801. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63291 by BAEOZ on August 13, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Darwin2:

My statement also implies that it is possible that human self-awareness may not continue after death. Looking at this issue objectively it is reasonably possible that consciousness continues after death. It's a 50/50 proposition. 50% chance it does continue. 50% chance it doesn't continue.

How do you determine this reasonable possibility? If you have no evidence of it, the only reasonable possibility would be that it most likely doesn't exists. This is not to say it doesn't, just we have no evidence. I think it's probably somewhere in the order of 0.00000000001 or less. How do you get 50/50? What objective evidence do you use to give 50%?

802. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #63054 by BAEOZ on August 13, 2007 at 3:20 am

Russell Blackford:

Then again, many secular intellectuals have helped them, whether by neglecting to challenge or scrutinise them ... or by positively giving cover to religion by treating it as a nice "other way of knowing", or whatever.

Traitors! :)

Thanks again Russell. I'm very new to philosophy, so it's good to get some pointers. I just started reading a book of Plato's dialogues, and while I really like the way he portrays Socrates' skepticism, he seems to presume so much, like that souls and gods exist. Which, in a way, is understandable, because he lived 2 and half millenia ago in a culture that took this for granted and had no other way of explaining things. However, these ancient ideas won't die, even though we've explained naturally most of their underpinnings naturally.
My questions were essentially trying to find out where the whole faith based versus evidence based worldviews stand in modern philosophy. I can see why, once you've been seduced by belief, that you would presume belief. But I can't see how an honest philosopher, skeptical of everything, until he had evidence, would end up at belief in the supernatural, unless he had evidence. And if he did have evidence, he could take out the Nobel Prize and be the darling of the world, so to speak. Perhaps my conception of philosophy, as rational, reasonable inquiry into truth that doesn't assume the answer before it begins is false. That is, don't presume god before you have evidence that could only be of god.
Or, perhaps more simply I'm assuming a truth (that there must be evidence, of a measurable, verifiable kind) before I begin......Still if you can't verify it in a concrete way, how can you distinguish it from fantasy? (recurring question.)
Hopefully I'll make it Wednesday.

Hey, I just noticed you use the term "the Academy", allusions to Athens perhaps? Or just another way of saying Academia, or finally, do you frequent just one Academy of learning?

803. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63046 by BAEOZ on August 13, 2007 at 2:45 am

Amnesty International stands alongside the victims and survivors of human rights violations

At least one multinational organization is moral. How courageous. Standing up to that twat. It is so wrong to punish the victim, especially because of superstition. Just pure evil.
V, I hope you don't feel offended, but I totally get where you are. Ratzinger subsists (I couldn't use exists, even though it's probably a synonym, because the chosen word has sub- as in under, or beneath, and he's beneath contempt) on other peoples gullibility and suffering. The church makes a virtue of suffering. This life is meaningless, the body should suffer, you'll get a reward later.
A woman whose been packed raped, had a gun inserted into her vagina, and often had a permanent tube (fistula) created between her vagina and anus by these thugs and their penchant for punishing men by violating their woman has suffered enough (with or without the gunshot wound, which often occurs in Africa). But then she has to suffer more, because a non viable, potential life form trumps her right to a little less suffering according to a bunch of faith peddlers far away from reality. Anybody who says that's morality, is blind to humanity. It's so evil to pronounce suffering upon another, solely because a believer has certainty that his superstition exists, however unfounded it is.
I don't use the word evil much, because it seems hyperbolic to me, but I believe it suits an organization (catholic church), that condems its adherents, and those within its grasp to suffer due to unsubstantiated, and equally impossible to substantiate claims to fact.

804. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #63035 by BAEOZ on August 13, 2007 at 1:50 am

If this was the case, then Christianity would be truly irrelevant, but thankfully it is not.

Newsflash! Christians don't think Christianity is irrelevant. Surprisingly some believe it may be life influencing. More in the next bulletin!
Hopefully Mr. Lawson notices this little fact.

