Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Peacebeuponme


1051. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110981 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 10:11 am

Diacanu

Don't be all apologetic and head lowering to him
Certainly wasn't an apology, but I see no shame in admitting that my prose/grammar can often use a little extra clarity, or that I have a far from complete understanding of the issue at hand.

Henri might be better read and more conceited, but he doesn't have it sorted either, so whatever.

1052. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110975 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 10:04 am

Henri

Your lack of clarity betrays your misunderstandings.
Fully accept that on both counts. I don't think I'm too far away from a defensible position though.

Defining a moral code does not equate to making truth claims about the world.

Another presupposition you have is that you think 'causing harm to others' is something to be avoided. That is another absolute moral with no basis.
I'm sure I could have written it a different way, but I think you understand my basic premise, which I think is fine.

1053. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110971 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:56 am

Btw - I didn't phrase the question "Does being a homosexual cause more harm to others?" for the simple reason that we cannot create morals dealing with how people are, only what they do.

1054. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110967 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:53 am

Of course it does – e.g. "homosexuality is wrong." Like the resurrection, that is a truth claim that cannot be backed up.
Different things entirely. At statement like "homosexuality is wrong" smells like an attempt at absolute morality, which cannot exist, wheras "Jesus rose fron the dead" is an absolute falsehood.

To answer the homosexuality question you have to frame it in line with my question earlier: "Does denouncing homosexuality cause more harm to others?" Since the answer is clearly yes, it can be regarded as a "best fit" moral, but this a different thing entirely from an absolute truth about the world.

1055. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110963 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:43 am

Use is not truth.
Who was arguing truth? Truth is irrelevant to my argument. Religion is a bad analogy because that does make truth claims about the world we live in that can't be backed up, such as the resurrection. Defining a moral code does no such thing.

1056. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110959 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:40 am

My general feeling is that there is far too much fuss over this stuff. I almost find it fascinating that there is a field called "moral philosophy", when all we are trying to do is answer the question "what is the best way for an individual to act that causes the least harm to others?".

Then again, I am not at all well read on the subject, so its interesting to hear other opinions.

1057. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110954 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:35 am

I am not against civilisation or law, etc. I'm just pointing out that they have to be based on illusions to work.
Nope. Don't follow.

We all understand that we may have slightly different ideas of morality (though evolution has kindly provided us each with a largely consistent set or morals), but that we need to have some sort of framework to get along. There's no absolute to help us out, so we muddle through as best we can - the golden rule seems to help most. Where's the need for illusion?

1058. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110952 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:27 am

I also have to admit I find Henri rather amusing
I suspect he's enjoying being the voice of dissent.

1059. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110949 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:20 am

Henri

Without 'morals' we are free. If God is dead, everything is permissable.
Without morals, how, practically, are we supposed to live together?

1060. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110947 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:15 am

Steve

Have you been at the drink today? You are in a playful mood!

I have no taste in clothes
In that case you can stop with the "very gay" tag!

But seriously, "very gay", "very straight" are just silly terms, and whenever I've heard them used, its in a slightly negative way.

1061. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110941 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 9:05 am

Well, I see no more problem morally with people being "very" homosexual any more than with them being "very" bisexual or "very" heterosexual.
Would you consider yourself "very" white?

1062. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110935 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 8:51 am

Henri Bergson

The Golden Rule serves the mediocre: you must treat me as your equal, even though I am not.
I think we have a different understanding of the application. I don't see it as a command, but as a least bad way of living together, since we all find ourselves occupying the same space.

1063. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110926 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 8:29 am

The point is, 'political correctness' is what Marx & Engels would call a 'false ideology' which actually subconsciously serves the interest of the ruling elite
Ok, but surely there is a difference between 'polictical correctness' and applying the Golden Rule?

