751. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83730 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 4:14 am

Well, as I have explained in in comment #83567 I think it's unreasonable to call "atheist" a religious Buddhist monk praying and chanting in some monastery and fully convinced that after death they may well reincarnate as supernatural gods.

Nonsense. They aren't praying *to* anyone or anything, at least not in any sense common with monotheisms, and they certainly don't believe in reincarnation as 'gods'. Buddhas are not Gods.

In the original theravaddin Buddhist schools, there is no concept even of a 'self', so there is no soul or person that reincarnates - nothing supernatural.

And guess what? The leader of the Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, is actually prepared to give up some beliefs (such as determinism) if science proves otherwise. No 'I can't conceive, so it can't be true' for him!

Trying to classify others with different philosophies as having the same beliefs as you just doesn't work - facts (not your opinion) show otherwise.

This is so typical - you post what you want to believe about something, rather than researching.

I think actually, spam may be a better classification for your posts - repeated and unstoppable attempts to sell a viewpoint under false pretenses, based on either false or no evidence. Yes, I think that fits well.

752. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83716 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 3:16 am

Blauugh!!

What an unpleasant fellow.

753. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83714 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 3:12 am

Similarly theists can argue that there are contradictions between the proposition "only the physical world exists" and other propositions we strongly believe are true, and thus falsify the atheistic worldview (or at least the typical atheistic worldview).

We have had enough of this nonsense on other threads. Sorry Dianelos, but if you are going to simply keep switching threads and posting rubbish like this which has been clearly contradicted in past posts again and again over months, you are going to end up flagged as a troll.

There is no typical atheist worldview, and you damn well know it. Atheists can range from mystical Buddhists to pure rationalists. Count up numbers and you will find that the mystical Buddhists outnumber the rationalists, and so the majority of atheists may well believe that more than the physical world exists.. as usual you bring out one of your hundreds of carefully made straw men.

So stop posting stuff which you know just isn't true, simply to try and justify what you want to believe. If you want to invent your own straw man versions of what others believe, if you want to persist in the illusion that truth is democratic, and what people think must be true is what is actually true, and that what you personally can't conceive is possible defines boundaries of human knowledge, then that is fine, but you aren't going to find many if any supporters for that approach on this site. If I see any more posts which are just going over the same old ground, ignoring past discussions, I will be sorely tempted to flag as troll (or perhaps spam is more appropriate?).

754. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83601 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 3:19 pm

As so often, Dianelos not only gets the wrong end of the stick, but actually provides evidence to counter his own viewpoint.

If Buddhist ethics are close to Christian ethics, that proves Hitchens' point. I have studied some Buddhist ethics. Buddhist ethics don't require any belief in God, or indeed any belief in the transcendental. quod erat demonstrandum.

755. AAI 07

Comment #83531 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 10:29 am

This is such dangerous thinking; akin in my mind to saying we can't take heroin away from an addict without offering them methodone.

Well, for some people, that works.

I also think its patronizing - you are essentially saying these people are weak and can't give up one safety net unless another is provided. I actually think we horrible libertarians have MORE intrinsic faith in individual humans than you do. To you it seems they are just dumb sheep who must be herded from one false god to another,

No, it is the opposite. We need to persuade people as people are independent enough to make their own choices.... it is precisely because people are not dumb sheep that we need to be persuasive, by offering them reasonable alternatives.

and believe me, worshiping at the alter of a bloated welfare state IS a false god.

Sorry, but I just think you are plain wrong, I really do. You seem to be telling people what they should do - "Give up that religion and be strong, dammit!". We should be persuading people, not telling them what is good for them.

The problem with what you propose is that it won't help remove religion. It may only soften it, with a lot more agnostics and atheists continuing to attend churches for the social networking and support they provide.

756. AAI 07

Comment #83514 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 9:46 am

On that basis, can we tone down the left wing rhetoric just for now? We shouldn't go out of our way to alienate people who might otherwise be on side.

