Comments by Peacebeuponme

Comment #118044 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 9:13 am

Any appeals that atheists make to "morality" just show a refusal to follow the implications of biological materialism through to their logical conclusion: morality does not exist and when you scold or praise anyone for behaving "indecently" or "decently" as the case may be you do so in spite of, not because of, your materialism - you do so because you are all, like George Eliot (and the good professor Dawkins), "cultural Christians".

Artful_Dodger, why must we endlessly repeat our dismissals of such tired arguments? You are essentially saying that mankind was absolutely selfish up until 2,000 years ago, which is a pathetic statement.

We do so because we have evolved altruistic emotions. We do so because it is the only way for society to work. We don't do it "in spite" of anything.

1252. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118038 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 9:09 am

People, as you say, can be atheists, and powerful atheists have been known to foist atheist agendas on their subjects (whether the latter be willing or not)

There is no such thing as an atheist agenda.

1253. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118036 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 9:06 am

So-called Christians who use brutality to further the aims of the Church fly in the face of Jesus' explicit command.

Yes, but not necessarily God's.

1254. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118035 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 9:05 am

I've rarely read anything so stupid on these threads.

Ah well, you see: I read a lot of the posts by Zara, Epeeist, Paula Kirby, Dr Benway, MPhil, Cartomancer. You must be reading ADH, Omego369, Wooter or perhaps re-reading some of your own.

1255. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117972 by Peacebeuponme on January 30, 2008 at 5:29 am

If medical science can justly claim to have saved many lives, it must also take responsibility for the estimated 783,000 annual iatrogenic deaths it now causes every year.

That statement is just pathetic. Even if it is right, and even if it exludes people who would have died anyway with no treatment it does nothing to weaken the claim that medical science has improved our lives greatly. A lot more people would have short painful lives if there were no doctors, surgeons or hospitals.

1256. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117703 by Peacebeuponme on January 29, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Corylus

Re: Imogen Heap – I seem to recall a video being posted on here a while back with a soundtrack of that 'sweet religion' song.

Yes, that's where I got it from, and it became one of my favourite songs, so I thought I'd repost here.

Honestly, I really would not read too much into this report.

It is a strange mix and order of people.

1257. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117677 by Peacebeuponme on January 29, 2008 at 11:14 am

Who the hell is Imogen Heap?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqo9Wklswzk

Sweet Religion...

No idea how she is top though

1258. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117338 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I fear you may all think me terribly naive for my thoughts on Dianelos. At the very least the megastructure that is the McGrath thread is a useful general science and philosophy debate learning tool. Another benefit that I got was that it made it clear in my mind that metaphysical positions are equally speculative and almost not worth addressing. The only thing we can talk about sensibly is real world science - get theists there and they are dead.

Finally, I was also pleased that even somebody so much better read than I, seemed almost childlike in his understanding of morality.

But, for what its worth, I thought he was fairly genuine. Corylus, you mention his sense of superiority, but that comes across to me in some of epeeists posts, a man who I have a lot of respect for. Dianelos had nothing on Scooternyc or Henri Bergson in that respect.

1259. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117329 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Steve I really think that we haven't begun yet to see, in western Europe, what the consequences of God being driven out of the public square will be. "Nature abhors a vacuum". Watch this space ...

This says a lot about Artful_Dodger's reasoning capabilities. He ignores Sweden. He makes the sweeping assumption that society will need something to replace religion (like we needed something to replace alchemy, soothsaying, sacrifice). He also conflates an irrelevant scientific principle with a sociological position.

1260. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117255 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 1:02 pm

al-rawandi - Ha, no, I think you're ok! SEC rules have made my life hell in the past though.

1261. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117244 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 12:56 pm

al-rawandi

I am forced into accounting now and again. I am a fan for cooking the books and running somewhere without and extradition treaty.

You might want to keep such things to yourself. I am an auditor...

(I'm sure I've lost any respect I might have had here now!)

1262. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117232 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 12:44 pm

So, what ISN'T a belief? I notice you're quiet on accountancy....heretic ;-)

I am a follower of the Book of Double Entry and regularly preach the virtures of Goodwill and Fair Value accounting.

1263. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117101 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 9:09 am

Fluffy Faith.

Sounds like a '70s porn star.

1264. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117093 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 8:50 am

Just look at how many discussions with theists ends with them moving on to "important tasks". My guess is that it is rationalised as "These atheists are closed to the 'truth' anyway, why bother".

Yes, the inclination to leave and get back to more important things, can only be seen as either smug or desparate. It would be interesting if it was rationalised in your way. Surely, as good Christians, they want to spread the word and help us out? Yet we seem to be the ones who genuinely want to point them in the right diretion.

1265. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117082 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 8:19 am

kind of "faith" that gave rise to the music of Bach (soli Deo gloria)

Bach's skill did not arise from christianity, else there would be millions of brilliant composers walking the earth today. Has he been non-religious, I suspect he would have found other themes on which to base his music.

