101. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58993 by Hobbit on July 26, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Dr Benway, it's not the "Torah", it's the "Jewish Bible", as opposed to the "Regular Bible" (sounds like something they sell in McSpew - "Would you like Jewish Fries, Regular Fries or for an extra $1 you can super size it to Koran Fries").

102. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58989 by Hobbit on July 26, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Another hypocritical faith head!

He accuses RD of endorsing everything written on this forum. However, the below was taken directly from the Righteous Response Squad Ministries terms and conditions when you register for their forum.

Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner.

I pretty sure RD's site has a very similar policy when you register. He seems to have overlooked that small fact.

RD, as our leader, how do you want us to respond to this abomination? Shall we burn another Bible or just send the witches over to curse them.

103. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #58981 by Hobbit on July 26, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Like I said on another thread "Everything's bigger in Texas (including stupidity)".

I wonder how this stat will be affected now that the Governor has appointed a creationist to be in charge of education?

104. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58936 by Hobbit on July 26, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Thanks Goldy.

My wife went to a faith based school and she seems pretty normal (he says with tongue placed firmly in his cheek).

105. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58909 by Hobbit on July 26, 2007 at 4:16 pm

It is interesting that the topic of education came up. Just last night my wife and I were discussing the choice of our children's high school (although they will not be starting it for another 7 years).

If possible we would like to send them to a private school. Although the public system in Australia is very good (I went through it myself), we feel that it is under resourced and currently it is almost impossible for them to remove poor teachers.

The problem we face is that almost all private schools in Australia are faith based (this is mainly due to the tax free status religious bodies enjoy).

Although I am a devout atheist (no need to point out the oxymoron) and my wife is not religious at all, I am very keen not to push my views onto my children. I want them to explore these things for themselves, ask questions and come up with their own conclusions. This is not to say that I will not let them know of my views when they ask, but I will try to tell them in such a way as to ensure that they know it is my personal view and I don't expect them to share it.

Our discussions are on going but no decision has been made yet.

I welcome your thoughts and experience on the matter.

106. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58904 by Hobbit on July 26, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Fides wrote:

Going to have to leave this thread now as I can't follow it all and I know that you can't understand faith if you can't understand faith.

Another faith head runs away when the answers aren't what they wanted and the questions became too hard to answer and too many to ignore! So now he just hides behind the old delusion of "Well I believe in God and if you can't understand that God is real I'll just take my book of fiction and find someone else to try and convert".

I'm not surprised you couldn't follow this thread, you kept ignoring most of the answers to your questions and tied yourself in knots arguing that god is real because my 4 year old prays to him.

So many of the comments and points made on this thread have been excellent. I have especially liked those made by the_assayer, Elli, Goldy, Billy Sands (as always) and Veronique. Mabye Fides would do well to go back and read them all again slowly and carefully.

Not surprised at all about the developments in Texas! Everything's bigger in Texas (including the stupidity)!

107. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58683 by Hobbit on July 25, 2007 at 6:42 pm

fides_et_ratio wrote:

'Mr. Dawkins difficulty in all this is that one of his arguments is that faith is childish. If this is true then it follows that children can have faith, therefore it is not only not wicked but right to label a child as having faith if he demonstrates a tendency towards the things of faith, as my son does when he prays.

The only way I can make sense of Mr. Dawkins inconsistencies is to conclude that he doesn't understand faith.'

I think your right, RD doesn't understand faith (and neither do many us). It's childish! I can't speak for RD, but I honestly can't understand why seemingly intelligent people have this unquestioning belief in the sky fairy and allow others to tell them how they must think and run their lives.

If you want to call your son's imitation of you praying 'faith', go ahead. If he still believes in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny when he's 25, will you call that faith or delusion? I personally am of the opinion that belief in an invisible being that controls everything is the same as believing in Santa at the age of 25 when all evidence points to the contrary.

Like many theists, you are arguing semantics to prove that god exists while ignoring mountains of evidence to show you the contrary - "Look, my 4 year old prays without being asked to, therefore god exists". When it is pointed out to you that all children imitate what they see around them as a way of learning, you choose to ignore this.