1064. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110919 by Peacebeuponme on January 13, 2008 at 8:13 am

Henri Bergson

Do you not see how stuck you are within the current early-21st Century zeitgeist of 'morality' (or, 'political correctness')!? It's known as 'false consciousness' – you are subconsciously maintaining the power of a certain class (viz. white upper-middle class).
What was your point here - that racists should continue as they are?

Also, I don't like the tactic of pinning the "white, middle class" label on someone as a means of diluting the power of their argument. I'm sure that wasn't your intention but I think terms like that need careful use.

1065. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110771 by Peacebeuponme on January 12, 2008 at 11:09 am

Cartomancer

My preferred definition of "morals" is "rules we use to create the sort of societies we want to live in"
Precisely. You write well about how a positive attutide to cooperation has evolved as well. For some reason theists think this positive attitude can only come from God's absolute morality. Strange.

1066. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110734 by Peacebeuponme on January 12, 2008 at 8:24 am

By claiming a 'moral sixth sense' are we not committed to the existence of some cause that exists independently of our ability to sense it, i.e. objective moral truths?
Not really, there's no objective smelliness or objectivity related to our other senses. I don't really like the 'moral sixth sense' argument though.
belief in objective morality which I don't think can exist, credibly, without a belief in God, which is in turn incredible.
I don't think it can exist, credibly, God or no. You can only consider things right or wrong if you compare them to a given standard. So if the standard is the golden rule, say, then killing is wrong, but killing cannot be absolutely wrong on its own.

1067. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110715 by Peacebeuponme on January 12, 2008 at 5:51 am

AfraidToDie

Just browsed the atheism sucks site (surely the blog owner has already lost with that title!) and completely agree. They seem to go through responses picking out perceived logical inconsistencies and category errors to fight small battles, completely bypassing the larger argument being made.

1068. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110627 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Corylus

Thanks for the Mackie quote. I think posters here have conformed pretty well to his assertion!

Mark Smith, quite right, he might be trying to make some form of 'proof' of God in terms needing him for objective morality.
Its all the theists have at the same as being a weak argument. It's a theist position I'm most interested in because it is so absurd.

Evidence-wise here on the material world they are dead in the water, and, from what I have read here, ontological positions seem equally speculative and unsubstantiatable.

1069. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110621 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Corylus

BTW one further piece of advice, I felt a bit sorry for you when you got whacked (sorry, sorry!) over the masturbation issue. Thing is, the men on here are very, very willing to talk about their willies. It's most notable in the female circumcism threads. Guarenteed, within 5 comments you will hear from some man eager to discuss their foreskin or lack thereof. Lots of tales of surgery and resultant effects – I get the giggles every time :P
For someone who rightly calls male sexism in on this site, I found that comment a bit sad. Please don't lump us in together, and please don't dismiss those who make serious, considered points about circumcision the only time they get the chance - when a FGM article gets posted.

I tend not to get the giggles when women or men talk about their bodies being disfigured.

1070. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110619 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Corylus

OK – Mackie and his denial of the existence of 'objective' moral values. Why does he do this?
Because it stares you in the bloody face!

1071. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110618 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Someone earlier established our emotion as the criterion. Surely you can all see that this is entirely inadequate. That subjectivises morality to the point where the main criterion for action (or non-action) is "if it feels good, do it". One man's (or woman's) beer is another's poison.
This is way over-simplified
Kudos to ADH for further simplifying a simple issue.

We cannot do anything else except what feels right to us. So what?

1072. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110358 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 3:42 am

Oh come on, Tyler Durden! Surely it is obvious, expecicially when you consider

the fantasies that are normally associated with it
All those sordid sexual scenarios we think about when knocking one off. Heavens forbid you'd actually think about s.e.x. during a bout of solo-love.

Maybe ADHs fantasies are something for concern?

1073. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110348 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 2:48 am

MPhil

That was what I was going on about all along
Thanks. I'll have a look through your posts. I've only been reading some of the posts, since there's only so much of my time on this site that I can get away with during the day!