805. 'Delusion' Revisits Faith Vs. Reason Debate

Comment #62989 by BAEOZ on August 12, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Why must nearly every reveiwer throw in the red herring that is scientism? Following evidence in belief isn't an ideology or dogmatic faith. It's just a reasonable. Belief that science gives answers, isn't belief in a quasi-religion.....

806. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62974 by BAEOZ on August 12, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Dianalake:

What also amazes me about Atheists is that they attack beliefs without ever properly studying them; how many have ever read the Bible with an open mind? If I said Biology was rubbish but never studied it you would rightly call me ignorant.

Let's see: Biology: systematic attempt to explain a part of the natural world, specifically life. We all see life, we experience it in some form. We use evidence to back up or reject our explanation in a systematic manner. Biology books contain part of this tentative explanation. It's the fact that we can go back to the evidence, and test it, that we accept the authority of biology and it's books.
Religion: unsystematic attempt to explain the natural world, and describe another world and beings that we have no evidence of. No attempt to reject or accept on evidence, but makes us feel like this world has meaning. Bible is considered the beginning and end of this description, by it's own fiat.
We can dismiss biology if we can find evidence that contradicts it's hypotheses, the fact we generally don't dismiss it is because it has evidence, not because it's dogmatic. It's reasonable to believe that biology works.
We can dismiss religion and it's book, the bible because it isn't systematic and evidenced based. It's a hodgepodge of archaic explanations and misunderstandings, underpinned by phantoms. Two thousand years ago it may have been reasonable to believe the bible, now it plainly is not. When you present evidence that all can see, that doesn't require a presumed belief in the bible to accept this evidence, we won't dismiss it out of hand.....
To sum up, rejection of biology is not the same as rejection of religion. One belief is reasonable, one is not (religion). Your argument is simply equivocation.

P.S. I wonder if Diana can honestly say she's read the bible with an open mind. If she reads the bible assuming that god exists, then she has already made her mind up. If she reads it, with the presumption that god's existence is unknown, and that the bible is only possible true, not actually, then that may be said to be an open mind.

807. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62952 by BAEOZ on August 12, 2007 at 1:01 pm

darwin2:

If you are fortunate when you die and find yourself fully conscious in the after death state, you will learn that the correct objective answer is that human self awareness continues after death and God exists.

Hi darwin2. I believe this is called begging the question. Your answer involves that which it is trying to demonstrate. You have to demonstrate that human self awareness continues after death or, at least, that it's reasonable to presume this before you can use it to argue anything else. You then say that if you are fully conscious when you die then you will learn the correct answer that human self awareness occurs. But this is the issue at hand. Very circular. Demonstrate it's reasonable that a human's consciousness (whatever that is), can continue post mortem, before you argue from this premise.

808. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62786 by BAEOZ on August 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Friend Giskard:

Anyway the question is not "is it possible", but "is it true"? Anything is possible. It is possible that I am a telepathic robot from the future. And perhaps, if scientists were to study the works of Isaac Asimov (PBUH) more seriously, they would see this.

A sign! He is the messiah! The long prophesized, telepathic robot has come! A great blessing from the benevolent Asimov (PBUH). The dawn of the reign of divine robots is upon us! Praise be thou, Friend Giskard.

809. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62773 by BAEOZ on August 11, 2007 at 11:32 am

_J_:

Rubbish! You've been snapping out theistic Achilles heels with your big marsupial jaws all over the place! It's first-rate entertainment! (This is progress. In the old days, Christians had an arena of lions to worry about. We're only threatening an internet of Tasmanian Devils. I think we score points for non-violence and imagination.)

Gold, pure gold! You have the midas touch _J_. I nearly fell of the seat in a fit of muffled laughter (wife and cat are sleeping, and they'd rip out more than my achilles if I woke them.)

810. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62678 by BAEOZ on August 10, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Russell Blackford:

But say your argument works and shows that mind-body dualism violates the laws of thermodynamics. Someone who is sufficiently convinced that mind-body dualism is true will argue from it as a premise to deny that the laws of thermodynamics hold in such situations (after all, what are they to God?), and/or may even fall back on some kind of epistemic relativism as a last resort. Similarly, I'm sure you will get all sorts of arguments as to why revelation is a trustworthy source of truths.

