Comments by Peacebeuponme

1201. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122767 by Peacebeuponme on February 6, 2008 at 2:44 am

Cartomancer. Ha ha! Interesting. I must say Skeletor had the campest voice imaginable in the second version of the cartoon.

al-rawandi - have to say I have not seen a lot on SNL, I should check out some of it on youtube.

1202. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122525 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 11:56 am

Careful, or I'll break out my "He-man as gay subculture" rant and then you'll all be disappointed...

Heard it all off a gay mate before, so I can take it! He does seem to find gay undertones in 90% of everything he listens to or watches though, so sometimes I take it with a pinch of salt (though looking back at he-man he may have a point).

1203. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122484 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 10:34 am

Does that mean she has to wear the appropriate costume :-D,

Actually my he-man knowledge is failing me. I should have mentioned Teela (Man-at-arms foster daughter). I think Evil Lyn had the best costume though.

Sorry, all that is distracting us from talking about the serious business of imaginary men in the sky, flood geology, spontaneous generation ans superfast plate techtonics.

1204. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122443 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 9:15 am

Reverend Dark

Last time I checked, no one here claims to be a master of the universe. Though if we do so, I get to be Beast Man.

I guess epeeist would be man-at-arms. Annabanana could choose between She-Ra and Evil Lyn as well.

1205. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122433 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 9:00 am

Peace
We are limited by time and space. God is not

How do you know that?

We examine all that we are aware of from this tiny planet of ours and then believe ourselves to be the masters of the universe--mentally, physically, and in the area of knowledge.

No, its Christians who believe (with no foundation) that God put us at the centre of everything, and created the universe with us in mind. Scientists are far more humble and in awe at the majesty of the universe. Your presumptions are invalid.

1206. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122411 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:39 am

hes2@usa

Oh, maybe the trillions and trillions of years God existed before He spoke us into existence.

Why do you think that?

1207. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122399 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:30 am

And according to the book of the Revelation in the New Testament. We will be!

Except we would never have made it through the last 6,000 years. You are essentially saying that continental drift is about 42,000 times faster. The kind of earthquakes and tsunamis that would bring would make the planet uninhabitable.

1208. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122391 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:21 am

TylerDurden

I assume your "Preflood Earth" is around the 6,000 year mark? Hmmh, quite a bit off there in timescale don't you think.

If Pangaea was only 6,000 years ago, imagine how fast continential drift is! We would be in for some pretty substantial earthquakes.

1209. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122379 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 8:12 am

I am unashamedly a Christian.

Why?

1210. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122357 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:58 am

hes2@usa - Do you realy think you are the first person to state the argument from design here? Please, please go over and look at the debate points section.

1211. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122350 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:55 am

Try this interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesnâ€™t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesnâ€™t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Hereâ€™s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years.

That is technically known as a Wooterism (formerly the Argument from Design).

1212. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122346 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:52 am

Human life consists of many activities which are mentally pleasurable. Walking in forests, listening to music, creating poems, doing scientific research, aesthetic enjoyment of nature, and myriads of other activities are often not related in the least to survival or adaptation in the Darwinian sense.

I think neuroscience is making a serious and respectable attempt at solving questions about mental processes. I've not heard any theist come up with a sensible explanation for anything in this field.

1213. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122340 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:47 am

hes2@usa

the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.

What can that possibly mean? A mutation improves my quality of life but not my ability to survive? Homeless people do not have central heating. I do. My quality of life is improved, but not my ability to survive. No, wait, that doesn't work. Can you help me out here?

1214. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122336 by Peacebeuponme on February 5, 2008 at 7:43 am

Steve - the problem we are dealing with here though is human nature. Why do people love conspiracy theories so much? Its kind of exciting to go against the grain and be proved right. My suspicion with many of these creationists (the ones with a little bit of science nous anyway) is that they like the idea of being able to say to people "don't be so sure of what you hear" and the thought that they are backing the little smart guy no one listens to.

That is, its not just about god and the bible.