Perhaps because I am not a US citizen, I have been amazed at the way this thread has gone. Whether or not Matthew Chapman is left wing is irrelevant - he was simply making the point that Churches provide a lot of support for people. This has been the case in many Western countries for a long time. His point is that we aren't going to persuade people who label themselves as religious or support religion to change there minds if there is no alternative support framework. This seems to me to be nothing more than common sense, even if one is against the idea of support. You would be asking people to give up God AND strike out alone in the big bad harsh world at the same time. Surely anyone can see that this is a potential problem, no matter what their political agenda.

757. AAI 07

Comment #83491 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 7:41 am

And in the red corner we have Steve and Veronique who see people as just so many billiard balls, hit around the table by those in power and who are never able to find their feet.

That is certainly not my opinion at all. I can only speak for myself, but my opinion matches the 'middle ground' you describe.

758. AAI 07

Comment #83465 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 5:13 am

Sorry, Steve Zara, I lost it. I know you won't approve, but maybe you understand:-).

I never disapprove of a good justified rant.

759. AAI 07

Comment #83448 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 4:09 am

Yes, steve99, I realize that you're an extremist so that if a person has a solid position on one thing we must endorse EVERYTHING he/she says.

So I am both an extremist and a victim... I wonder what else will follow :)

760. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #83431 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 2:59 am

Where believers are concerned, the flimsiest tawdriest piece of evidence can be used to pour scorn on them. Where they are concerned the good atheist will not even bother to check out the evidence. He /she will consider this beneath him/her. This will both save energy and time and increase the Good Atheist's well-earned feeling of euphoria at A-Good-Hatchet-Job-Done-for-the-Cause.

I really would not advise doing that. I think when it comes to evidence, the appropriate phrase to describe believers is 'people in glass houses should not throw stones'.

I don't want to sound too harsh, as you come across as a decent fellow, but it looks like you are picking the wrong fights.

761. AAI 07

Comment #83429 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 2:45 am

Ayn Rand is another good one.

Ayn Rand on women:

"the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man."

Ayn Rand on homosexuality:

"it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises."

So perhaps not such a good one.

762. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83425 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 2:34 am

Plus, the fighting polar bears will be really cool.

Well, I should hope so, being polar.

763. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83414 by steve99 on October 30, 2007 at 1:33 am

Could be; maybe that's part of the messianic process. ;)

I think it may be more likely that there is a deep-seated fear of a world without certainties, especially moral ones.

764. AAI 07

Comment #83321 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 4:18 pm

But if they are atheists, and if they believe in the seperation of church and state, then they are my brothers and sisters in arms.

I am sorry, but I disagree. I would rather have a theistic state that looked after its citizens, and where people had equal opportunity for healthcare, education and advancement, and the battle for total rationality was postponed, than the brutal and self-centered society proposed by some here. I don't consider such people my brothers and sisters in arms.

765. AAI 07

Comment #83318 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 4:04 pm

steve99 - I thought you better than what you've presented here in response. I cannot help you understand what it means to be born equal, if you don't understand it, and clearly your emotional responses reflect that you don't want to know it, not sure how anyone could help you.

I had thought better of you up until now. I thought you were a free-thinker, free of dogma. I have even gone along with some of your supposedly right-wing views, as I don't believe that views on different areas should be tied down to a particular political agenda.

You can't help me know what it means to be born equal, as like almost everyone, that is meaningless to me. I was fortunate to have good parents. They came from socially deprived situations, but managed to overcome this background. I have relatives who didn't. How where they 'born equal'? Equal to whom? I happened to be born gay. How was that born equal? I was lucky. By chance, when I found my life partner in recent years, the law had been changed so I could register our relationship as equal in law to marriage. Others before me could not. All this is luck and circumstances. It is not a matter of birth. There is no such thing as being born equal. I find your naivety astonishing.

In which case, as determinism would have it, you'll be left to your own fate for lack of desire to change that which is within you that seeks victimization. Good luck though, I hope for the best for you.