You claim that because your 4 year old prays without prompting, he is a child of faith. Let me ask you this. If your child comes home from school and tells you that god doesn't really exist (because one of his friends told him it was silly to pray to make believe people) will you correct his position back to your own view of faith or now label him an atheist and let him continue on his merry way?

The second you correct him back to your religious beliefs and not allow him to make that choice for himself, you are practicing religious indoctrination.

108. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58465 by Hobbit on July 25, 2007 at 12:57 am

fides, I think you need to do a little research into child psychology (although I am no expert).

Children copy what they see around them as a way learning and understanding what is going on (which is why early development teachers use play as a learning tool).

You can't tell me that your son did not start praying all by himself without seeing the adults / older children in his life do it as well. Ask yourself if the first time you saw him doing this, did you yell at / punish him or did you praise / hug him?

If he had rolled out a prayer mat, taken off his shoes, washed, faced Mecca and kneeled down to pray to Allah five times a day (or performed a corrobaree in the yard) without ever seeing it done before, then you might have a case.

My kids and their male cousin dress up and play school without coercion. They also play mummies and daddies with their dolls (which includes breast feeding) because this is what they see in their life. It's how kids learn.

I think you are getting caught up on the word wicked. The child being described as polite or Christian does not reflect on the child but on the parents.

Let's say that, instead of teaching your child to say please and thank you, they were rewarded for yelling out "You're a filthy dirty Nigger" every time they saw a person of colour. Do you think the 4 year old child or the parents would be labeled a racist? Do you think this child would grow up with a respect for people of colour?

Religious indoctrination is no different.

109. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #58442 by Hobbit on July 24, 2007 at 8:49 pm

BN2 I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you wrote, but that all seemed like a very long winded and convoluted way of saying "I don't understand everything and until science can provide me with all the answers - GOD DID IT!"

I'm not sure I understand what your position actually is. You seem to believe in a supreme being that doesn't actually do anything. Does it have a name (Bob maybe)?

If your creator started the universe, do they have an end planned like all other religions?

110. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57979 by Hobbit on July 22, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Another thing I cam across last week that made me smile.

The new Harry Potter movie was recently released in Australia. It came with a PG (Parental Guidance) rating due to "Supernatural Themes" (as did all the others).

The next day in the paper, someone wrote in to ask if religious movies (such as the Ten Commandments) were also subject to a PG rating due to "Supernatural Themes".

So far, no response from the classification office that I have found.

111. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57972 by Hobbit on July 22, 2007 at 5:42 pm

What happened to the God Squad? They don't seem to turn up any more.

Are they off somewhere licking their wounds and praying for our souls?

It's less fun without them (although that is not to say that I don't enjoy the intellectual banter on this site).

Maybe we should go onto faith head sites and start asking them difficult questions. Any one got any good links I can try? We can invite them over to our place as well why we are there.

Who's with me?

112. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57550 by Hobbit on July 19, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Is it just me or do faith heads only hear / read every 4th sentence?

They love to ignore large amounts of reasonable arguments and go off on a bizarre tangent. And if they do choose to respond to overwhelming evidence, it is usually "The Sky Fairy is all powerful and can change the rules, himself, the meaning of his word at will and until you understand this you will never get it."

There is a bumper sticker I see often that states "God said it, I believe it, end of argument". Not it's not! It is simply closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not listening..." over and over again until the rational person walks away.

I agree with scooternyc when he says:

It's stupid – all of it.

Every chance I get to say so, I do so. I refuse to listen to this tripe spewed onto our society any longer without contempt and accountability.

"Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" – if you've got, bring it.

We're waiting.

I have started doing this myself.

Why do I torture myself!

113. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56480 by Hobbit on July 16, 2007 at 1:26 am

NormanDoering

Speaking of sick jokes we'd like to see outgrown by humanity... I'm having a little contest over at my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

Can you find a blogger that is more of an ignorant twit, more delusional, more lied to, more of pathetic excuse for a thinking human being than Tristan J. Shuddery?

