it. Sarcasm to groups (of which I consider myself a part in this case) is perfectly fine. Cool! All you Christians are so…

I think any intelligent obscurantist mind can make the distinction in the terms of my case here.

On a different note, I did like your plea for the capital "G" for god. Like any character in fiction, as you pointed out! Think I'll call him Mr. God. Yes, even more respectful.
85. Comment #62012 by Ash Roskell

Ockham… by employing the principal of his razor would have come to the conclusion that these events on the sun or moon were acts of God.

Yes. If "God" did not then beg the question, and require an explanation of its own.

Reading on…

45. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61642 by newatheist on August 6, 2007 at 4:27 am

From the article – Mcgrath says

We can't prove there's a God but he makes an awful lot of sense of things and therefore there's a very good reason to suppose that this may, (emphasis added) in fact, be right.

I can't stand it. This may be right. I thought this Mcgrath guy was supposed to have the religious "kahoonas" to run it up the middle into the wind for the Big G. He can't even bring himself to say "there's a very good reason to believe that this is, in fact, right."
Although… maybe those who say he's intellectually dishonest are speaking too soon! :-)

His next book – "(Jumping to) the God Conclusion"?

46. The Out Campaign

Comment #61608 by newatheist on August 6, 2007 at 2:09 am

648. Comment #61436 by Northern Bright

Hmm, just the one atheist parent, eh, Wee Flea?

I was kicking myself all day remembering I missed that.

Does the flea really think he scores with this sort of stuff? He's a boon to atheism!

p.s. may have gone too far with the orgasm thing, David. mea culpa.

47. The Out Campaign

Comment #61419 by newatheist on August 5, 2007 at 5:22 am

Must – not – get – sucked – in – to – flea – vortex ….

Aaagh! Too late!

Must – not – resort – to – insults – and – ad – hominen - attacks ….
Ah sod it.

Newatheist wrote – comment 602

So children want to pray! Which children? The children whose parents have told them they need to pray.

Weeflea wrote – comment 613

No. Yesterday I met the child of an atheist parent who told me, in front of her parents, that she wanted to pray and to come to Church. Life is not as simple as you think.

In front of her parents! Oh David! How was the orgasm, you proud little reverend, you!

But oh no. David got me. Damn, an "exception"!

Gee David, why didn't the child say she wanted to spin a Buddhist prayer wheel or partake in salah, kami, or puja like all her little friends? What might she have told "Monk Robertson" if she went to school in Tibet?

Thanks for pointing out the broader influence of society in perpetuating religious indoctrination. This poor girl is, in all likelihood, ostracised by her little brainwashed peers, but that's not her peers' fault, either. It's their parents'. Shit David, anyone knows religion sells warm fuzzy fellowship, happiness and consolation (at a price). And who better to sell it to than children? Of course she wants to pray and go to church. Her friends probably do it. It looks nice. People who do it seem happy. Then it's majority rules in the playground and the classroom, isn't it? That's just the way religion likes it.
But does she believe in god, David? Does she? Or does she want a slice of that sweet, happy meringue that all her friends (and most likely her teachers) are telling her about. Little wonder that atheism can't compete in the minds of children. That's one of the keys to religion's extraordinary success.

So anyway why do we need school prayers, David? Just another way to turn the children who abstain into the visible minority. That's a comfortable feeling for a child. And why not school salah, kami, or puja? When does grade three get their prayer wheels? Of course all those religions are wrong, aren't they. Of course, it's not because geography and culture largely dictate religion! Anyway thank god the wee tykes were born where people know better!

Do you want to ban any parental influence on children? Or is it just when it is irrational, intolerant etc (ie. Religious!)

Since religion is completely irrational, and widely intolerant, that seems like a good idea. Of course banning parental religious indoctrination is completely impractical, so how about we start with getting it out of the schools?

48. The Out Campaign

Comment #61189 by newatheist on August 4, 2007 at 4:44 am

WeeFlea Wrote -

In Scotland every child has the right not to participate in school prayers. You want to take away the right for those who want to.

So children want to pray! Which children? The children whose parents have told them they need to pray.

49. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #60534 by newatheist on August 2, 2007 at 6:48 am

IQHQ. Firstly with respect, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens are New Atheists. I on the other hand am a new atheist (recently lapsed agnostic). The capitals don't apply to me, thanks. It's plain old newatheist.

I'll start by acknowledging you apology on the "A shirt" thread. Thanks but don't sweat it on my account. I'm not at all worried about offence as long as I can throw a punch back.
"This is the internet, you plonker", and all that. ;-)

Now, Apologies to Almax and Corylus for my answering in their stead.

I'm disappointed by your post 88. I paragraph 1 you went straight from smart arsed to half arsed, trying to inflate your original retort with some thin kind of post-diction. Nothing's more of a giveaway than the phrases "I guess", and "this was probably my reason" (see below).

So, trying to mitigate religion's violent impact on the world is "stooping to their level"? Give me a break. Bombing them is stooping to their level. Weak, IQ. Weak.