I'd only say that the 1st law of thermodynamics has a formidable body of evidence, concrete measurments, god has zip.....Thus, by virtue of 1 side of the argument being verifiable, the only honest belief is with the evidence. Should evidence later arrive supporting god, soul, or dualistic mind, then one could hold an honest belief in said ghosts.....:)

But I guess you're right. WeeFlea essentially did that last week. He agreed that holding a belief without evidence is dishonest. Then when I mentioned the 1st law of thermodynamics, he said he believed that there was more to the world than what science can measure. Without a shred of evidence (he thought evidence was difficult to define, hence he felt free arguing he had evidence.) Which is why I like the idea of saying an honest belief is one which can be verifiable to any human. If I can't verify it, or you can't, or Jack Sprat down the road can't, then what's to distinguish it from fantasy? Viz revelation, if any human can't verify it, how are we to distinguish it from fantasy???? It seems so evident to me, but then WeeFlea or one of his ilk would say I'm a Dawkobot who practises the faith of scientism....At least, in theory, I can verify scientific theories......They can't verify anything in a public or systematic way.

I had a discussion yesterday with my boss. He studied philosophy a while back. He's no dualist and doesn't believe in god, but he had me second guessing myself and proposing ideas that sidestep my arguments pretty quickly. I thought maybe it was because I didn't have the lingo of philosophy so was easily confused (which is true). But it seems that believers aren't going to let a little thing like the empirical evidence, or verifiability by average joe get in the way of their faith.

Oh well, thanks heaps. Back to the salt mines for this wanna be intellectual. :)

[Addendum] This idea keeps getting me thinking. Thus I'll probably be in some philosophical neverland, scratching my head and going grey until I get a solution that seems to me to be reasonable, and can stand up to reasonable criticism. The idea that you can honestly believe that there's more than you can verify, seems to me to be the issue. I know it can exist, atleast as an idea, but without a measurement, some verifiable datum that is public. How would you know or safely believe it does exist? And that it's not fantasy? Pascal's wager turns on the idea that god just may exit, and that he may just be the christian god, so you may as well throw your lot in with christianity. But that seems a dishonest belief, even if it is true. We have no way of verifying it. Thus we have no business believing in it. Just as I have no business believing Mars has 24 hours strip clubs for lonely alpha centaurians (it is possible, though unlikely!)

If a believer refers to revelation, that's where we should shine the light of logic and reason. E.g. If Jesus just possibly was sincere, but deluded (assuming he existed), then that ought to be enough doubt. The demands made by belief in Jesus' divinity and miracles, eschatology are so great that, to me, there should not be the slightest doubt for a belief in christianity to be reasonable. Yet it seems to be the opposite. A poorly compiled book of questionable origins is taken as more true (but conveniently reinterpreted to suit the ethic of the day), than all the evidence we have to this day that there is nothing more than the natural world and that men don't rise after 3 days of putrification......

Do Platinga and Swinburne presume god as their starting premise, or do they do an Aquinas and put forward reasons they believe god exists? Must read their books one day....

811. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62669 by BAEOZ on August 10, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Russell Blackford:

In a way, you can't blame them. If they believe, for example, that stem cell research is morally equivalent to killing babies, how can they be expected to shut up about it - or to instruct their adherents not to participate, while letting everyone else do so?