Surely Shuddery's blog is a joke, much along the lines of Borat? I read it yesterday and couldn't stop laughing.

Tell me it's a joke!

114. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56478 by Hobbit on July 16, 2007 at 1:14 am

CHWWer wrote:

Thank you. We learned our debating skills from the Trinity.<

Firstly, that wasn't a compliment. Secondly, perhaps you should try another teacher for your debating skills.

If you want the truth about Hitchens visit The Watch:

http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/

We only worship The Watch at our humble site.

http://christopherhitchenswatchwatch.wordpress.com/

I checked out both your links. Not much sense there either.

Why don't you post your arguments here and watch them get shot down time and time again!

115. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55986 by Hobbit on July 13, 2007 at 5:15 am

CHWWer:

It is beyond us how so many can be so beholden to Christopher "Hitchens." He is the ENEMY of the world, and only the Trinity of the Hitchens Watch can save us.

Shame on you all.

Errh... What!

That was a very concise argument. Who is the 'us' you refer to?

Does it take three of you to read with your lips moving & then type that very insightful rebuttal of the article?

116. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55968 by Hobbit on July 13, 2007 at 4:03 am

P.S. Would there be any chance that people stopped posting a comment just because they think they're going to be the first to do so? This isn't the first article with a tiresome "Ooh, ooh - I'm the first to comment!".

Sorry! (Hangs head in shame). (:o(

I was being the smallest bit facetious? But ended up looking like a Pratt (I am well versed at that).

You have to admit, it gives you a little bit of a thrill to be the first to make your mark on something - leave footprints in the first snowfall of the season (never actually done that living in Australia and all), a new fence to graffiti (never done that either). I really am a sad Pratt.

Maybe it's because I'm not filled with the spirit of the teapot that I need to find fulfillment elsewhere.

It won't happen again.

117. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55927 by Hobbit on July 13, 2007 at 12:13 am

I started to ask questions, my most recent being
What is the basis of the moral authority with which an individual can question society's norms, rules, laws, traditions etc.?


This last one never was answered.

Freedom of thought! Religion does not allow this!

118. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55902 by Hobbit on July 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Beaten by that much....

D'oh!

119. Transcending God: An interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55901 by Hobbit on July 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm

I have not finished reading this interview yet (still at work) but I did want to be the first to comment (for no particular reason - just because it makes me warm and fuzzy) I also have not read this book yet, so I don't want to make any comments about it.

Of what I have read so far, I like this the best:

I think we can say with reasonable certainty that there is no God because all the hypotheses for it have been exploded or abandoned. We have better explanations for the things religion used to try and explain. But we can't disprove the existence of a deity. So if someone says, "Well, I just feel the presence of a strong force"—well, okay. I sort of know what they're going through. As long as they don't try to teach it to my children, or get the law changed to suit their opinion, or blow themselves up at the airport.

I've learned a lot from doing the tour, because I've had a debate with some religious person at every stop. What I haven't had from anyone, in print or in person, is any argument that surprised me, that I couldn't have completely predicted.

Couldn't agree more!

Maybe if the god squad could just understand that first paragraph, they would relise why many atheist's get so frustrated with them.

I have only been on this site for about a month and I have noticed that when the god squad turn up, they always come up with the same arguments. Will this thread be any different?

As for "Well, I just feel the presence of a strong force". So do I at times, usually when I get to spend 'special time' with my wife.

Looking forward to another intellectual thread.

120. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55735 by Hobbit on July 12, 2007 at 5:58 am

Paul,

Thank you for the reference on fetal pain. I can see that you have done a little research on this. But as I wrote (please note I corrected a typing mistake) I have never seen a D&C without an anesthetic. So not sure what your point was here.

Still waiting for the source on brain dead patients feeling pain.

That's ludicrous! That implies that you can't criticise the laws and norms of your society because by definition if you don't agree with them you are wrong! You surely must be appealing to a different source of moral authority if you want to say that our laws or norms are wrong.

Again, you are showing and commenting on quotes out of context (you will see that I have shown your entire paragraph).

