451. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86258 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Students are given condoms and told that, since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely.

It's apparent little thought went into this statement. If humans were just animals (we are animals, but you use it like it's a put down) without the ability to reason, we'd have sex whenever it was breeding season, or the woman was ovulating. That's how nature works. Few species engage in sex for pleasure as far as we know (Binobos, dolphins perhaps). That obviously doesn't happen, we can use our brains and decide when and where to do it. And many will do it when it may not be in their best interests, either because they like someone or don't know that someone has a disease. Or just because they exercise their right to do what they want with their body. It's far better for them to use protection than not.
Being a virgin may work for you Biz, but you've no right to impose your warped morality on anybody else. Live and let live.

452. Hello Again, Michael Behe!

Comment #86254 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 8:55 pm

when I recently attended a presentation by William Dembski, I found out that a PhD in a field of mathematics automatically makes one an authority in microbiology, quantum mechanics, and even architecture.
Oh, I gotta get me one of them Mathematics PhDs. Then I can mix it with Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, A.C. Grayling, etc because I'll be so knowledgeable. Yay me!

453. Losing faith in Quebec

Comment #86253 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 8:53 pm

"Once you start teaching little children that Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza and occasionally Ramadan all come together and are all of equal value and authority -- either that's going to be the message or the message is going to be [that] none of these things really matter -- people who are committed to one of these celebrations are going to find it very difficult to teach their children."

I hope so. Your fairy's birthday is no more important than any other fairy's birthday.

454. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86246 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 8:11 pm

The bits about Guilliani being one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypes and that the writer being a comedian also tip off the reader that it's satire I think.

455. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86229 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 7:20 pm

What's that law about satire and reality being difficult to separate when it comes to relgion?

456. Velociraptor and prehistoric co. breathed like birds: study

Comment #86226 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Imagine a penguin with velociraptor claws! Kewl!
But of course we know evolution is a theory and requires as much faith as religious belief......

457. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86205 by BAEOZ on November 8, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Dr. B. great post. Love the way you cut to the heart of the matter.

458. Atheists for Jesus

Comment #86012 by BAEOZ on November 7, 2007 at 8:25 pm

We've got a live one here! Thinks abortion is evil and Mother Teresa was good.

459. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #86004 by BAEOZ on November 7, 2007 at 7:07 pm

Dr. Benway:

Know what else rocks?

Dr. Benway's large, perfect, member?

460. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #85773 by BAEOZ on November 7, 2007 at 4:13 am

Russell Blackford:

BAEOZ, I think you mean age and beauty before ... hmmmmm, youth and enthusiasm perhaps? Mind you, your hair isn't that far behind mine in the greying stakes. Give it a few years.

Yeah yeah, rub it in. I thought you philosopher types were above that sort of stuff. I'm not a philosopher, so it's OK for me. :)

Epeeist:

"Age and treachery will always defeat youth and skill"

I'm so glad your on our side. Imagine a nasty physicist fencer who was a godbot!

461. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85696 by BAEOZ on November 6, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Whence, then, evil?

I field that question. Evil comes from me! Yes, I'm an evil bastard. Thank you, I do matinees on Thursdays. Try the veal!

462. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #85681 by BAEOZ on November 6, 2007 at 8:20 pm

That's gonna put a bit of a fly in the ointment of churches who wish to claim morality I think.
Will also annoy those creationists who try to debunk evolution with the tired argument "evolution predicts that...." followed by a nasty outcome that only shows their lack of understanding of evolution. We can now say evolution predicts that we'll love each other and it's only massive belief systems like religion that stops those of us who can empathise/be moral from empathising/being moral. Or, put another way: "without religion there would be good people doing good acts and bad people doing bad acts. Only with religion can good people do bad acts." Or did I miss the point with my brief skimming of the article?

463. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #85679 by BAEOZ on November 6, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Bugger, Russell got in before me. Age before beauty I suppose*.

* That was a joke! I'm not ageist or under any illusions of being a beauty. :P

Thanks for fixing the edit button Josh! Good job.

464. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #85678 by BAEOZ on November 6, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Good article Russell. The more voices and viewpoints we get out there, hopefully the more legitimate our shared positions will seem.

[more comments by me below] :P

465. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85205 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 9:36 am

Does this mean that criticizing the Dawkins website is now the unforgiveable sin?

Yes, you go straight to atheist hell. In other words, you're condemned to spend your life surrounded by christians. Harsh isn't it?
How goes it Mr. Flea?

466. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85190 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:59 am

Comment #85188 by steveroot

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Where's the beef? :-)

Dr. B has revealed that he/she was a gigantic cock. Isn't that enough? Don't tell me members of this site don't accept revelation!

[EDIT] That was meant to be he/she has a big willy. But the mistake doth make me giggle. Apologies.

467. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85184 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:49 am

Thanks O benevolent and wise Quetz. It was like stepping into an alternate reality! I've trancended something! Maybe my brain broke with that double dose of our beloved Flea.

468. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85182 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:43 am

Calvin Flea you obviously don't get put on the other comment thread because your arguments are too effective,

I've heard of this other thread. J was put there once by accident I believe. How does one view it?

469. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85179 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:38 am

Good quote from Le bon sens:

There is a science that has for its object only things incomprehensible. Contrary to all other sciences, it treats only of what cannot fall under our senses. Hobbes calls it the kingdom of darkness. It is a country, where every thing is governed by laws, contrary to those which mankind are permitted to know in the world they inhabit. In this marvellous region, light is only darkness; evidence is doubtful or false; impossibilities are credible: reason is a deceitful guide; and good sense becomes madness. This science is called theology, and this theology is a continual insult to the reason of man.

470. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85177 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:33 am

Comment #85175 by irate_atheist

More shit than a sewage farm...

Bloody recycling! Some things should be dumped, not recycled!

471. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85173 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:26 am

Phew. I had clicked on a post in your name and it was gone. And on WeeFlea's name which was absent too. Who is Calvin? WeeFlea in the emperor's latest garb?

Think I'll have another cup of tea.

472. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85170 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:16 am

Has Quetz and WeeFlea been flagged as troll?

473. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85169 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:14 am

Calvin:

Whatever else please stop pretending that you are open-minded when you continue to ban people for daring to disagree with you - or even provoking you.

Oh dear, someone didn't take their happy pills again. Your persecution complex is playing up. Lighten up, this thread is just a bit of fun. :)

474. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85168 by BAEOZ on November 5, 2007 at 8:09 am

Bonzai:

And her gigantic big cock that she boasted about

I'm still working on the theory that Dr. B is an hermaphrodite with a giant cock.
Prove me wrong!

475. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85063 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Dr. B lives! Kill the fattened christian. It's party time. :)

476. The truth in religion

Comment #85032 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Thanks Quine.

477. The truth in religion

Comment #85025 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Quine:

After 325 CE there was a very active program to destroy any unapproved version.

That was my understanding too. Once a orthodoxy was agreed upon, heterodox scriptures were destroyed. I thought the Catholic Churches list of forbidden books was just a continuation of this project. CHeard will disabuse me of this notion.

[EDIT] The last sentence isn't meant to sound bitter. It's suppossed to be an impish joke. It's hard to get humour to translate into text. Especially if one isn't as humourous as one would like to be ;)

478. The truth in religion

Comment #85006 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 1:28 pm

CHeard:

According to the gospels, some of Jesus's apostles were not just "unlettered fishermen,"

Just shows the ignorance of my catholic upbringing. I always got the message that Jesus and his disciples were simple, humble fisher folk who were revolutionizing the world, fighting against the corrupt priestly intelligencia and romans. I didn't pay that much notice though, found it a bit hard to swallow. Though the idea of hell scared the bejebus out of me when I was a child. Funny looking back now.

I accept your argument about the rewriting completey. If you're going to have a propaganda book about a guy who rises from dead, who was forseen. You'd write it that way from the beggining.

