Comments by root2squared

1. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314800 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Brian

Post 97, woo hoo

Mutation ;)

Let's see which one is naturally selected now :)

Comment #314796 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 2:39 pm

565. Comment #314791 by Romaholic

Thanks a lot for that!

Comment #314793 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Santi

We are open to intelligent design by aliens. However, unless there is some evidence to suggest so, it makes no sense to believe in that. And right now, there is none.

Even if you want to fill in the gaps of stupefying complexity with such a designer, that does not explain how the designer came into place. So, really, you've answered nothing.

I know it's not science, but I think that those of us who are part of the skeptical community have to work very hard not to "demystify" our world to such an extent that something important dies in us.

I would recommend you read "Unweaving the rainbow".

4. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314785 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Brian

So what's the deal with this post number woo woo thingy?

Morning Laurie

5. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314674 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 12:07 pm

I noticed this from Sarmatae1's response to AllanW

AllanW

If one accepts that society is overwhelmingly better off down a particular course of action (sterilization/death-penalty) then the small, odd chance of adverse results (innocent person dying/potential child turning out alright) while being important to the individual are nevertheless just a small potential downside against the greater good, surely?

If you put down yourself in that situation of being innocent and being awarded the death penalty, would you stick to your stance for the greater good?

6. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314670 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 12:02 pm

1085. Comment #314615 by MaxD

MaxD

In the case you mentioned i.e death of 3 offspring, I'm with you.

I have no objections to the idea in principle as long as it could be guaranteed that the state would only enforce this on:

1) Those who have been found guilty of very serious child abuse say at least twice. People need a second chance.

2) It is temporary and easily reversible.

3) What constitutes abuse is reasonably strong enough and this would not change. This is my biggest worry that I put down in Comment #314423 by root2squared

7. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314662 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 11:53 am

1083. Comment #314608 by jabber

I see. Thanks for the info.

8. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314661 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 11:53 am

1084. Comment #314614 by hungarianelephant

So what rights do you think a Saudi woman has?

The same as any western woman i.e all the rights accorded to men.

9. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314650 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 11:46 am

Phatbat

But the state has no incentive to take away existing children as it would be a burden on it.

It may however have an incentive to prevent minorities and the poor from breeding. This is when the wrong kind of people are in power.

10. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314625 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 11:20 am

1082. Comment #314606 by phatbat

Good point. But can you generalize the case of abuse against a specific existing child to any potential child? Maybe you could.

Your reasoning is very sound. My hesitance is not against your logic, but simply a fear of the state in someway discovering ways of abusing this power in ways that we can't imagine yet by slowly changing the threshold of what is a reasonable enough justification for this step.

11. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314613 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 11:09 am

Caudi

I don't either so I don't know who the anchor is.

12. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314607 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 11:04 am

Caudi

If I find a baby Jesus on a donut, I'm selling it on ebay.

Edit: Oh..the one in the clip. I am immune to argument from emotion ;)

From here on out, my day can only get better.

Yes, as long as you steer clear of Ann Coulter.

13. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314601 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:56 am

1075. Comment #314582 by jabber

So are they paying nothing then? Are they UK citizens? Or Indian? Is the girl a UK citizen?

14. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314598 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:53 am

1077. Comment #314587 by phatbat

What i'm interested in is what is the rationale for being for allowing the state to take away kids who are being abused and being against the stopping of people who have abused kids having kids in the first place.

If I may put down my thought on this, because logically I find your reasoning very sound. And yet, I'm not totally convinced.

In the first case, we know for sure that a child has been abused. We can be definite about this because we have the evidence of the child. This severely restricts the ability of the state to abuse it.

In the second case, you do not know if abuse will take place for sure. Yes, we know that the person has abused children in the past, but how do we know for sure that he/she has not changed? That he/she will again do the same.

Maybe decide based on the number of times? Like contraception only for those who've done it more than once? I think are a few questions like this which make this second case a whole lot murkier.

15. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314585 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:44 am

506. Comment #314569 by Evilcor

Also an obnoxious, loathsome, retarded cretin.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/23/of-donuts-and-dumb-celebrities/

http://michellemalkin.com/2004/08/03/in-defense-of-internment-2/

http://root2squared.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/boycott-dunkin-donuts/

16. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314576 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:36 am

Jabber

I'm sure, you're the best judge.