I never said I couldn't disagree with the law. I was responding to your claim that I had no basis of condemning others as immoral.

Actually, because (like you) I am lucky enough to live in a liberal democracy, I am able to not only criticise the law, but to challenge it in the courts. If I am still unhappy with the law, I can lobby parliament or even try to get myself elected to it.

Or I can start a movement for change. As an example of this just look at the rise of the environmental movement over the past decade. They have bought about massive changes in political policy right around the world (even atheist China).

Change in morals has been bought about in a myriad of different ways through out history, e.g. social disobedience, war, gentle persuasion etc. These changes include slavery going from being accepted (as it commands in the bible) to being unacceptable.

I think this can happen when you see marriage as a contract. I see it as a much deeper commitment, and it is not because I'm scared of God. My belief in God means I believe that a deeper level of commitment is possible. If your wife was left severely disabled by illness or accident, possibly even with her personality slipping away, would you maintain your commitment on the basis of the agreement you made with her? If you truly would, I am very impressed at the level of commitment you are able to invest into what was nothing more than a mutual agreement.

So what you are asking is, if my wife became disabled, would I up and leave? No! Not at all. As I said before, I made my commitment to her and no one else. I don't need an invisible person in the sky to make me hang around and if you do your a shallow prick!

I think Goldy knocked out your argument very nicely.

You keep saying that only with god can you have a deep commitment to another person. Rubbish.

Even Corylus (who urged everyone to play nicely with you) seems to be losing patience with you.

Also, I will not refer to the invisible spirit that writes on peoples' hearts as "your beliefs about God" because you have stated "I only believe in one God, so Jews, Muslims and Christians, as well as Sikhs, Hindus and many others, can't be referring to a 'different god'."

I am now moving on to new threads (mainly the one I mentioned before). I will look back in to see if you end up answering all the questions posted and supply the sources for your arguments.

121. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55668 by Hobbit on July 12, 2007 at 12:25 am

Paul, 1 last bone before I depart.

You wrote:

Can I ask you a question. Given the evidence that suggests foetuses feel pain, would you recommend anaesthetics during abortions? There are also many medical professionals who believe that it is possible to experience pain when someone has been kept alive in order to donate organs. Would you give them pain relief? Please explain WHY.

I have witnessed many D&C procedures through my work. I have never seen one done without an anasthetic. It would be cruel to subject the patient to pain and discomfort during the procedure (sometimes they need to use cautery).

To what evidence do you refer? Quote your source. Is it the usual right wing christian science that is easily pulled apart in reputable peer reviewed medical journals?

When it comes to keeping people alive for organ donation (this will require a respirator at the very least), my understanding is that the patient is subjected to a barrage of tests to confirm that they are brain dead.

If a patient is terminally injured through trauma but not technically brain dead, pain relief and other measures are used to insure that they do not suffer.

Who are these medical professionals that 'believe' it is possible these patients experience pain. Again quote a source or paper. Don't just rely on "You know, THEY say that..."

I am not disputing the possibility that these patients feel pain, but medical science (yes it's a science) doesn't do very well on 'believe'. It likes proof. This has not always been done ethically (the Nazi's, to quote your favourite example of atheist evil even though it was founded on christian beliefs).

You and the other faith heads have lost all the arguments posted on this thread (I know you will dispute this so don't bother responding to it, just tell yourself Jesus still loves us all). You have constantly tried to change the subject from the original debate (Behe's 'ID really is science') to the usual religious fall back positions (you can't have morals without god etc).

I suggest you now move over to the "Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson | by Christianity Today".

Lots of moral arguments for you lose over there.

122. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55632 by Hobbit on July 11, 2007 at 6:59 pm

Paul, Paul, Paul...

Oh Dear!

You were doing so well and now you are painting yourself into a very small corner.

You seem to have retreated into that old chestnut "Only my god is the true god, only those who believe in him are moral. Don't ask hard questions but have blind faith - Heathens, etc".