I don't believe your sentiment. You assume to know my mind, and my thoughts. I don't seek victimisation. I simply have empathy for others. I really hope you can change, as if you don't others will take your views as supporting their stereotype of atheism - a cynical disregard for others.. a form of social Darwinism: let the undeserving undeserving underclass suffer and decline, unless they have the motivation and energy and resources to struggle to compete with the better-off.

I think your views do nothing but harm to the atheist cause.

766. AAI 07

Comment #83308 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Look. Everyone in Europe. You've got universal health care. I honestly envy you. But in America, that issue is beyond our ability to influence, as Atheists.

Don't you vote?

767. AAI 07

Comment #83276 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 1:38 pm

No, it's because I don't think that a relatively high-standard of living means 2 cars, latest technological gadgets, tens of clothes and other things so many people think they have to have no matter what.

I think a reasonable standard of living is being able to get a good education, to feed your children healthy food, to have access to good healthcare. Even these things can be problematic.

steve99, this is pointless. You cannot/don't want to respond to what I say and shift the debate all the time.

Well, that is your view. I leave it to others to judge.

You guys are still wrestling over the libertarian vs. liberal stuff??
I warned you all it would lead to no good, didn't I?

You did, but I just didn't listen.

768. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83272 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Yes, I see. What you're saying, Dianelos, is that, whether a "God" person actually exists or not, the "God" person must be made to appear to be a fact---and a scientific fact at that---which renders your entire argumentation utterly UNBELIEVABLE. Given your premise that belief in "God" must continue for the sake of social order, you will to argue ad nauseum, as you are doing and have been doing, using whatever dodgy tactics are useful in the moment, any tactic at all, anything to keep "God" belief alive. You've argued your way deep into into a corner here from which you can never extricate yourself. You can, of course, argue on and on and on, but you'll possess zero credibility. You aren't arguing for truth, or for "God." You're arguing for social control, plain and simple. What you're arguing for is neo-con bullshittery.

I feel hesistant trying to correct such a perceptive analysis, but I feel you are missing something. I think that Dianelos is not so much trying to convince others about the existence of objective moral truths; I think he is trying to convince himself.

769. AAI 07

Comment #83253 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 12:51 pm

this is getting pointless

Oh, I don't know. You are revealing a lot about your attitudes, and so, I guess am I.

We talk about low-skilled JOBS and when you have nothing to say, you start talking about 'mass UNEMPLOYMENT'.
Do I have to note that work is an opposite to unemployment?

Indeed it is. Which is why in some areas it is hard if not impossible to find even low-skilled jobs. If you have taken a decision to train as, say, a shipbuilder, and the economy turns and shipbuilding declines (as happened in the UK), what do you do? How do you support your family while you retrain? Actually, in the UK we have unemployment benefit and grants for such things. But apparently we are too 'socialist' for some.

Yes, moving to another county, state or country does build a character. Many people do it willingly and are glad for that so it does not have to be a struggle.
Why do you consider every person unable to take care of themselves?

I don't. But perhaps you could explain how someone unemployed in the North of England could possibly move to the South (say, London), where house prices and even rents are so inflated that not even skilled people can afford them in some areas. What are such people supposed to do?

I am sorry, but you seem to have a pretty naive and idealistic idea of what life is like for some people.

Do you realize how that is to religious (Christian) reasoning - only God and Jesus can save you.

It is the exact opposite. We don't rely on God, Jesus and Churches to save each other. We do it ourselves. We show empathy and support. We ensure that all have a good chance to live a good life. This is not about enforcing equality. It is about enabling opportunity for everyone, no matter the circumstances of their birth and upbringing. This leads to a civilised and educated society, in which there is less room for irrationality, and less ability for religions to prey on the disadvantaged.

770. AAI 07

Comment #83245 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Again, you 'humanists with morals' are calling low-skilled workers losers in the first place.

Quite the reverse.

Low-skilled workers can easily achieve a relatively high-standard of living in the Western world. In many countries, engineers earn less than garbage men in the richest countries, and I mean in real value.

This is rather unpleasant nonsense. Visit areas of mass unemployment, or areas with poor educational infrastructure and then claim 'it is easy'.