1266. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117081 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 8:15 am

What constitutes "obscurantism"?

Belief that homosexuality is wrong because it is written in a very old book
Belief that women must cover their flesh because it is written in a very old book
Belief that people can rise from the dead because it is written in a very old book
Belief in creationism because it is written in a very old book
Belief that idolatry is wrong because it is written in a very old book
Belief in heaven and hell because it is written in a very old book
Belief in Yahweh, Allah, Zeus and Wotan because it is written in a very old book
Belief in the virgin birth because it is written in a very old book

1267. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117006 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 3:10 am

On another topic:

I've just realised something. The thing that I don't like is the word "god",

If the Catholic Church still includes lapsed, but not excommunicated, people amongst the 1 billion, I'm including Omega369 as one of us next time there is a roll call.

1268. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117002 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 2:58 am

You all are taking this so literally. It said the letter was written by a "fictitious" student. There is no claim to truth.

How silly of us. I'm sure all the schoolchildren who watched were not so literal and appreciated the subtle metaphors.

The aim was simple: to scare schoolchildren into indoctrination. In my book that is criminal child abuse.

1269. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117001 by Peacebeuponme on January 28, 2008 at 2:54 am

Double Bass Atheist
All I can do is echo others: your actions have to be guided by your sons wishes.

Maybe you could make your own atheist video with a slightly brighter outlook and distribute that!

1270. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116792 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 12:28 pm

People have their adenoids and/or tonsils removed (sometimes as a preventative measure) as well. That's not outrageous is it?

Hopefully not for preventative reasons before they can make their own informed choice. I would be against that for the same reasons, but at least there is no outward physical change with those procedures.

I understand why you think some of the comments seem to express too much outrage: most circumcised men do not see it as a problem. However, I think this is only because it is a society accepted practice, and that I think needs to be addressed.

EDIT: To your point on venom: I think an unfortunate by-product of the open-mindedness of this site and the internet generally, is that conversations descend into mudslinging all too often.

1271. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116784 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 11:53 am

Radesq. Two quick points:

(1) Do you see a difference between 'health benefits' and necessary medical procedures (i.e those needed to preserve life or prevent serious illness)?

(2) How many vaccinations permanently remove part of your body?

1272. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116721 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 8:42 am

put these experiences into a "god" pot.
You can believe that I do that if you wish, I don't mind. The experiences I have can be proven scientifically though.

Steve Zara, above, has again put my thoughts into words better than I can. I was not denying your experiences, indeed the reverence for existence and awe at the universe is, I think, a point of agreement between us. I was merely pointing out that it sounds like you classify these experiences as "god" wheras I just think of them as experiences.

By energy I mean all sorts of energy: wind, electricity, kinetics, or possibly even energy that is invoked by psychological techniques such as suggestive therapeutics.

Amongst that list are many things to interest and provide sources of wonder, though to my mind not worshipping.

1273. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116709 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 8:01 am

I don't regard any books as sacred, the only thing that is sacred is life as we live it. Also, I actually agree with you, its not just religious texts which have wisdom and psychology within them, and I regard them with exactly the same respect.

Ok, so the difference between us is semantic: we were using slightly different meanings of the word "sacred".

Whereas, the view that I have is "God" is actually a synonym for three things: life, love and power. These have scientific groundings, there is life, there is love and there is power/energy. This is what I believe to be God; life, love and power. In which case, I am completely theist. This is also where I distinguish having a faith and having a knowledge/experience, because if we view God like this then we are experiencing these things. I would happily change the name God into "Life, Love and Power".

The short answer would have been "no" then, I guess. You have a fairly nebulous definition of God. It seems that you have experiences you hold dear, and you call these experiences "god". This may be the only difference between us: that you put these experiences into a "god" pot.

I am interested in your words on Energy/Power. What do you mean when you talk about energy?

1274. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116701 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 7:20 am

Thats where it differs from just a historical document; its a historical document with wisdom and psychology embedded into it

Well, there's plenty of that in non-sacred texts.

You can't see this wisdom/psychology unless you are willing to see a sacred text symbolically. Its not just the bible, its any religions text too (be it the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist Tripitaka, the Qur'an or even the Nordic Sagas).

Have to disagree there. You can discard the ludicrous and the sacred, and be left with the wisdom/psychology (such as it is: I would dispute the amount you could find in the koran, for example).

I agree you can learn a lot from historical writings, I just don't see why you have to refer to a particular one as sacred, or as the book and define yourself as a follower of it.

I choose Christianity because its widely available here in the UK, and I fitted in really well with the congregation. Its also my choice of religion because I feel something, and I don't mind whether its a psychological thing. I am a big fan of meditation (in the Buddhist way), and the various parts of a typical Anglican Sunday service are very rhythmic and almost perfect for meditation.