Not sure what 'set down by' means. As I said before, I only believe in one God, so Jews, Muslims and Christians, as well as Sikhs, Hindus and many others, can't be referring to a 'different god'. They may have different beliefs about God, for example that there are hundreds of millions of manifestations of God in Hinduism, but I don't believe there are hundreds of deities floating around in a non-physical reality.

So, all these other faiths are really following your god, they just don't realise it (I wonder if they will agree with you on that point).

As I thought I explained, Jihad contradicts principles such as 'Protect and preserve the innocent' which I believe are moral absolutes that form part of God's moral law. This is not "As written by Moses" but, if you'll allow poetic license, "As written by God on the hearts of mankind" or "As written into nature".

So by that logic and if, as you say, all morals come from god, then Jihad is moral because Muslims are only following what god has written on their hearts. But that contradicts your other statement that Jihad is not moral because it goes against the "principles such as 'Protect and preserve the innocent' which I believe are moral absolutes that form part of God's moral law." You are going around in circles after your own tail here.

I think my point was that YOU cannot condemn anyone as being immoral. What I was saying was that unless there is an objective standard, there simply aren't immoral people.

You're wrong, actually I CAN condemn people for being immoral. It's called the law, the jury system and societies accepted norms. I am part of that society and voted in or out the leaders that helped make and change those laws. I also get to vote in or out the leaders who want to war with others over moral issues.

Apparently YOU can't condemn anyone that is not a Christian as being immoral because as you say gods moral code is not written down but "As written by God on the hearts of mankind". So what's written in my heart is obviously different to what's written in your heart or a suicide bomber's heart. What a nonsensical argument you have made with this.

Then you go on to say:

By the way, most of my Christian friends, and the Christian books I have read, are clear that Jesus died for everyone, not just 'Christians' (there were no Christians when Jesus walked the Earth). When people say that Jesus is the only way to salvation, they are saying that without redemption we are not reconciled to God. It is not the same as saying "Jews will not go to Heaven" - Jesus was a Jew for a start!

So it doesn't matter what you do, Jesus died for everyone (Back to the old chestnut). Keep carrying on as normal everyone!

Are you asking how I would behave if I believed there was no God? I hope I would continue to be consistent in my thinking, which would mean a radical change as there would be no basis for objective morality. I would search for a meaning in life, and might conclude that the survival of my genes was the closest thing. My commitment to my wife would be less firm. We made a promise before God, but that would mean nothing. Despite what you may say about contracts, what reason would I have to keep the contract if it no longer suited me? Particularly if I could find someone else who could have more children and continue my genes?

You keep claiming that without god, there can be no objective morality. You are completely ignoring the evidence that refutes this. You say that Buddhist's are really atheists, yet they seem capable of following a moral code.

Even if you argue that these are really subjective morals, you keep implying that you follow god's objective morals (these are the ones that are not written down but written on the hearts of mankind). If your objective moral code is the one written on your heart, isn't your interpretation of that writing subjective? This totally blows your argument out of the water that without god there is no objective morality.

I have a firm commitment to my wife because I made it with her and no one else.

Have you told your wife that the only reason you hang around her is because you don't want to piss off god and if someone can convince you that he really doesn't exist, up you'll be out the door stealing music and generally causing havoc before she could whistle Dixie!

So let's get your position correct. You say you are a Christian but don't believe in a Christian god! You believe what is written in the new testament but not the violent sexist bits! You think people going to hell for not having heard the word of god, because he doesn't communicate with us very clearly (are you questioning the wisdom and power of the almighty), is wrong and the list goes on and on as to the way you have been only taking the bits of Christianity that are warm and fuzzy and ignoring the yucky bits.

Again, have you made this known to the Christian community you interact with? Have you tried to get others in that community to see things your way when they take the bible literally? If not, why not? You could start a whole new branch of Christianity based solely on warm and fuzzy.

My head is starting to hurt!

123. A force for good?

Comment #55401 by Hobbit on July 11, 2007 at 2:54 am

pewkatchoo

It was definitely a compliment.

I notice that the god squad has not come in yet to defend this dribble. Shame, I was looking forward to see how they would contort themselves into knots again to prove that good can only come from religious doctrine.