1215. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122085 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

sarah95

To see what I mean, you can watch this video:

Thanks for putting that up. Excellent. Particularly part 2/3 and the piece about the "right not to be offended". Was discussing that on a thread a while ago and wholeheartedly agree with Penn's rant.

1216. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122065 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Can they not just go ahead and form a group anyway? What are the university's powers here? I guess they can stop them distributing leaflets on campus grounds, but it would make a good statement if they just went ahead anyway and formed a non-affiliated society.

1217. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122055 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:52 pm

al-rawandi.

I apologize if I was uncivil. I wasn't trying to be

Maybe I was oversensitive because I'm tired.

I don't really have the depth on knowledge to debate the Iraq issue, so I think I'll respectfully withdraw. This issue flares up enough on this site without me stirring the pot. For me I just wish both sides would stop being so entrenched.

Steve...looks very wealthy in the avatar photo.

And good luck to him! Steve has just over a decade and a half on me, and has put his head to good use!

1218. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122044 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Al-rawandi. Lets keep it civil. All I am saying is that you don't know how any alternative strategy would have played out because they weren't put in to action. I don't fully know what we should, or shouldn't have tried and don't think its obvious that there was a better way to solve things than invasion (the sanctions didn't seem to be working). There's been enough debate on both sides to convince me of that, and not everybody on the pro side has their hand in the cookie jar.

1219. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122036 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Josh - Is it fair for me to ask for you to remove becomethearrow's avatar? I don't like censorship, and I know I don't have to come over to this alternative comment thread, but I find the picture distasteful.

Given that I own a good few rap albums, that may be a little hypocritical, but it does concern me that a picture of a man pointing a gun straight at you for several rows does not look good to visitors here.

Ah, I'm probably getting my knickers in a twist over nothing.

1220. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122024 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm

You just said you liked how Haliburton has gotten rich of suffering. I will correct that in my mind to you object

You are correct, thanks. I've edited my comment.

It isn't black and white. I didn't say it was. What I did say was there were still other alternatives, and alternate solutions.

Which may or may not have worked.

Saddam would have found himself under increasing pressure from the world community had he remained in power. It would not have been hard to topple him without an invasion.

Speculation. Kim-Jong Il has managed quite well. So did Saparmurat Niyazov.

1221. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122019 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 1:56 pm

I'm not convinced its as easy as totting up lives lost on either side of the fence. Who knows what Iraq would be like now with Saddam there. No question the people were oppressed - any country that returns 100% election support for its leader is clearly getting something deeply wrong.

Do I think the US went in their for good reasons? No. Do I like the way Haliburton's directors have got fat of other people's misery? No. Do I think it has gone well? Of course, no. But ask me if I think they shouldn't have gone in and I find it difficult to give a proper answer. Too many people see this issue as black and white and it isn't.

1222. God the psycho

Comment #122010 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 1:36 pm

am glad you raised that. I felt it was an embarassment. Dawkins avoids debate with creationists with good reason. We are fortunate to have recently seen PZ Myers choose his target with care and the result was a triumph. But that takes someone with the formidable knowledge and communication skills of Myers.

Its worth remembering that debate to keep in mind how good people like Dawkins are. Often they make it look easy.

The Rational Response debate annoyed me because Martin Bashir was a frankly pathetic host, but the RRS did not know to go about making sure their side was heard. A typical example was Kelly arguing about the limited historical evidence for Jesus and Bashir responding with "Oh come on! Your not seriously saying that." and then moving the conversation on.

Dawkins stance on debating creationists was strengthened when Kirk Cameron pulled out the "fronkey" pictures, but Dawkins would have done a lot better with a response than the RSS's "Oh my god, what a fucking numbnuts."

1223. God the psycho

Comment #121946 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 am

Well I am sure many of us would be curious as to your appearance,

Annabanana may be...

1224. God the psycho

Comment #121945 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:43 am

This is the clinching point for me. It is important to accept all viewpoints, but be careful about who actually speaks on your behalf.

Exactly. I'm pretty comfortable with my reasoning and can confidently hold off theists and theist-friends over a few pints, but would obviously struggle in a live debate with d'Souza. It would not be elitist if Dawkins and Harris saw my name as a co-panelist and said "who is this chump?"