It's not only fair; it's absolutely crucial to a successful economy. Some people have to move to another country to achieve their goals. Imagine that horror! Not to mention, the US was founded on that principle.

Excellent. Then make it so all should have to struggle - it is obviously the right way forward, and will certainly build character!

771. AAI 07

Comment #83235 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 11:31 am

I lost the thread where you talked about Vic Stegner's book. If you haven't read it then please do. It is reasonably well referrenced. I don't know what Martin Reece has to say about the man's ideas but he'd better be as skilled as Stegner at presenting his case!

I intend to read Stenger's book. I have recently heard a radio interview with him, and he is a very impressive guy. However, it is worth remembering that his views are definitely controversial. Martin Rees thinks Stenger underestimates the number of physical constants that might change, and range of possibilities of those constants.

One thing that concerns me slightly is that we should not be favouring scientists just because their views help support our atheist case. Unless we are expert physicists/cosmologists, we have to stand back and look at what the consensus opinion says, and that consensus (at least as I understand it) agrees with Sir Martin Rees.

However, I have ordered Stenger's latest book, and I look forward to it.

Rees is certainly skilled at presenting ideas - he is the President of the Royal Society - one of the highest honours in science. Yes, I know this is an appeal to authority, but what an authority!

772. AAI 07

Comment #83229 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 11:10 am

But can't everyone be a "winner" if we define winning as having healthcare, a federally-mandated minimum number of paid days off each year, a reasonable minimum wage, et cetera? And then we all become winners if we also view winning as diminishing people's use of religion as an emotional/socioeconomic crutch.

I agree too. What should be a matter of debate is the level of government-provided heathcare, education, the minimum wage etc.

773. AAI 07

Comment #83221 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 10:10 am

And while not everybody may have an equal opportunity to end up rich and successful (and not everybody wants to in the first place), almost everybody has the opportunity to achieve a relatively high standard of living, which is what we are talking about here.

It may be what you are talking about, but unintentionally or not scooter wrote about equality of opportunity, not simply opportunity. This is not the same thing at all.

Regarding opportunity - it may be the case that everyone in the USA could possibly achieve a high standard of living. I mean, all they need to do is find the right schools, the right job, get the right contacts, and so on. Do you think it is fair that for some that would mean moving away from their family, their friends, their neighbourhood and having to establish themselves in a new area. Actually, when it comes to schools, it might be an idea if they did this at age 4 or 5...

What matters is reasonable equality of opportunity. That is certainly not available for everyone in the USA. I am not able to think of anywhere where it is really available. It needs governments to work to fix this.

774. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #83180 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 7:38 am

1) The way Dawkins dealt with the anthropic principle was so unsatisfactory.

In what way?

2) In response to Dawkins enthusiasm for The Courtier's Reply---a parody which really is quite feeble, in my opinion.

In what way?

775. AAI 07

Comment #83169 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 6:31 am

steve99, what are you talking about? Communism won't let an idiot be a chemical engineer; however, it would let an idiot have the same standard of living as the engineer.

I have no idea what your point is.

776. AAI 07

Comment #83155 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 5:13 am

Does not the United States afford everyone opportunity to pursuit of their own personal lives and choices?

Yes, it does.

Of course it doesn't at least not equal opportunity, which you have been arguing for - see below.

What has Paris Hilton have to do with anything? She inherited money, so what? Does she not still have opportunity?

Yes, she does.

But that is not what you were arguing for. Let me quote:

You're born equal not given equal.

You have equal opportunity, not entitlement to equal distribution.

Perhaps you could explain how the typical American is 'born equal' to Paris Hilton, and how they have 'equal opportunity'.

Can't imagine where you ever got the idea I favor socialism, unless I've misread your comment.

You have. I was simply stating that equal birth and equal opportunity are more likely in socialist countries. This is not to say that these countries may not have major disadvantages in other ways.

Oddly, the same position that the religious take when posed with the fact that god does not give out morals nor does god exist, "well, what's the point" - the same answer you would give to them is the same answer you ought to be giving yourself.