Indeed. Their worldview informs there ethical stance, intentions and actions. The way I see with dealing with it is this:
First. Argue that any belief, must have some reasonable basis, such as empirical evidence (direct or indirect) that can be verified by any human who so desires. If a belief doesn't meet this criteria, it's a dishonest belief. If you can get agreement on this, and it's bloody hard, because believers try to find cracks in the evidence part to drive their favorite metaphysical truck through.....then
Second. Point out that their ethical and metaphysical beliefs, are based on revelation. Revelation can only tell us at best that the person who claimed the revelation truly believed what he claimed. For example, Mohamed truly believed he spoke with the angel. We can say no more than this. His claims can't be verified by any human, so can't be substantiated. Needless to say, but I will anyway, that a schizophrenic truly believes the voices and visions he experiences. So it's not evidence. So, they have no evidentiary basis for their beliefs. And by my first point hold dishonest beliefs. This is not to say that they are not true beliefs, but only that they have no basis to hold those beliefs without solid evidence . But that's another debate and not necessary to demonstrate my idea. I think.....
You can tell I've been influenced by William Clifford "Ethics of belief". Thanks _J_ for that.

An example I could give is on the mind. Now the mind in Dualism, as I understand it, is separate from the body, maybe of some unmeasurable substance. Dualism posits something along the lines that the mind controls the body. This belief is refuted by the first law of thermodynamics. Basically, something cannot be controlled or influenced by nothing.
Objections I've seen to this are that the mind is something, but not measurable. But this only leads me to ask, how do you know the mind is something separate if you can't measure it and thus have no basis, except folk psychology for holding the belief. And this objection doesn't get past the problem of violation of the first law.....And if you haven't been able to measure it, then it's not verifiable by humans, thus a dishonest belief by the first point above....


Russell, you are much better at philosophy than me, thoughts?

812. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62513 by BAEOZ on August 10, 2007 at 2:42 am

Reading the quote above, Russell is singled out as not a village atheist. So it would make no sense to have him on the cover....

813. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62511 by BAEOZ on August 10, 2007 at 2:30 am

IF that's a picture of Russell, then cosmetic surgery was far more advanced in his era than I've been led to believe (His life spanned 1872-1970), which I believe puts him after Marx, and a contemporary of Stalin.....

814. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62476 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 10:54 pm

I wasn't suggesting any governmental action. If you outlaw something, you'll only create martyrs. The battle should be about ideas, not laws. I just think it's wrong that they can post unverifiable crap and if I post a homemade poster over the top of their nonsense decrying it. I'll probably get done for vandalism.....

815. Islamic Finance and Its Critics

Comment #62462 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 8:03 pm

Islam has bucket loads. Christianity has bucket loads. And with their eschatologies, it could make for some lovely times in the future.....

816. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62453 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Ewan D:

"Christ Died Temporarily For Our Sins"

That's brilliant :)

817. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62449 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 6:56 pm

_J_ I was thinking along those lines. Perhaps reading your posts has improved my IQ a little. :P
I was thinking of a piece of card, with something along those lines. Still haven't quite got a punchy slogan that shows their slogan is dishonest and silly. My trouble is I waffle on and never really say anything concise that grabs you. (You may have noticed this in my posts).

818. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62433 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Dr. Benway, has your David Bowie avatar eaten Tuffy the tit-avian?

819. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62430 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Jaydon64:

Not happy John indeed, but let us not forget that Rudd is a born again who reguarly attends bible study. I guess its a no-win situation

Totally man. I'm off Rudd too. But the phrase "Not happy John and Kevin" doesn't have the cachet of the original.....

820. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62417 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm

We gotta keep up the struggle me thinks. Last night, catching the bus to the station, I saw a sign on a church saying: "Another inconvenient truth, those who don't accept Jesus will suffer eternal damnation". Then on the TV last night, both the PM and the opposition leader pandered to a christian audience and had this webcasted for the benefit of other believers.
This sucks! First churches are allowed to be dishonest and claim their irrational beliefs as truth. That should be illegal. If an insurance company offers something it can't substantiate, it's gets run out of dodge. Then political leaders suck up to christians and give them favors over others to sure up a few votes. Not happy John!

821. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62411 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 4:30 pm

First they ignore you, then they mock you.....then you win?

822. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62408 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I had a quick read about Qualia. My encyclopedia of philosophy gave the example of objective color and subjective color. Qualia doesn't seem to be anything more than I have an emotional need to be more than biology that functions within the bounds of physics and chemistry.
It seems to me that people want their experiences to be more than emergent properties of the brain. I personally see no reason to say anything subjective exists in a concrete way. The way I see it, the brain models the stimulus it receives via the senses. So, when light of a certain wavelength stimulates the retina, this triggers some nervous impulse, which travels along the optic nerve to various parts of the brain. Not least of which is the occipital lobe. The brain, by virtue of evolution has evolved capacity to model the external world in a way useful to us. It models certain wavelengths of light as colors, just as it models certain wavelengths of sound as musical pitches. What we subjectively experience is only the brains modelling. If it had proved adaptive there's no reason to suppose that the brain couldn't have evolved to model the external world differently and thus we'd perceive the world differently, but it would still the same external world.
I can't see any reason to bring in idea that it's something different or ethereal, just because we can't explain it all at this point. It's similar to a god of the gaps explanation. Science can't explain all in the universe, therefore god did it. Science can't explain the how the brain models the external world, therefore it's something else....

823. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62245 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 4:23 am

Russell, as always, very cogent. The NOMA idea has always irked me, it seemed to give some sort of respectability to something devoid of said property. No quibbles from this little devil. Now, do you have any music to tout on this site?

824. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62240 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 3:31 am

Right! If Mat can post his tunes; go to myspace.com/wearethecrap for mine. :P

825. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62238 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 2:47 am

Stag: The word know isn't apt for such things as knowing taste or musical beauty. Due to the subjectiveness of experience. We all know it, but in various, but similar ways. Not at all like we can know objective facts. I was going to suggest the term "aquainted with" (c.f. Kennen (German), conocer (Spanish)), as in I'm aquainted with sweetness. But that still implies something not only common, but commonly experienced. So you can't say you know anything subjective. Only that you've experienced it.....

Fuck philosophy! Humans should die. We officially wiped out a cute, fresh water Dolphin today. Let's do the Earth the favor of going away before we take many more species and destroy ourselves......

Like my answer to the problem of knowledge?

826. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62237 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 2:39 am

Steve99:

it is possible to imagine 'qualia swapping'

Qualia is scientific, or purely philosophical notion? I've seen it from time to time, but not with science. Can you give me a few pointers, either a brief description, or a book. Thanks.

827. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62235 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 2:32 am

GBile:

I just KNOW!

No, you just believe. Knowledge is warranted, true belief. Not only must what you believe be correct, you must have a "warrant" to believe it to claim it as knowledge.

828. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62234 by BAEOZ on August 9, 2007 at 2:27 am

Steve99:

Just consider psycho-active drug research and development.

Indeed. But I think this is a problem with humanities, which utilize the scientific method. You are asking someone if a drug makes them feel better, do a bit of statistical juggling and then Dr. Benway prescribes you with brain damaging drugs. Alternatively you can infer from brainwaves, etc. But with an alpha level of 0.05, not 0.0001 like the natural sciences, it's not so rigorous. And much more subjective than chemistry, biology or physics.
So, you're right if you class social science as science by virtue of application of the scientific method. Which is what is done - I'm studying psychology, but in my humble opinion, I don't consider the subjects true science - just the methodology used.
This is because people have the annoying habit of not giving the same response to the same stimulus in all cases, allowing scientists to make up laws, c.f. gravity. Whereas gravity doesn't have a bad day, or exhibit biases like people do......

829. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62202 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 5:58 pm

I'm reading a book by Carnap at the moment on symbolic logic. My brain hurts. By the way, I wasn't knocking your summary, just putting in my 2 cents. It was a, to my knowledge, a very good summation of Western thought.....

830. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62200 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 5:50 pm

V, sorry, my mistake. Well done anyway. All things pass :)

831. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #62197 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Cartomancer:

specifically with the fifth century Athenian presocratics,

Pythagoras of Samos, Thales and the others of the Milesian school where actually from Athens? I think you'll struggle with that claim.....

and in this field at least real advances were made on the classical inheritance, once the Organon of Aristotle had been completed with twelfth century translations of the Posterior Analytics and other works.