I am curious how they could profit from this.

17. Science can't explain the big bang - there is still scope for a creator

Comment #314573 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:33 am

We should not dismiss the concept of intelligent-design lessons in school, says Thomas Crowley

Again? It's like playing whack-a-mole. Beat one fundie down, and another one pops up.

Can't blame em', I guess this is their best argument.

18. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314557 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:24 am

Jabber

1. What you did was great. Bravo!
2. We do not need to respect faith, only tolerate it.
3. The uk government is messed up with all this respecting faith nonsense.
4. Clearly her parents don't give a damn about her. I would guess the reason for their insistence on the Islamic treatment is simply for appearances in their society.

19. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314549 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:13 am

Hungarianelephant

I think we decide on rights through our morality.

20. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314539 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 10:06 am

Hungarianelephant

But our morals change over time. So you cannot have a static declaration of human rights.

21. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314452 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 7:30 am

1022. Comment #314449 by Steve Zara

I don't think that's right. Aren't there conjugal visits?

22. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314445 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 7:17 am

Chinnus - Nice quote.I guess I'm not at least completely wrong then.

23. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314440 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 7:04 am

462. Comment #314434 by irate_atheist

Thou has no more brain than I have in mine elbows.

Methinks thine elbow making contact with his head might knocketh some sense into it.

24. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314435 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 6:54 am

isthstclear

Press the big button on your computer to talk to god.

25. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314425 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 6:41 am

isthatclear

Press the big button on your computer until it goes dark. Then you will see the holy spirit appear. Go on, give it a try.

26. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #314423 by root2squared on January 7, 2009 at 6:39 am

I guess many of you here must be familiar with this quote from the God delusion.

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yuchy' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

So what constitutes child abuse then? If we are to implement this measure, I can easily see that sexual abusers would be forced into temporary contraception, whereas those who torture the mind clearly would not. So the state would essentially be deciding that sexual abuse causes more harm despite the child itself feeling otherwise.

But maybe here, our instincts tell us that sexual abuse is far worse in most cases than terrorizing an undeveloped mind. Not that we should trust our instincts over statistics, but let's go with that for the sake of argument.

SO maybe that is true. But then what about physical abuse? Physical wounds generally heal, but some mental scars don't. They may stay with the child for the rest of his life. Why then is it ok to enforce temporary contraception on the physical abusers and not the mental?

Who decides what is abuse? I know the argument is that current laws already decide that, but does that mean it's right? The same questions as above apply.

And yet, even if scientifically, statistically, it could be shown today that religious abuse did more harm than physical, do you think the religious would agree to taking away the children who suffer such mental abuse. It is only because of majority opinion that physical abuse is considered a reason to take away the child.

As an atheist, a much despised minority, why does it make sense to hand over such power to the majority?

Edit: I guess I should state that in the case of physical abuse, the majority is right, lest my comment be taken as excusing it! My concern is simply what happens when the majority becomes wrong.

27. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #314161 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Caudi, secondsoprano

Very nice :)

28. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313771 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 2:07 pm

893. Comment #313699 by Yadsmood

Incidentally, all this huffing and puffing over my few comments relating to Muslims demonstrates exactly what I mean by political correctness. On this website, far less measured and far more sweeping comments are made about evangelical Christians. That's usually OK. I have never seen anyone doing it be accused of "bigotry".

Don't you see the difference?

'Evangelical' christians, not christians.

So maybe if you said 'extremist' muslims, instead of muslims, you wouldn't appear bigoted.

29. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313702 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 1:34 pm

I keep hearing that religion in Britain is dead or dying fast

I'm curious about some things.

Is Christianity still the official religion here?

If so, is there actual separation of church and state?

If not, and if the majority are secular and not religious, then why has this not changed?

30. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313692 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 1:29 pm

889. Comment #313684 by Diacanu

Sorry if it came across so crude, but it goes to my point that humanity is currently too flawed to be trusted with the sorts of powers we're discussing.

I fully agree! I think this is a a huge argument for being against this idea.

31. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313531 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 9:04 am

They have another branch in the Vatican.

32. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313523 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 8:39 am

That is not clear

So funny jesus man. Why god created gravity instead of ungravity? Why not allow us to jump higher and touch him?

Holy spirit can you help funny Christians so they don't appear retarded? I drank some holy spirit yesterday. So funny that I can drink your god. We call it vodka. .

Ok now go and think deeply these thoughts. Ok?

33. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313509 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 8:10 am

Jg

Press ctrl alt del on your computer to talk to god.

34. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313474 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 7:04 am

Even that won't work because they will simply redefine what constitutes a fuck up.

35. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313471 by root2squared on January 6, 2009 at 6:53 am

794. Comment #313459 by Titania

How do you correct the male to female imbalance in India where people who can choose, choose boys?

This reminds me of my neighbours when I was in India. They kept popping out one child after another until they had a boy. They ended up with 4 children. They also openly expressed their disappointment when they had their second and third female children. Quite sad, but not uncommon.

36. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313165 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 10:09 pm

650. Comment #313162 by Steve Zara

Ah...I see. The statement seemed so obviously right that I thought you meant something else :)

37. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313160 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 10:02 pm

643. Comment #313154 by Steve Zara

Agreed. But this is a pretty general statement.

I was trying to understand it through the context of prostitution which was one of the things evilcor mentioned. So I pointed out how you could regulate it to ensure it did not have a bad effect in others.

38. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313151 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Nice thread....but time to go..Good night all.

Titania...thanks..your surge turned the tide of the battle for us.

Hey! The surge worked :)

39. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313150 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:53 pm

633. Comment #313142 by Steve Zara

I agree that if it were to be legalized there should be regulations to ensure it does not harm society. Like say, having a minimum age so that the person is mature enough to make such a decision. And restricting their areas of operation and so on.

Other than that I do not see why it can be moral to make it illegal. Some of us make money with our minds. Why prevent others from using their body?

40. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313134 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:39 pm

To say that matters of drugs and prostitution is about ruling one's own body is naive. There is vast exploitation of others in the production of hard drugs, and in prostitution.

But a major reason for that is precisely that it is illegal!

41. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313131 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:37 pm

It would be fun to have both a Muslim and Christian on here and have them debate on who is correct.

Make for a pretty hilarious session :D

42. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313111 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:25 pm

What happens when people like these get power in government?

http://www.openjesus.org/2008/why-atheists-shouldnt-have-children/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,877155,00.html

Edit: Haha..the first one is actually satire on the second!

43. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313102 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:20 pm

Brian

Where did you get the flame retardant clothing?

44. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313097 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:17 pm

There are only three parts Father son Holy Spirit.

And none of them work.

45. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313091 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:12 pm

599. Comment #313085 by Titania

Can you translate that into Perry Mason format?

:)

46. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313087 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:11 pm

jgirolamo

Did you know that Christians are actually Muslims who were incorrectly born to Christian parents? Islam is the one true religion. How do we know this?

Because it is the religion of peace.

47. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313076 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 8:52 pm

590. Comment #313073 by Laurie Fraser

Well...seems to have driven the troll away :)

48. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313071 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Laurie

Hehe..thought I'd give him a taste of his own medicine

49. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313065 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 8:35 pm

isthatclear

why god is so funnny! Is huricane his clowning thing. How explained by christians is the bad publicity god creates for hisself. If god want to prove to atheists that he is realy real then why not make public apearance on tv? Why clowning around like by making terrorist and earthquake? is god shy so much. Then atheist recommends vodka to god, will make him cum then.

why is christians so retarded? It is becuse they belive god is 3-in-1 model of superman-like power stuff. Then is science not his kryptonite then which will destryo god and banish him from mind of stupid people where he stays.

ANd now for the super-important queston of why god is christian. WHat about allah and vishnu and fake jesus mesiah thing? Is mybe pussible that ppl's god becomes that which is belongs to ther parents only? Surely then christians are just muslims who were born to christian parents by accidental patern?

Why christians cannot aswer this?

Ok...now u think very deeply about this questons and get back to me, ok?

50. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313048 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 8:16 pm

559. Comment #313040 by Frankus1122

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5jlrxcpkI