You can cut out the 'just like the religious approach'. Not going to work for me, sorry. I know 'religious' when I see it.

It doesn't mean we don't enjoy life; we find happiness in the experiences we engage in - speaking of piffle...

Only if you are prepared to sit by and watch the suffering of others. That is why I would dispair for humanity.

777. AAI 07

Comment #83149 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 4:41 am

Communism is about control and who controls it. That is not a society built on Democracy which affords Freedom of Opportunity.

Please show me a democratic society which affords freedom of opportunity. And if you mention the USA, I shall be forced to mention Paris Hilton and the inheritance of vast wealth.

If someone favors Communism, then it follows that you rather like someone else taking care of you like the religious like god taking care of them.

I don't favour communism personally. But that is the only social system that I can think of that provides the true equality of opportunity you seem to favour.

Not holding someone accountable and responsible is the worse offense of humanity. It means to insult that individual into thinking they are incapable of taking care of him/her self without your pity, piousness, charity, and/or handout.

Oh piffle! Worse than genocide! Come off it.

No, it's not civilized at all. It's the exact opposite of being civilized. It's arrogance of the highest order from the person thinking he/she is bestowing their benevolence onto others.

No so much with the telepathy, please! Unless you know what someone else is thinking, you have to accept by default it is real benevolence.

Just look at the charity and handouts that are given to survivors of disasters (such as the tsunami). By no stretch of the imagination could that be called arrogance. There was no expectation of return from it at all.

I find your apparent cynicism shocking. If you are right, I don't see much hope for humanity.

778. AAI 07

Comment #83145 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 4:25 am

You're born equal not given equal.

You have equal opportunity, not entitlement to equal distribution.

Oddly, given the context, probably the only societies where this is true - where people are really born equal and have equal opportunity, are true communist societies. But that works by limiting opportunity.

Meanwhile, in our Western societies, this is not the case, not is it likely to be for the forseeable future.

779. AAI 07

Comment #83142 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 4:11 am

What you're seeing on this thread are people who are, not concerned with the poor, but concerned about themselves. They're victims. They're afraid of being left without because society would hold them accountable for their actions and irresponsible choices.

Don't presume to know the minds and motivations of others. It is rude. It is fair to argue with what people say, it is not fair to declare what they think.

Like the religious who dislike Darwin and the concept of Natural Selection, they're afraid they won't be selected.

Excuse me, but I have worked hard to make sure I was 'selected', that I would have a decent ability to earn my living. However, I have empathy - even for supposedly lazy people who made bad choices. That, to me, is one of the marks of a civilised person.

780. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83108 by steve99 on October 29, 2007 at 1:16 am

Dr Benway:

Very best wishes. Hope all goes well.

781. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83012 by steve99 on October 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm

The ethical precept is "Love your Enemy".

Just a point of information you may find useful here. The Buddha also said "love your enemies" centuries before Jesus. Although highly spritual in nature, early Buddhism was certainly atheistic by any modern definition. So, I am afraid that even this phrase, whatever you think of its value, fails Hitchens' test.

782. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83001 by steve99 on October 28, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I would say that there isn't an evolutionary advantage. However, there is an evolutionary advantage to being nice.

783. AAI 07

Comment #82912 by steve99 on October 28, 2007 at 8:34 am

This is the grandest mistake those of you who take issue with my statements, make - you will NOT look to the irresponsible decisions made by the individual who now wants YOU to rescue him/her.

I guess it is just that being a nice guy, I rescue first and then ask questions later.

784. AAI 07

Comment #82876 by steve99 on October 28, 2007 at 5:16 am

Since you see the poor as victims and you secretly harbor the self-identity of being a victim, "what others have done TO YOU", you're afraid that if you screw up in life no one will save you instead of you making decisions to "save" yourself, take care of yourself responsibly from the moment of your adulthood.

Yes. That sums me up pretty well. I consider myself a fallible human, who sometimes acts irresponsibly and who makes mistakes. I don't have a dogmatic belief in the power of the individual.