My limited understanding is that logic didn't really advance past Aristotles syllogisms (which were a bit faulty) until the 19th century when real advances began. Symbolic logic, etc...

I would agree with you thesis that the ancient Greeks were analytic, that is, didn't test their theorys against evidence. That was their great downfall. You can construct all sorts of coherent metaphysic weirdness, but if you don't have any concrete evidence for it, then you can't claim it as knowledge or even more real than a fairy tale. It's interesting that the atomists have largely been shown to have been in the right by history, but they were just postulating, and in that sense just got lucky and can't have claimed knowledge.....

The church grabbed the ideas that suited its theology, such as platonic souls, aristotelean logic and synthesised a metaphysic that agreed with their theology. I have limited knowledge of the scholastics, and what you've written about them seems reasonable.
So, there we have it, the church wanted to prove it's dogma in an irrefutable way, and in doing so, let the genie (science) out of the bottle. Needless to say, it's been trying to put it back in its bottle and cork it up ever since....

832. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62186 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 4:20 pm

V, what's the NGO you manage?

833. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62184 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 4:12 pm

TheCelestialTeapot:

I'll never get over your icon; he scares me every time.

That's funny, I never thought the devil growling would seem scary. They are cute little idiots who lope about with almost no coordination and argue all day with themselves. Mind you, their bite can is several times more powerful than a canine of the same size.....

834. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62173 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Steve99:

One of the main points of science and philosophy should be to explain experience.

I thought science was a project to explain the natural world. Experience, to me, seems to be like common sense, something subjective. Science doesn't deal with the subjective.
As to stags points. Music sounds good because our brain evolved that way, there's nothing intrinsically beautiful about music. Similarly with fruit, there's nothing intrinsically sweet about it, just the way our brain evolved to usefully model the sensation of finding readily available carbs...... We all understand the term sweet, cause we're all wired the same (within limits).

835. Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation

Comment #62004 by BAEOZ on August 7, 2007 at 9:17 pm

A great summary of science and knowledge. It clearly states why the scientific method isn't dogmatic and only deals with what can honestly be termed knowledge. It reminds me of the discussion I had with WeeFlea last week. The lying flea claimed knowledge of things he couldn't possibly know. If it can't be measured, it can't be said to exist (I'm not saying that means it doesn't exist), and without evidence (the real kind, like a measurement), the probability of existence is very slim indeed. Which is why it's dishonest to have faith in god. Just like it's dishonest for me to say fairies exist........
It also quite clearly shows that most frustrating tactic of the superstitious, equivocation. Oh you believe evolution explains life, well then you have faith tooo.....Arghggh!!!!! Belief in something with evidence is good, belief in something with no evidence is not the same thing. Liars!!!! Sorry, just letting off steam.

836. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61991 by BAEOZ on August 7, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Dr. Benway:

Remember when you lost faith in the tooth fairly?

No.

Did you not feel a deep, painful cavity within?

See above. I blame the drugs and alchohol, that all atheists need to overcome the existential void when religion is absent, ruining my memory.

If you studied fairyology more thoroughly, you'd know know about these things.

You're right. I'm ignorant about such metaphysical wankery. Seeing you've had your hand on the issue, so to speak, I'll recognize your authority on the matter, as you gush forth with ejaculatory fairy-facts, good Dr.

[Ducks and hopes the Dr. isn't going to attack this irreverant marsupial]

837. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61990 by BAEOZ on August 7, 2007 at 6:43 pm

V, I like your avatar. Like that proffessor McGonagall from Harry Potter. (Ducks and hides from retaliatory strikes.) I haven't got my T-shirt yet, but can't be too long now......

838. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61793 by BAEOZ on August 6, 2007 at 10:47 pm

Russell's Teapot:

Honestly, where do these people get this stuff?

Christians think that lack of belief in christianity leads people to need to fill the void that christianity supposedly filled. They can't conceive of people not needing to have their hand held and have it all explained. So if you don't believe in god, obviously you'll believe in something equally as silly.

839. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61788 by BAEOZ on August 6, 2007 at 10:05 pm

Doh! third try:
type the less than symbol "<" then type the word "blockquote" then greater than symbol ">" then the text you want quoted then the less than symbol "<" then the slash "/" then "blockquote" then the greater than the ">" symbol.....

840. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61784 by BAEOZ on August 6, 2007 at 10:00 pm

german-atheist:

david hasselhoff being too fat

Don't use the Hoffs name in vain. Blasphemer!

841. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61778 by BAEOZ on August 6, 2007 at 9:26 pm

The heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is "true for me".

No, the heart of Juedeo-Christian tradition is cultivated ignorance. The truth is there is no evidence to support it, therefore it isn't honest to believe in it. The second part, about postreligiousness giving rise to relativism is because people are now told that all views are equal by the politically correct in society. Something I'd attribute to the likes of William James (I'm probably wrong here, but didn't he say it's right to believe in something if you feel it's true?) and similars, not scientists.
It's something christians and muslims like, so that they can keep their faith and have it treated as equal to reason. Not something RD or others have supported.

Moreover, since science essentially takes us wherever the evidence leads, the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research - which have revealed the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life - have thrown into doubt the theory that life emerged spontaneously in a random universe.

Equivocation, every believers favorite form of arguing. First we have DNA research, which shows complexity of genes. Something plenty of time and natural selection can ratchet up. But we jump to abiogenesis, that produced life, and gloss the two into one idea. Evolutions isn't concerned with how life started, and how life started isn't related to how complex life is now.
Do you think this person is an apologist for creationists as well as faith sufferers?

842. A Designer Universe?

Comment #61546 by BAEOZ on August 5, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Dr. Benway, what happened to tuffy the analy expressive tit-avian?

843. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61540 by BAEOZ on August 5, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Hey guys, how's it going?

V:

BTW - how did your lecture go down tonight? Did Baeoz make it?

No I didn't, but then I wasn't aware of the lecture to which you refer. The one I'm aware of is on the 15th (well, he has another one the day before, but I'm probably not going to that). He's a busy fellow is Russell.
What was the John Diamond book about?

844. The Out Campaign

Comment #61353 by BAEOZ on August 4, 2007 at 11:41 pm

WeeFlea:

Bizarre. You really think that if you cannot perceive it, it cannot exist?

Selective quoting. You know I stated that if it can't be measured it can't be said to exist. You can't offer one bit of evidence for god, yet you continue to believe. That makes you a liar. Thanks for showing that.

845. The Out Campaign

Comment #61205 by BAEOZ on August 4, 2007 at 6:53 am

Nothern Bright:

You'll have detected the Indian/Hindu slant to this assessment - but it's indisputable that references to virgin births (as well as to guiding stars, miracles, and even resurrection) are not unique to Christianity but were already well established memes. (Do I get brownie points for referring to memes, BTW? ;-) )

Christopher Hitchens mentions all the deities of virgin Birth in his book "God is not great". Christianity wasn't the first. But there's little or no evidence that early christians thought that Jesus was born of a virgin. I think that your points make sense, but are part of later propogand a to make Jesus as impressive as Mithras, or whoever.

846. Public Debate on Complexity and Evolution

Comment #61203 by BAEOZ on August 4, 2007 at 6:39 am

LeeC, I see your point. I'm not a good teacher, but I'd do this; if your child likes trains, mention how they are moved. If he likes animals, mention morphology as result of need....
Hang it LeeC, I now understand why my wife glazes over when I discuss science. It's not that science is boring, it's not, it's just that I'm not RD. :)

847. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #61200 by BAEOZ on August 4, 2007 at 6:05 am

Downunder:

How can the placenta with the fetus not be part of the mother when it is attached to the mother and the chemical building blocks come from the mother to develop the fertilised egg?

Firstly the fetus takes from the mother. The mother's system tries to stop this, but evolution has adapted the fetus to counter this.
Answer this: Is a leech an integral part of you when you have one sucking your blood? It's attached to you. A fetus is just a well adapted leech.