I can understand that you value the community and meditation aspects. As I said before, you actually do not sound very much like a "believer". Tell me, if you found a place where you could meditate and fit in with others, but which did not require you to profess any faith, could that lead you away from the Church?

Also, given you reasons for being a Christian above, I want to ask: do you profess a belief in a God?

1275. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116693 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 6:31 am

omega369 - You actually sound pretty close to being an atheist! I wonder where you would fit on the Dawkins scale?

One thing that interests me about your standpoint: You don't take the bible literally. Clearly you seem to think things through and are not swayed by dogma. Why do you think you need to interpret the bible at all? Why do you consider it more than just a historical document?

1276. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116692 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 6:26 am

What if the bible was being written today, and Jesus was around today, and it was the start of the Christian Church. How different do you think the Bible would be and how different do you think our rituals would be? This is really what we should be thinking about, because I think it would be very different, and I think there would be a lot more Science involved (which is definitely a good thing in my mind).

Well, yes, the implication is that the Bible is a fairly worthless document except as a historical document, and for the odd bit decent prose. However, I would be so sure of the answer to your "if written today" question, since we have real-life examples: The Book of Mormon and the myths of Scientology, are every bit as ludicrous and anti-science as the Bible.

1277. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116677 by Peacebeuponme on January 27, 2008 at 4:11 am

My Chinese in-laws all circumcise their sons not for religious reasons but because they simply believe it is cleanlier

What a disgusting attitude. As though the sons are not capable of looking after themselves. There is such a thing as soap.

This is not a religoius issue, Mango, so stop mentioning a "knee-jerk atheist reaction". It is simply a matter of personal freedom.

I'm not a big fan of parents, or the state, imposing such things on others "for their own good".

1278. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116357 by Peacebeuponme on January 26, 2008 at 9:59 am

Mango - an extra digit is an abnormality. Your teeth example is interesting, but I don't think it compares. I would still view that as a "corrective" procedure. Here in th UK we use braces far less than the US (as Americans are so fond of pointing out!)

Let the boy decide whether he wants his foreskin or not when he is able to make an informed choice.

To paint male circumcision in such a dramatic fashion serves to trivialize female circumcision

Here we go again... Actually I would think it would have the opposite effect. If we baulk at circumcision it should be obvious that we have even stronger feelings agaist FGM.

1279. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115936 by Peacebeuponme on January 25, 2008 at 4:39 am

was brave to have acted in a gay role.

Brave...or Oscar hungry.

1280. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115908 by Peacebeuponme on January 25, 2008 at 2:58 am

I'm pretty scared knowing its not just fire, but brimstone as well. Has anybody ever used that word in another context?

1281. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115569 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 10:42 am

I don't know why people get so fussed with these people and try to converse with them. They are a small bunch of whackos. We don't try to reason raving lunatics.

1282. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115513 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 9:19 am

Hmmm

I myself am black, so not biased in any way.

I think Henri is trying to trap us here. Why would being black mean you are not biased in any way?

1283. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115510 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 9:16 am

Beth

I don't believe Henri Bergson is a racist. He is merely asking questions, not making judgements.

I suspect he enjoys being the voice of dissent, but I don't take his comments as racist.

1284. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115460 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 8:09 am

Artful_Dodger

I am truly amazed at the investment of time energy and thought that you are all making to dispute and discredit faith in God and to defend the inherently negative proposition of a-theism. Chapeau!

I am also anti-racist, anti-slavery and anti-monarchist. How negative I am! Luckily I bring it back somewhat by being pro-choice.

1285. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115456 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

PJG

I agree that being "weaker" makes women no less equal. However, "weaker" in what way? Muscular strength, maybe, but I seem to remember work done on pain thresholds which put women way above men (on account of them having to deal with childbirth I suspect) Maybe this makes it swings and roundabouts? ;o)

This taking us down a different route, but its interesting. What that study said was that women experience pain more acutely. So for the same type of harm done, it would hurt women more, so they have to "take" more pain and deal with it.

So you could look at it as women having a higher pain threshold, or that men are have a higher "harm threshold" before they feel pain.

1286. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115419 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 7:08 am

irate_atheist

Well, Henri is confusing equality generally with equality of intellect.

Women are clearly weaker on average than men, for example. That makes them no less "equal", generally.

1287. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115413 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

I was just poking around on the racial issue, trying to stir something up. People seem scared shitless by it.

I think we need to approach this issue sensibly. No question that scientific enquiry should be hindered by politics, or that we should only accept "nice" theories. However, we should be sensitive.People should rightly be worried about presenting theories about race - because of the harm that racism causes. Therefore they need to proceed with extra caution.

We are emotional humans. Scientific enquiry cannot just proceed robotically and scientists express surprise with, or dismiss, emotional reactions.