Almax said –

So you recommend that we leave the 'faith-heads' in peace with their deluded but harmless views, while we luxuriate in our smug righteousness.

You said -

It is a telling sign when someone, during the course of debate, resorts to the most extreme manifestation of the other side's tempered point, in an exaggerated attempt to dismiss and ridicule that point of view. It suggests, at least to me, that they are unwilling to co-operate in the more nuanced centre-ground debate, where things are not so black and white.

That's the whole problem with your original post. There was hardly any "nuance", was there? How was it "tempered"? And worse, you advocated complete inaction. That further renders your accounts of first hand experience with the fear of terrorism all the more impotent, and relegates them to post-diction status also. (engaging as they were.)

…when listening to my points, you should not assume that they have not been thought out. Indeed, this was probably the main reason for my labelling your post as facile, because by making your point (about suicide bombers) you seemed to imply that I had not already considered this elementary argument. I had.

I don't understand. You "considered this elementary argument", "thought out your points", and post 36 was what you came up with?
EXHIBIT "A"

shouldn't we be compassionate to those who NEED religion in a similar way that we are compassionate to less intelligent animals? (Apologies faith-heads!) Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?

***CLANG***. More on this later.
You said -

Corylus, I do not believe my post (i.e. post 36) to have been in any way "pretentious", and if you do then please point out to me how it is. Is there any dispute that there is a huge range of intellects in the world?

For pretentious, please see EXHIBIT "A". "Mistranslated sarcasm", or something, I believe you called it on the "A" shirt thread.

*Umm… okay, sure.

(*see, sarcasm here, not hard.)

And now we come to me. I asked you to respond directly to my posts by number, and you haven't. All you've done is seize on the word "undereducated" and run with it, so I'll start with that. I have a tenth grade education. It's unlikely I could have gained entry to a university had I pursued further education. I worked for twenty years for an auto parts company. I'm an Australian, but I'm what Americans would call an "average Joe". (I don't have severe learning difficulties, but you're not Noam Chomsky, so your point is?)
Now, I've met a lot of people from all walks of life, and (political correctness aside) I consider myself smarter or dumber than many of them. I've met all sorts, from mechanics to farmers, bikies and clerks. Any one of them is as likely to say "praise God" as they are to say "it's all just a load of bullshit, isn't it?".
You say -

Those people with a higher intelligence have within their gift the ability to comprehend much more of the complexity of life than others do.

Here's the thing about intelligence vs religion. You don't need to "comprehend much more of the complexity of life than others". Like I said, dimmer people than me can cut through the crap. And where would intelligence come into it if children were never told about god? Would they invent one for themselves, whether they were smart or dumb?
You're comments about nihilism and morality are also so far without evidence, but that's been covered elsewhere on this thread. You haven't responded to my points about the overwhelmingly positive effect of release from religion.

I'll turn now to Prof. Dawkins himself, who you addressed directly with your "you and I (relatively intelligent men)" line in post 36. It seems you didn't follow the link I suggested in post 57, so here's RD's answer to you from the interview.

There's something kind of patronising and condescending about suggesting "well of course WE don't need god because we're too intelligent, but the masses do, in order to be consoled and comforted, and in order to get through life. So, whether or not god exists doesn't really matter. What matters is the good effect that he can have on peoples' psychology or on society." I think there's something nauseatingly condescending and patronising about that.

And to close-

A great many peole on this site seem to labour under what I perceive as a well-intentioned, but misguided, idealism, in which they foresee a future universal secular and intellectual utopia.

I haven't really gotten that impression. But as Donald so kindly said to me, "YMMV". I think everyone would concede religion is "ineradicable", but the current debate is about controlling its effects.

I am all for facillitating, with support mechanisms, the easy transition from "dogmatic to rational" in our societies, and believe that this website is part of this worthy effort. Yet I do not think we should ram things down people's throats, any more than we would wish those same fundamentalists to do with us.

So you're saying this was the point you were making in post 36 all along? You sure made a balls-up of it.

50. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59901 by newatheist on July 31, 2007 at 3:52 am

173. Comment #59491 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 8:45 am

My personal suspicion is that the initial distaste for my posting name coloured (newatheist's) interpretation of my posts.

Not your posting name. Just your posts.

That it did not correlate with his own views should not have been occasion for him to say "Screw You!"

My response wasn't because I disagreed with your views, it was because you were elitist and condescending. I said as much. What you should realise is that your patronising attitude was insulting to me as part of the group you were denigrating. You have no idea about people of average intelligence, or the human response to an absence of faith.

Since you originally ignored Corylus and me, I'm asking you to revisit the thread (via the link on this thread - 192. Comment #59520 by Corylus on July 29) and respond directly to my posts 57 and 83. And post 86 by Almax also deserves your comment. So how about it? Wanna "take it outside?" ;-)
199. Comment #59536 by IQHQ on July 29, 2007 at 12:27 pm

I will stand corrected when I AM corrected.

I hope so. I'll check the Baddiel thread in coming days and we'll see.