785. AAI 07

Comment #82705 by steve99 on October 27, 2007 at 9:23 am

BUT NOT AT A COST TO ANYONE ELSE.

Pay your own damned way.

If you can't afford it - you can't have it.

Well, I am certainly glad I live in a country (the UK) that you would call socialist. I am glad I am not chronically ill or unemployed in a country that follows your ideal politics.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is uncivilised - you think I am probably rabidly left-wing. So it goes!

786. AAI 07

Comment #82683 by steve99 on October 27, 2007 at 8:07 am

Replacing religions with socialism or strong welfare is a bad idea.
Communism is founded on the same idea to target people who can't or don't want to think for themselves and replace religion with a similar system, minus the supernatural.

First, having decent government support for people is not communism. Secondly, to claim that Chapman is wanting to replace religion with a similar system is just not true. All he is saying is that in countries with poor welfare and government support for people in times of need, people turn to the churches. In a strong democratic society, we need systems to support our fellow citizens. If we don't provide it, the churches and other religious organisations will fill the gap. We see such a problem in the UK, where people often think that 'faith schools' provide a better education. Improve the general education system and there will be less demand for such institutions. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and is hardly communist.

787. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82627 by steve99 on October 27, 2007 at 3:17 am

Atheist isn't who you are. It describes one thing you are not. A theist.

Exactly.

788. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82531 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Same way some gay people take back the word "queer".

Being gay myself, I am not entirely sure we did take the word back. However, 'gay' seems to work really well.

There is a lesson here that, in my view, backs Sam Harris' point. We homosexuals called ourselved positive or interesting names, like 'gay' and 'queer'. We did not label ourselves 'anti-straight'.

789. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82515 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm

V. was actually coupling the second and third together, but the third (the holy spirit?) in particular. A total aside - did you know that Odin went by the names of High, Just as High and Third?

No, I didn't. I am afraid my knowledge of Norse Gods is limited to a few school books, reading 'The Mighty Thor' Marvel comics in the 60s, Douglas Adams' "The Dark Teatime of the Soul", and Stargate SG-1.

I made a mistake in using Zeus as an example. I should have used Dionysus, it would have been rather more obvious what I was trying to indicate.

Indeed it would. Dionysus is far more appropriate, what with all the parallels with Christianity. Perhaps the God of The Matrix was having a rehearsal, testing out his Messiah program.

790. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82509 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 2:05 pm

m76

This sounds like a good idea, but I don't think it works in practice. We can see that it doesn't because of the phrases that are in common use in politics. Politicians and religious leaders promote 'faith schools' in general. In the UK, our sad Prince of Wales wants to be 'defender of faiths', rather than just defender of Anglican beliefs.

The gap between atheism about Zeus and Poseidon for a Christian or Muslim, and 'going one God further' - atheism about everything - is huge. Many people long for the supernatural, and that means anything supernatural. They are prepared to think that their version of theist belief is wrong long before they are prepared to give up any believe in any God at all.

791. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82479 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 12:29 pm

"You are an atheist?"
Sure.
"So you know there is no God?"
Nope.

Personally, I would say "Yes, I do know there is no God". From that point, they could ask "how do you know", and from then you could reply "the same way you know there is no Zeus, or Poseidon - because there is no reason to".

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

Comment #82474 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I'd be interested to hear from other parties. Am I overstating the case? If I've lost objectivity on this, I'll apologise, but first lets hear from a few neutral parties.

I think your comments are entirely reasonable. Fanusi's comments, on the other hand, have an emotional tone that makes me suspect about the motive and context.

793. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #82461 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 11:33 am

Since Veronique isn't coming here any more, could I announce this as a Mazda moment on her behalf.

Wikipedia:

Mazda:

* Mazda Motor, a Japanese automobile manufacturer
* Ahura Mazda, the transcendental and universal God of Zoroastrianism
* Mazda (light bulb), a trademarked name used on incandescent light bulbs

I assume you mean the third? :)

(A Trinity of definitions - how appropriate)

794. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82458 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 11:24 am

I call myself an atheist not because I want to be " in your face" about it to the devout, but because, specialty in matters of importance, it is vital that we use language we all can easily understand, and the word " atheist' clearly states where I stand.