1225. God the psycho

Comment #121938 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:36 am

Well, as Steve has said, I think there's room for a variety of approaches, and fearing him being put alongside Myers/Hitch/Harris as if it would poison the well is a bit elitist.

See Steve's comment above. Eloquence is a good word. Look at that Rational Response TV debate with the creationists. It was a bit of a mess. Fine for Condell to do his thing, but don't harm the integrity of this site.

Imagine if Condell had a section in the Hitchens compilation "The Quotable Atheist". How incongruous would it look?

End message.

1226. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121934 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:32 am

al-rawandi

This was an American war for American hegemony and profit. To call it anything else is to take an incidental and make it a cause.

Would you support intervention (if it were possible) to assist oppressed or mistreated populations in North Korea, Congo, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan?

1227. God the psycho

Comment #121922 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 11:20 am

Aarrgh lost a whole post again!

I am gay, and the fight for gay rights here in the UK has always involved a range of approaches, from the mild (Ian McKellen/Stonewall) to the far more agressive (Peter Tatchell). Both approaches seem to have been needed.

My vocabulary is going to let me down again, but here goes:

My mild dislike of Pat Condell is not because he is agressive, its simply because he's not very sophisticated.

Peter Tatchell may have more aggresively campaigned for gay rights, but he also came across well in interviews and had a good degree of intelligence. Condell is by no means stupid, and is funny in places, but he's pretty childish in others.

I just wouldn't want him linked here alongside Myers, Hitchens, Harris, as an example of the best we have. I think it would dilute the power of this site as a place of reason and thinking.

1228. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121705 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:35 am

AllanW

You write like wooter; are you the same person?

I have my suspicions here, but the writing style seems better than the Wooter posts. Time will tell, though.

1229. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #121700 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:26 am

I just want to know that once if there was a guy named wooter and his all comments were deleted because he is the best debater and his argument was based on logic vs evolution? I just heard from the grapewine of web pages that wooter shared his deleted arguments with other web pages and said, these are the arguments that were deleted from this web page and furtheremore he was undermined by any means of one can figure out. Is that true? Is there any censorship against the arguments with that hammer approach - I beat or you are deleted? What was the name of the thread wooter discussed his argument? I wanna just take a look at it?

Wooter essentially spammed the site with repeated attempts at the Argument from Deisgn. His English was very poor and hard to follow and he did not listen to any of the arguments presented to him. It was tireless. His comments were all moved to the "Alternative Comment Thread" on the various articles he posted on. I am trying to remember which ones they were.

So there was no censorship since the comments can still be found. The Alternative Comment function is useful though to avoid clutter - they really were nonsensical spam.

1230. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121695 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:10 am

One idea might be to produce long, sterile, disposable gloves which go up to the elbows

Another might be to tell the muslims to shut up and stop being so stupid.

1231. God the psycho

Comment #121692 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 2:06 am

Pat has produced a considerable body of work now, he deserves a permanent headline spot on this site

I may have missed something, but I don't think I see link to the Rational Response Squad anymore. I would not support a Pat Condell link and put him in the same bucket as these lot. All power to them for getting up and doing something, but I don't particularly like their style and think they would damage the respectability of this site somewhat.

1232. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121685 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 1:59 am

"Exposed arms can pick up germs and there is a lot of evidence to suggest skin is safer to the patient if covered. One idea might be to produce long, sterile, disposable gloves which go up to the elbows."

Again a religious person is trying to justify a magic book rule using science. It should be irrelevant to their argument, which is just that you do it because the book says so. If the book said uncover up to the elbow then they would want to enforce that.

Its funny, the muslim is suggesting that the DoH are wrong. What possible reasons could the DoH have for making hygiene worse?

1233. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121282 by Peacebeuponme on February 3, 2008 at 6:51 am

Scooternyc

You stop giving food then you stop reinforcing the behavior. "But some children will die" well, who's responsible for their death, us or the parents who won't stop having children they can't feed or take responsibility for?