Thanks for your comments. :)

479. The truth in religion

Comment #84859 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 1:21 am

Cheard:

do we really know with certainty that Julius Caesar wrote De Bell Gallico?

No, nor do Caesarists knock on our door sunday morning, vote against scientific advances for Caesarian reasons or expect us to follow some moral code. It's a question of how much it affects us to believe that Caesar wrote de bello Gallico. Though the evidence for Caesar is pretty more substantial than for Jesus.

it is logically incoherent to say "we don't know who wrote them" and "we know they weren't written by eyewitnesses,"

I don't know who wrote your post, but I do know it wasn't the apostles. A bunch of illiterate Aramaic speakers wouldn't write down gospels in greek or your post in English (especially when they aren't around). That was my poorly attempted point.

The line about Constantine is just flat wrong. The four canonical gospels had achieved that status well before Constantine.

So Constantine didn't get the vote on what was Christian and what wasn't? I must be woefully underinformed. I apologize.

Usually I find your comments insightful or at least entertaining, but that particular sentence sounded like you were channeling the woefully underinformed Dan Brown

I do tend to disappoint. But I'm glad you found some of my posts entertaining. I've never read Dan Brown, so he must've possessed me. :)

As for the prophecies, it didn't take multiple rewritings. From the very beginning the gospel writers adapted older writings and the story of Jesus's life to mesh more nicely with one another.

No multiple rewritings. but then you say from the very beginning there were adaptations. Had to be some rewritings me thinks. Oh well, you are the biblical scholar. I'll resign myself to my confused state.
Apologies for stomping on your territory in such an ignorant fashion. I just find the assertion that the gospels have anything more to say about history than the Illiad question begging in the extreme and insulting.

ADDENDUM: Just rereading my first post I can see why you took me to task. It seems to imply that the rewritings occurred because of Constantine. That wasn't my contention. Only that they happened early on to fit the prophesies to the Jesus myth.
Oh well, when the rush of blood grips me, I post first, think later. Apologies again. :)

480. The truth in religion

Comment #84848 by BAEOZ on November 4, 2007 at 12:35 am

I defy anyone to open-mindedly read through one of the gospels and to come away with this impression of Jesus.

And I defy anyone to read Harry Potter and come away with the same impression of him. What of it? The gospels are selected propaganda. We don't know who wrote them. We know they were not written by anybody who knew Jesus (granting that he existed, which no historian worth his salt would grant). They were selected by Constantine. They were written and rewritten to make it look like Jesus was prophesized. But this is false.

481. Rome playing politics

Comment #84823 by BAEOZ on November 3, 2007 at 6:13 pm

Fascism and Catholicism - what's the difference?

About 1900 years. Seriously, if Catholicism wasn't selling afterlife, nobody would put up with this crap.

482. AAI 07

Comment #84791 by BAEOZ on November 3, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Take care scooter. Sorry for you loss.

483. Rome playing politics

Comment #84789 by BAEOZ on November 3, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Totally stupid point. But I always thought cobbler looks like Mr. Bean (Zapatero=cobbler). Strangely, he's known by his maternal surname, not paternal as is the fashion. Anyway, enough of my disjointed musings. :)

484. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84632 by BAEOZ on November 3, 2007 at 1:31 am

Biz:

Also, if an atheist is supposed to be all open-minded and in constant search of knowledge, wouldn't he or she welcome civil discussion and intelligent discourse?

One would hope that was a two way street Biz. But you don't seem interested in intelligent discourse. You might try dealing with arguments instead of dogmatically repeating your a priori assumptions as if they were rational. But then isn't that religion? A priori assumptions that you pretend are rational?

485. AAI 07

Comment #84328 by BAEOZ on November 1, 2007 at 6:27 pm

scooternyc:

Why did that blasted Darwin have to talk about anything evolving anyway? It's not like people ever get smarter.