1288. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115399 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 6:44 am

al-rawandi,
indeed it would explain the success of some peoples over others, of course.

As does Guns, Germs and Steel

1289. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115362 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 5:15 am

Also, there have been some serious misquotes of Darwin, that have often been used by creationists. Like this:

"To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

But anyone who knows about the contents of The Origin of Species would know that this is followed by:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Knowledge of what Darwin actually said is useful.

Oh, I fully agree. However, I would rather argue along different lines: it shouldn't matter what Darwin said. The creationist wants to state that the eye could not have formed naturally. We just patiently explain how it can. Whether Darwin said this or that should be moot.

As to the article above. I'm just not sure how to respond. Its depressing. The guy is either ignorant of every statement made by evolutionary biologists concerning social darwinism, or is deliberately spreading misinformation.

1290. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115352 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 4:38 am

Many of Darwin's ideas are quite subtle, and so much of what he said is misunderstood and misquoted. If we are going to deal with religious people who are have well-rehearsed arguments about what it is necessary for God to have done to make the universe, life, and us, surely we need to know the arguments to counter them.

I'm uncomfortable with the implication here: On The Origin of Species is not an atheist bible. You can read and understand Natural Selection and a whole host of other rational scientific arguments against theism without reading a 150 year old book. After all science progreses and our understanding of evolution is constantly being updated.

Sure, OTOOS (so I'm told) is a good read from a historical perspective and also because of Darwin's use of language. It may also have some interesting detail around the edges, not repeated in later books, but are you really suggesting that we couldn't gain enough understanding through Dawkins, Wilson, Steve Jones, and others working today?

I've ever read Principia Mathematica (its a tough read, no?), but don't think my understanding of Newton's Laws has suffered as a result.

EDIT: Some of that sounded a bit dismissive of OTOOS, which was far from my intention. I hope my point remains clear.

1291. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115336 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 3:23 am

I'm kinda with Nefrubyr here. You don't have to have read this or that book to hold views on, or discuss, theism on this site. I haven't read Darwin, but have enough of an idea of his writings from school, other books and elsewhere.

I will say though that reading "The Blind Watchmaker" is extremely useful for debating and getting things clear in your head. Not only that, it is a wonderfully fascinating book and a highly enjoyable read.

I realised I hadn't fully understood evolution at all before I read it.

1292. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114885 by Peacebeuponme on January 23, 2008 at 5:47 am

The few Pat Condell videos I've seen have not been particularly funny or stimulating. I inagine he'd be a good ally in a pub debate, but I wouldn't pay to see his stand-up, and wouldn't want him behind a lectern against D'Souza or Francis Collins.

1293. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #114849 by Peacebeuponme on January 23, 2008 at 3:18 am

I would say that The One Ring exists in some sense - as part of a story. I think...

Somebody may own a weapon in World of Warcraft. That could be referred to as a "thing" even though it doesn't exist in the physica sense.

I await for Steve, MPhil and Epeeist maybe to sort this out for me!

1294. This Week's Flea

Comment #114198 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Taken to extreme, the best proof of God's existence would be him not existing at all, and the truest version of the bible would consist of blank pages, where anyone could write what they like.

Brilliantly put, again Steve.

1295. This Week's Flea

Comment #114184 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 1:49 pm

we simply haven't gone into it enough, or we get the wrong end of the stick

Haven't gone into the world's most read book despite having best part of 2,000 years!

ADH - its just sheer speculation, and should not be the basis of a worldview, laws or rational enquiry. Can you not see that?

1296. Gay Jesus play blasted by bishop

Comment #114167 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 1:28 pm

It's historical nonsense

Reminds me of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who said when The Da Vinci Code came out:

"There's a real danger people will believe this fairy story".

1297. This Week's Flea

Comment #114159 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Because I accept and have confidence in the Bible as a truthful reflection of the character of God.

The Bible is known to contain many historical and factual errors (pi does not equal 3). It contradicts itself in various places. It is not a good reference source in this regard.

Also, people interpret the bible in many difference ways.

1298. This Week's Flea

Comment #114126 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm

God's not interested in getting people to believe in his existence, but to love him with all their "hearts minds and souls".

How do you know?

1299. This Week's Flea

Comment #114023 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 8:19 am

Actually, Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons would never submit himself to our agenda. It is foolish to look for evidence of the existence of the planet Cybertron. We shoud just pray that Rodimus Prime's Autobots win out in the struggle.

1300. This Week's Flea

Comment #114017 by Peacebeuponme on January 21, 2008 at 8:15 am

I still think Steve is letting theists get away with something a little bit:

Theism is a belief and does make claims that require proof.

Atheism is not a belief and does no such thing. You don't have to arrive at it after studying evidence (though once confronted with the God hypothesis, a little study should lead you to affirm it), it is a default position. Babies are atheist.