1074. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110334 by Peacebeuponme on January 11, 2008 at 2:31 am

Steve

Sorry to but in with this, but this is one area of theist thinking that I find most astounding:

how can anybody find morality in their minds, given that their minds and the physical configuration of their brains are inseparable from each other?
Because much morality is (to put it simply) hard-wired emotional drives. Much like sexual attraction, hunger and so on.
Where did this morality that they "find" there come from?
Evolved punishment/reward paths, somewhat equivalent to pain/pleasure. We rehearse some situations in our mind, and find that they cause us happiness, or sadness, or some other emotion.
Why do theists insist that there is some absolute moral law, or that "morality" actually exists as a separate thing? Why do they find it so hard to accept that we are good to each other because of our emotions, and that these emotions have proved beneficial to the propagation of our species?

Once you understand that we can only talk about "morality" in the sense of agreeing a set of rules for us to live with each other as best we can the questions ADH asked above should go away – they actually don't make sense really.

1075. Blind Faiths

Comment #110025 by Peacebeuponme on January 10, 2008 at 10:19 am

Epeeist

You missed one out, we didn't give a toss.
We? You mean some British people from a while back.

Its like anybody under 80 saying "we won the war".

1076. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109989 by Peacebeuponme on January 10, 2008 at 8:52 am

ADH

For what it's worth, here are mine:

How can you be so arrogant as to presume to know the mind of God?
And I'd like you to rebut:

You are missing the point. You claim God's purposes are good, yet as part of this goodness he permits rape. I'd say that I don't think much of God's purposes in that case, and the fact that rape (and other suffering) exists, suggests that there is no such thing as an all-powerful, all-good, creator God.
and
There is also hope for the victim who cn see their suffering as having been permitted by a God whose ultimate purposes are for GOOD.
Now I want to be sick. "Bit of a tough break, that rape and all. But don't worry too much - God loves you and his ultimate purpose is good. He just felt you needed to be raped as part of his plan (and is a bit of a wimp who couldn't have helped anyway)."

I'm sorry ADH, but your attitude is disgusting and immoral.
and
One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.
Of course, but far better for them to have not to have happened in the first place. If that is God's plan, then it is a terrible plan.
I'll have a look to see if that was it.

1077. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109896 by Peacebeuponme on January 10, 2008 at 2:34 am

Anyone see the Dawkins / Wilson article in The Independent today? Have to say the photographer may have caught Prof. Dawkins at a bad time. He looked like he wasn't fucking about in the picture.

1078. New attempt to end blasphemy law

Comment #109670 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Great news. Good to see the Bishop of Oxford on the case. He seems to be one of the good guys on the theist side.

I'm sure there will be some who think its a fuss over nothing when the law is seldom used these days (and given its conflict with human right laws, I think it would be difficult to). But the fact that its there written down makes a statement. We should all be free to say what we want, so good luck to Dr Harris.

Maybe they can remove the treason laws next.

1079. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109656 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Bliktor

AndreG- Could you please propose the secular establishment that would be fit enough to undertake such a task?
Well ok, off the top of my head how about France
This issue was dealt with brilliantly for me by Dr Benway back on the massive Dianelos threads. Morals are a group thing. I think AndreG thinks he can get you to paint yourself into a corner so that he can sweep in and say "well, why are they the ones who can set the rules? They liable for corruption. Who says they are right?", but of course he can't, because you go on to say
The government answers to us, not the other way around.
That's the key isn't it? We all interact and vote in the government we think will govern under the rules we all want to live by (well, democracy is not perfect, but its the best we can have).

The absolute worst would be to have the rules dictated by a small set of religious zealots. You only have to look at Iran and Saudi Arabia, or Europe before the enlightenment.

1080. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109578 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 8:14 am

Irate_Atheist

Ah, yes, the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental.
He was twisting on the blistwig of ignoramous, before his mind was suddenly plunged into the braintanglia of rudemath.