Danielos:

Oh, come on. Hitler was first a foremost a politician. You do not think that what a politician says in public is good evidence for what they think, do you? Hitler was the head of government in a Christian nation which he later led into all-out war; would you expect him to have come out and announced "Mein Volk: I don't believe in God myself and I think those who do believe in that unscientific nonsense are just a bunch of morons."?

And the people you've quoted weren't Hitler and were politicians. So by your logic Hitler is more reliable about Hitler by virtue of being Hitler. You accuse atheists of looking for morsels to prove Hitler a christian. I quote Hitler and you say it's a lie. You quote someone who isn't Hitler, who you say was a politician (a senior Nazi, therefore a liar like Hitler), and declare that truth. Wouldn't an associate of Hitler lie to all around him to further his policy? You'd say; No! he'd be honest to those around him. Thus you can trust the words of people around Hitler. But not Hitler because his words were propaganda. Of course he wrote Mein Kampf (1926) when he was a pathetic nobody in prison, he wasn't a politician, years before coming to power and had no reason to lie, he was struggling (Kampfing) with the fact that he was a megalomaniac without an audience. According to you Hilter was a prophet, when he wrote his statements in support of christianity, he knew that years hence he'd become Reichskanzler of a christian nation and they'd need to know that he shared their faith so that they'd be ok with the killing of people who didn't accept christ as messiah (Jews if you didn't know that christians spent 2000 years accusing jews of deicide and not worshiping the messiah and associated persecution). Wake up Danielos, you're looking for morsels.

848. The Out Campaign

Comment #61190 by BAEOZ on August 4, 2007 at 5:15 am

V:

Honestly, none of it is worth a thrupenny bit, Good story, why it was saleable is a bit beyond me.

Because the customers were misogynists. Men owned women in those days. The bible demonstrates a good man as one who will give his wife and daughters to the mob because they are no more than livestock...

849. The Out Campaign

Comment #61179 by BAEOZ on August 4, 2007 at 3:30 am

V:

The basis for this rubbish must have come earlier than Paul,

Indeed it does. My post was rambling. It kicked off with the myth of Adam and Eve. The fact Eve comes from a rib suggests Adam owns her. And lots of associated pathologies against women.
My comments about Paul were just to show how one of the "fathers" of the christian church inflicted a very virulent form of sexism on us because he inflicted his own loathing.

850. The Out Campaign

Comment #61142 by BAEOZ on August 3, 2007 at 11:37 pm

V:

he whole thing about the virgin birth has to do with 'un-defilement', right? Is it reasonable to assume that the religites couldn't bear to think of their saviour as having been produced in a normal way, because then he would be defiled, unclean, born of sin, even conceived in sin. He would make a lousy saviour, yes? So they make up the whole thing about the holy-ghost impregnating Mary without sex, in order to raise the status of her child to that of saviour. Is that about it?

The abrahamic religions all have a problem with the birth canal and sex. All these religions stress that sex is bad, but necessary for procreation. So Jesus couldn't have come from the sex act. St. Paul hated women and sex. He himself couldn't get any, had some "flesh" problem (impotent perhaps?). So he turned a problem into a virtue by declaring sex bad and saying he didn't need it. Said sex if it must be done, should only be done between a married couple with the express desire to have kiddies.
That's the main reason why the catholic church is against safe-sex. If sex occurs with procreation intent, then they see that as against god's plan. Muslims see an unmarried, available woman as a source of shame and a temptress who will cause a man to go to hell. This comes from the whole Eve bullshit, Adam was good, Eve caused man to be expelled from Eden. It also relates to why menstruation is considered dirty. A menstruating woman can't procreate, so she might be enjoying the dirty act and might seduce a man. What galls me is that the men blame the woman for there urges. Like that wackjob Al Hilali who said that a scantily clad woman was like meat left in the street and a man who raped her like a cat. Never the man's fault.

The story of the virgin birth is actually a mistranslation, in the original Hebrew it only said the Messiah would be born of a young woman. The pope sat down one day, thought about it, and then decided, with god's help of course, that the virgin birth story was true.