Evolution doesn't aim for intelligence or anything. If being dumb is fitter than being a genius we'll all end up like sea-squirts who digest their brains after finding a nice rock to root themselves to. Mmm, sounds like a good way to pass life. :)

486. The truth in religion

Comment #84321 by BAEOZ on November 1, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Russell Blackford:

Either that, or he's intellectually dishonest.

We have a winner. Choose your prize sir!

487. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #84012 by BAEOZ on November 1, 2007 at 2:26 am

Logical reasons for atheistic morality:
I can feel pain and suffer in a real way due to evolved human nature.
I see others feeling pain and share their pain (sympathy) or feel their pain (empathy) in a real way.
I know that it is bad when it happens to me, so therefore I don't wish suffering on others and try to avoid it else I feel bad.

488. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83847 by BAEOZ on October 31, 2007 at 1:08 pm

That's an article I've been waiting to read for ages. Someone who's suffered through theology and telling it like we already surmised. It's crap. He can't be dismissed as being unlettered in theology. :)

489. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83626 by BAEOZ on October 30, 2007 at 5:45 pm

If it's too hot in the kitchen, get the fuck out! If a pharmacist won't do his job, he should find another. Rats is a nasty bugger. He and the likes of Cardinal Pell would have women being treated as chattels in no time if possible. When you've got a nasty world view, such as the catholic one, you're gonna have nasty ways of dealing with the world.....
Other comments by me below (apparently) :)

490. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83055 by BAEOZ on October 28, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Dr. Benway:

My perfect cock will survive.

You hermaphrodite you! Best of luck Dr. B.

491. Face to faith

Comment #82843 by BAEOZ on October 28, 2007 at 2:36 am

The wonder that someone with such a belief might feel at these things could be said to be instrumental.

He doesn't like science unweaving the rainbow and tells us who appreciate nature and the scientific explanation that we are less for the explanation. How would he know unless he'd seen it from our point of view? And to echo the sentiments above. You don't set limits on science where you'd like limits.
I recently read a review of the "God delusion" by this guy in Philosophy now. He regurgitated other's criticisms of Richard and the usual strawmen. He's a dishonest individual.

492. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81694 by BAEOZ on October 25, 2007 at 3:46 am

monkey74:

the atheist will face the facts.

Uhm no. A liar, whether theist or atheist will not face facts, he'll lie whatever. The difference is, he'll have done his evil deeds because he's evil, not because he's been given a ticket of leave by god (tm pending).

493. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81627 by BAEOZ on October 25, 2007 at 1:32 am

Good article. I hate the political correct hypocrisy. For Zeus's sake. Abuse is abuse is abuse! It doesn't matter if it's a christian, atheist, or muslim. Apply the law and be damned with ridiculous cultural sensitivity. OK. I need a lie down now :)

494. American kids, dumber than dirt: Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history

Comment #81625 by BAEOZ on October 25, 2007 at 1:27 am

Sometimes I think something similar is happening here in OZ. Not as bad as the US yet, but the politicians now just give 10s slogans because voters can't or wont reason or think for themselves. Money is taken from the public school system and given to the private system. So the poor have a much lower standard of education than the rich.
It's all Circus and Bread I tell ya! The Romans did it. Keep 'em fed and ignorant and they'll do whatever you wish.
Phillip I was thinking Chav came from the Spanish Chaval (lad) but it comes from the Roma, which makes sense as there are a lot of gypsies (Roma) in Spain and so more than a few words of Roma origin in Spanish. Thanks for teaching me a new word. We'd probably call them bogans or bludgers here. They aren't so culturally influential or numerous (as far as I know) to have there on denomination....yet.

495. The God Delusion and Alister E McGrath

Comment #81575 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 11:15 pm

I read the first few paras and after reading the McGrath was articulate and then reading that he says Richard only attacks christianity because it's politically dangerous to attack Islam I gave up. McGrath waffles on and on and never lets himself be pinned down as to what is exactly his god and why he believes it and why he thinks it's real.
Prick.

496. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81538 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 10:12 pm

A good comeback, from Atheist Universe is to say to a theist "Have you ever noticed that nearly all major cities have a river or permanent water supply? It's almost like they were put there for the cities." This is no different to when a theist says the universe is finely tuned so that we exist.
It's looking at the problem from the wrong direction. There are cities near permanent water supplies because the water supplies existed and then came the cities. Human settlements evolved where they could and thus are intimately tied to the places where settlements could flourish. We live in a universe which seems fine tuned because we evolved within the confines of such a universe. We have been finely tuned to it be blind evolution. We are intimately tied to and shaped by the universe, not it for us.

497. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81521 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 9:28 pm

Spinoza, we had a recent discussion about this at Russell Blackfords blog, Russell put it this way:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24761391&postID=6721358927794447181

What a sophisticated theist could say that I would accept as coherent (though I see no reason to think it actually true) is this.

When we say "God is good" we don't mean "God follows his own rules", or anything of the sort; we mean "God is benevolent" or "God desires that human beings flourish", or something like that.

The "best" moral code is the one that will help us flourish. Because God is good in the sense I've described, God wants us to flourish and so wants us to act in certain ways.i.e. in accord with the best moral code.

God has revealed to us what ways we should act if we wish to flourish. Since He made us, He knows exactly what is required, so His advice (as it were) is authoritative.

When we act in accordance with the best moral code, as revealed to us by God, we are said to be acting in a morally good way. This kind of "moral goodness" is not the same thing as God's "goodness". God is not one of us and is not bound to act in the ways that we should act if we are to flourish (though we should be pleased that He is good in the sense in which He is good). He doesn't have to follow the moral code he has prescribed for us.

The best moral code - the one that we will flourish by following - can be discovered by reason. However, God has saved us the trouble by telling us.

Let the theists spell this out. It's a perfectly reputable theory, but in competition with naturalistic ones. What they can say is that they have a moral short-cut that non-believers don't have: they have the authoritative advice as to the best moral code. Of course, we can then contest whether the advice really seems all that convincing or whether some of it appears to be, at best, culture-bound and out-dated (and maybe worse than that).

Zeus I hope I can delete this post later :)

498. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #81399 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 4:58 pm

This is an example of equivocation. When a word has more than one meaning and the separate meanings are used interchangeably.
The theist is substituting the religious meaning of faith, trust that a supernatural entity exists without corroborated evidence, for another meaning, faith as ordinary belief that is reasonalbe and has evidence.
Scientific claims are tested and when found to be wanting reformulated or discarded. Thus any scientific claim or theory that has stood the test of time, such as evolution has been rigourously tested and subject to all manner of attempts at debunking. The fact that evolution is regarded as a resonable explanation is because it has been subjected to many tests, fits the evidence and has great explanatory power of natural phenomena that we observe. With all this, belief in evolution is no more a matter of faith than belief that you were born. You probably don't remember being born, but it's a well enough evidenced process that you can reasonably believe you were due to other peoples reports who were there or have seen a birth, your own knowledge of human reproduction, photos etc. There is strong corroborating evidence behind well known scientific claims which makes belief in the claims reasonable.
Religious faith has no evidence that cannot be explained another way, is not subject to rigourous scrutiny and is not falsifiable. For example, you may feel god speaks to you, but this is a feeling that exists in your mind and is not evidence of god. You have to consider all the possibilities, which is the most likely and which has the most corroborating evidence. Something which religious faith militates against. Religious faith is the opposite of faith in a scientific claim.

499. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #81103 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 5:41 am

If you can't prove god exists, or can only prove you exists in a cartesian way. Then if you are honest you'll stop believing in god.

500. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #81102 by BAEOZ on October 24, 2007 at 5:39 am

Brother John: Prove it. Don't embarrass yourself by referring to the gospel. Just prove it. If god exists, wants all to know this and intervenes in the world (how else could a saint be a saint without the polytheistic act of praying to a saint to intervene and get god to save or help one person? All the time whilst god gleefully punishes us because he made us bad? or do you think original sin is a lie?)
Just prove it. I can prove I exist. You prove god exists.