1081. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #109502 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 6:17 am

Josh

Please can you move this guy to the alternate comment thread. I mean, seriously he is now cluttering up the thread with too much inanity.

I'm sure other theists on the site will agree that this isn't about banning someone with a differing opinion. I've nothing against ADH or KrisKing (or previously Dianelos, though others may disagree!) taking part for instance.

1082. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109464 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 5:23 am

I tend to research subjects and not people.
I guess my post came across as a little shallow in that respect. I may have been conflating the two somewhat. Where a Richard Dawkins book is described as "vitriolic" or "shrill", there is little distinction between an attack on the man or an attack on the book.

That said, most of us are interested in character to some degree. Its just human nature to be interested in other people. It would just be good if we could do it based on the right information.

1083. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109442 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 4:31 am

bliktor

But to suppose for a second that you are right, why does this "universal moral base" as you put it have to come from religion or God? Couldn't these rules come just as easily from a secular establishment?
There are two problems for AndreG here:

1. Even if God had some moral absolutes that avoided someone on earth having to set some "subjective" morals, no-one has been able to work out exactly what these are. Religion has been pretty bad at setting standards and God does not seem to have told us in any clear way.

2. Even if there is an absolute moral standard in existence (an absurdity, but anyway), this does not prove God.

1084. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109439 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 4:20 am

I do think the media can be unfairly blamed for a lot of the skewed, ignorant and complete tosh that has been written about RD's book and, more sadly, RD.
Public perception is one thing (and I quite like Prof. Dawkins "rotweiller" image, I can't imagine Rowan Williams having the same impact if he was on our side), but blatant misrepresentation in the press is another. Media these days spread blatant untruths and seem to be able to do so totally unchecked.
This comes down to education, which is why I am particularly saddened to hear that Oxbridge types are not being as objective about RD as they, I am sure, would be in their own particular subject.
Unfortunately we live in a celebrity culture, where the name of the game is to build people up and knock them down. I find myself saying far too often "I can't stand X" in relation to various public figures, before realising I have no basis for that opinion except what I've picked up through our extremely unreliable media. The truth is, I guess, most of us don't have the time to fully research every person before forming an opinion, but you can't just sit in silence down the pub!

1085. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109412 by Peacebeuponme on January 9, 2008 at 2:50 am

I have arguments with atheist friends who say things like "Well I don't believe in God myself but I don't like Dawkins. Far too arrogant", or somesuch. This impression is always almost entirely based on second hand media reporting.

Some of these are Oxford educated people, who have nevertheless formed an opinion without actually reading anything he has written.

I'm not sure how Richard is supposed to go about changing this impression. I suppose the only way that can happen is if atheists can convince the rest of the population not to give religion a special pass when it comes to discourse.

1086. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108981 by Peacebeuponme on January 8, 2008 at 4:39 am

I'm beginning to think that Wooter is baiting us.

1087. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108968 by Peacebeuponme on January 8, 2008 at 3:39 am

PlagioClase

This may be a bit off topic, but I just saw this on ScienceDaily
Yes, and I've noticed you seem to be quite good at doing that since you have started posting...

1088. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108966 by Peacebeuponme on January 8, 2008 at 3:30 am

Wooter

This will be my last one to you, since I think you are (rightly) shortly to be banned for trolling.

Physicians understand that practicing good medicine requires the constant acquisition of new knowledge, though they often assume their existing medical beliefs do not need re-examination. These medical myths are a light hearted reminder that we can be wrong and need to question what other falsehoods we unwittingly propagate as we practice medicine. We generated a list of common medical or medicine related beliefs espoused by physicians and the general public, based on statements we had heard endorsed on multiple occasions and thought were true or might be true. We selected seven for critical review:

• People should drink at least eight glasses of water a day
• We use only 10% of our brains
• Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death (Researchers from the Indiana University School of Medicine)
I think you have excelled yourself this time and actually quoted from somewhere proving you wrong. I don't know where you got that from, but it looks like a report about medical myths that exist, which presumably goes on to explain that they are false.