But that is where I find myself in disagreement. I don't think it does clearly state where someone stands. There is so much missing context: why does someone not believe in Gods? Is it simply a matter of culture? It is because of a lack of belief in the supernatural? Is it because of a belief in a supernatural that excludes gods as we understand them (some schools of Buddhist thought)? What is your attitude to religion - are you neutral? Are you supportive, or against it?

All 'atheism' means is a lack of belief in one thing. There can be as many reasons for that lack as there are people who declare themselves atheist.

I think we need new language; something to indicate what we are for, not what we are against, and that disbelief in Gods strengthens our belief in other things - our ability to seek out knowledge and meaning for ourselves, and not have it handed down from Heaven. This is why I suggested use of an active term ('Seeker', 'Searcher'... etc) to express what we are. We aren't against Gods - we are for discovery, science, and invention. For humanity standing up by itself.

795. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82429 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 10:15 am

Thanks Josh. You do good work, and it is appreciated.

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

Comment #82425 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 10:07 am

On the fine-tuning thing, I suppose all I'm doing is producing good old Occam's razor to do my scarring for me.

Occam's razor will always work in this case... even if fine tuning is as bad as the worst possible estimates, it easily passes the test as against a God.

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

Comment #82410 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 8:46 am

I'm sure you are right. But my point is a lot simpler (it's in my simple nature). The theist will trumpet that our universe is observably finely tuned, not for matter, not for energy, not for black holes or supernovae, but for life as we know it. Surely the puddle analogy or the sharpshooter fallacy are then sufficient alone to put him in his place.

As a debating point, you are probably right. You will have to forgive me... I am battle-scarred from long debates with certain people on other threads who will go into the finest details of scientific theories in an attempt to defend their views. It may, however, be wiser to put aside the 'why are there even atoms' level of argument...

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

Comment #82403 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 8:28 am

I always understood Adams's puddle analogy (a whimsical version of the sharpshooter fallacy) to refer solely to the emergence of life on this planet. In other words, he was saying it is upside-down thinking to marvel at the conditions which allowed life to emerge; right-way-up thinking is to observe that carbon-based life forms adapted to the prevailing conditions.

It may well have been, however I have seen it used in a broader sense. Here is PZ Myers in a recent blog entry:

D'Souza is crowing over his debate with Hitchens — he's got a YouTube clip on his site that he seems to think exemplifies his triumph. His arguments there are 1) the fine-tuning argument for God, which is pathetic, as Douglas Adams scotched that one long ago

It was this use of Adams' quote I was referring to... and as I have said, I think it does not work in this context - I think Myers is wrong.

To extend this argument just a tad – is it not perfectly plausible that life forms based on an element other than carbon have emerged in regions of the universe where we would describe conditions as "inhospitable" to life and therefore not "finely-tuned" at all?

Well yes, it may well have. There have been all kinds of interesting suggestions - even life forms that could live in stars!

However, the fine tuning problem is far more problematic than just this. According to the consensus (well, my understand of it), it requires very fine tuning even to get atoms or stable nucleii. Virtually all universes for what are thought to be possible values of the physical constants have nothing in them at all.

799. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82357 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 6:23 am

Rather than simply responding to attacks on the atheist position (whatever that is) we ought to be extolling the benefits.

I think we need to do both. I think we need to be able to quickly fend off attacks in order to get past them to a stage where we can talk about benefits.

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

Comment #82338 by steve99 on October 26, 2007 at 5:19 am

Alright, I shall certainly concede that this is a mystery/ problem for science. It seems to be a rephrasing of the "why is there something rather than nothing" or "why is there structure rather than no structure."

Actually no, it is quite a different question. This is about what the values of physical constants have - not why there are physical constants in the first place.

But, like Bonzai and Quine keep pointing out, we shouldn't take their "God is the default" BS seriously.

Absolutely.