Stop giving Steve advice. You are making him dependent and denying him the chance to take responsibility for his opinions.

1234. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120020 by Peacebeuponme on February 1, 2008 at 5:58 am

this idea of nihilism as a logical consequence of a reality without Absolute justice and accountability is one that has always baffled me. Just because an Absolute standard does not exist in no way prevents humans from acting in a just manner, it simply means that our justice is a relative standard.

* Applause *

1235. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #120018 by Peacebeuponme on February 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

Therefore, just a no one would deserve any credit for behaving altruistically, so no one would be blameworthy for failing to do so

I find this longing for, and attachment to, blame and praise very strange.

I don't see why it matters whether we blame somebody or praise them for this or that, except to the extent that doing so would improve their interactions with society. All that matters is that we put in place systems to limit the harm that can be done by anybody who wants to cause harm. Whether we consider them "wrong" or "evil" is irrelevant.

Of course, our evolved emotions will lead us to think of them as "bad" people, by and large. But societies rules should not be based on emotions.

1236. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119984 by Peacebeuponme on February 1, 2008 at 4:20 am

Bertrand Russell, 'Why I Am Not a Christian', Routledge.

Call. Russell writes philosophy that even I can get through. Hope that doesn't insult the man's memory too much...

1237. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119959 by Peacebeuponme on February 1, 2008 at 4:01 am

Is anyone else finding comment posting really weird today?

1238. Morality and the 'new atheism'

Comment #119958 by Peacebeuponme on February 1, 2008 at 4:00 am

So the Golden Rule is an Absolute. I agree with this, of course
What do you mean by "absolute"?

This goes to the heart of the problem with Artful_Dodger's thinking. I think I've asked this before, or at least it has been asked before, so I'd be interested if there was a response this time.

1239. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119929 by Peacebeuponme on February 1, 2008 at 3:16 am

Could I say that I am somewhat sorry the way that Karda was treated

I only joined late, and saw Karda confess to hearing voices. I think that makes him game.

Just saw becomethearrow's joyful avatar. Way to lose the argument.

1240. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119419 by Peacebeuponme on January 31, 2008 at 3:17 pm

LorienRyan:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

Behemoth

1241. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119407 by Peacebeuponme on January 31, 2008 at 3:02 pm

This has got to be some sort of record!

Sorry, no. About 1,500 posts still to go for that.

1242. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119385 by Peacebeuponme on January 31, 2008 at 2:49 pm

kardashovel have some very strange, yet interesting views on physics and cosmology.

Let me guess. No formal study of the subject, yet feels able to state opinion that flies in the face of current scientific understanding with absolute certainty.

Followed up by getting embarrased in debate, but doesn't see it.

1243. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119378 by Peacebeuponme on January 31, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Peace, no. Just amusement.

They help pass the working day at least.

1244. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119369 by Peacebeuponme on January 31, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I don't fancy reading 900+ posts of crap, but did these two have any interesting argmuments?

I'm assuming not given one has admited to being a schizophrenic.

1245. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119353 by Peacebeuponme on January 31, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Al-Rawandi

God just spoke to me in a diluted welsh accent (mine) and said that Kardashovel is a dumb cunt. I thought it was a bit harsh, but what can I do? I mean, it was God.

1246. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119342 by Peacebeuponme on January 31, 2008 at 2:04 pm

And to answer an earlier question, the accent and the voice are my own, the one that I think with. But this definitely was not me.

Damn. Was working offsite and missed all this.

Having fun people?

1247. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118080 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 10:00 am

Happy slapping? Is that like a pink belly?

A bit more sinister, unfortunately:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping

1248. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118076 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 9:44 am

Cite one instance where someone said "I killed these people because I am an atheist, and that killing was just because of the doctrines of atheism"

I believe Paragraph 7.104 of Volume 4 explicitly permits death by happy-slapping for any person expressing belief in the supernatural, unless they can plead insanity.

I understand there are worse parts in relation to homeopathy, but I have not studied the Book of Nothing too deeply.

1249. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118069 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 9:38 am