All of those bullet points are false, and this can be easily checked with a few minutes of web research.

Please go away you ridiculous person.

1089. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108946 by Peacebeuponme on January 8, 2008 at 2:36 am

Goldy

How can anyone not want there to be a god? It would be great if there was a god out there
Depends on what type of God you are talking about. As Hitchens points out, it wouldn't be too much fun to have an all-powerful celestial dictator out there, watching and judging your every move. Also, everlasting life, whether in heaven or hell, sounds absolutely horrible to me.

I think I would say I don't want there to be a God.

That's not the reason for not believing though. The evidence does not support belief.

1090. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108789 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm

PlagioClase

Aah, the old marco vs micro evolution deal.

Species evolve. A speciation event occurs.
Those two species evolve. Two more speciation events occur.
Extrapolate over billions of years and it is not difficult to see how varied lifeforms could get.

Dawkins explains it all beautifully in The Ancestor's Tale.

1091. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108760 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 2:31 pm

If not, I shall go on a voluntary ban on mentioning String Theory!
Please don't on my account! I wish I had time to read all the recommendations I see here and get a bit more background in some of these subjects. I enjoy reading the banter (for want of a better word) between you, Epeeist and Dr Benway.

It just makes me smile when I look at a thread 200 posts in and see that a discussion moving through formal logic, quantum theory and spacetime has sprung from an article about atheist adoption, or muslim protests.

1092. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108725 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 1:28 pm

String Theory
Quantum Mechanics
Doesn't seem to matter what the news item is. I wonder how many times the thread has come back to this!


ADH - anything?

1093. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108536 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 6:45 am

I don't know where you are, but we in the UK have had some particularly nasty viruses around in the last few months...
I'm in the UK also. Chest infection was a nice present from my work colleagues. Fingers crossed on the norovirus so far (I must not have angered that particular god)...

1094. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108529 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 6:28 am

Steve

Maybe I just needed some interaction because ADH doesn't seem to want to play!

Hope the cold clears. I've just managed to beat a fairly persistent chest infection, so I am hoping I can sound healthy for a while!

1095. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108525 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 6:03 am

I don't think anyone here is going to doubt that I follow evidence and reason.
Agreed. Me included. But when we rightly chastise creationists for disagreeing with a theory just because they find it objectionable, then I think we should be careful not to be seen to do the same.

To be clear, I know you are a reasonable chap, but your post #108508 just didn't sound so, I thought.

1096. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108514 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 5:31 am

Diacanu - I agree, hence the quotation marks.

1097. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108510 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 5:27 am

Steve

I am stubborn because I don't much like the idea that I am the toy of a supernatural being.
Well, creationists are stubborn because they do not like the idea of being descended 'from monkeys'. I'd rather you said you were stubbon because you followed evidence and reason.

1098. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108485 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 3:43 am

Oh for fuck's sake PlagioClase, here's some of what d'Souza says:

I suspect that these two factors may have played a role, but the main reason for Dawkins' remarkable self-identification as a cultural Christian is that he has slowly come to realize that even the values that he cherishes--values such as individual dignity, science as an autonomous enterprise, the equal dignity of women, the abolition of slavery, and compassion as a social virtue--came into the West because of Christianity.
I'm sorry, but christianity just cannot claim all that. Not least because slavery and the subjugation of women were and are mandated by the bible.

Just because the west became more liberal at the same time as remaining majority christain, does not mean the two are explicitly and exclusively linked.

1099. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108480 by Peacebeuponme on January 7, 2008 at 3:23 am

Wooter

First the activities in our like growing mustache or beard will still go on for a couple of days after we die
That's a myth. Everything stops growing when you die (including hair, fingernails). The myth is thought to come from the optical illusion of growth caused by the skin decaying and receding.

1100. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108374 by Peacebeuponme on January 6, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Steve Zara - good luck with qster!

More Pages: Previous | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28