124. A force for good?

Comment #55388 by Hobbit on July 11, 2007 at 12:48 am

WOW. This guy really pulled his pants down, turned round, bent over and said "give it to me" with this article.

There is no need for me to add any further criticisms to what he has to say (it would be like kicking him in the nads while he's down just for good measure).

I have been laughing out so loud from the responses (especially 25. Comment #55110 by pewkatchoo) that I have tears streaming down my face. People keep coming into my office to see if I'm alright.

If only the faithful could see the silliness in these arguments.....sigh!

125. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55357 by Hobbit on July 10, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Paul, another curly one for you (and anyone else who is interested).

In response to the question below, you wrote:

"Would you deny morphine to a dying soldier with no hope, because suffering is "essential"?"

On your world view, why waste morphine on someone who will soon be dead? They won't remember their suffering, so what difference will it make? And yes, that does then apply to all cases of suffering. If we all wind up dead anyway, what difference does it make? Why do anything?

What if it wasn't 1 dying soldier but 2 (a Christian and an Atheist). You have only enough morphine for 1 solider. Which do you choose? Do you leave them both to suffer (1 will soon meet God and be filled with a sense of peace, fulfillment and love whilst the other will soon feel nothing). Do you use a gun to euthanise them both and save the morphine for another soldier that may be wounded but will live?

How would a Muslim respond (assuming the non atheist was a muslim instead of a christian)? What about a Jew, a Budhist, a Druid etc.

Very difficult moral questions indeed! Where did god write the answers to these?

126. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55347 by Hobbit on July 10, 2007 at 5:34 pm

PaulEmecz wrote:

I did say in 126 that I am a Christian. However, it is misleading to say I believe in a Christian God. It's like asking you which universe you believe in - a Newtonian one, or a quantum mechanics universe.

Aren't you hedging your bets out of self interest? You want to be a Christian without believing in a Christian God! You claim that people of faith (and let's face it, it seems you are only referring to people of Judeo / Christian faith where as I am referring to followers of all faiths) follow the morals, as set out by their god, for purely selfless reasons.

I must strongly disagree. I would argue that they are doing it out of entirely selfish reasons, that being to get themselves into heaven (whether they are prepared to admit it or not).

Why else would I get people constantly knocking on my door to tell me about how there is only 144,607 (or what ever the number is) places in heaven and the more people they convert, the better their chances of getting one of those places. You would have thought they would be encouraging others to leave the faith!

Why else would someone strap explosives to their bodies with the intention of killing themselves and others if it was not for the selfish intent of getting themselves into heaven with 72 virgins waiting for them?

How often do we hear Christian leaders encourage their followers to better serve their god in order to get into heaven.

Apparently God only wants the selfish with him! The devil gets the rest!

Buddhist meditate for years on end to get themselves into Nirvana. Hindus make sacrifices and burn incense to their various gods in order to be reincarnated at a higher level.

I don't believe in a particular view of the universe, mainly because I don't fully understand the science as it is not my field. I will listen to good science as it unravels the mystery and change my view if presented with peer reviewed data. That's why science often refers to these things as theories. Can the same be said of the various faiths? Usually it's "my faith is absolutely right and yours is absolutely wrong"!

I'm sorry about the slavery issue, but sadly it isn't about what you say. Clearly you personally are against slavery, but if your argument is that morals come from what society does or doesn't approve of, you are saying that when slavery was approved of by society, it was okay. To condemn slavery, you have to have a different view of what makes one thing right and another thing wrong.

Again, I feel you have misunderstood my point and taken me out of context.

Yes, I am against slavery because that is how I was raised by my parents and the society I live in. However, if I lived in the 1700's for example (or ancient Rome / Greece for that matter) it is more than likely that I would not find slavery immoral. It has nothing to do with a set of rules mysteriously send down by an unseen and unheard being. Although if I followed the Bible, which as a Christian you are bound to do if you want to go to heaven, slavery is not only moral, it is ordered by god - Leviticus 25:44-46.

Again back to the rest of the original questions. You have chosen to only answer part of the questions.

"If it is a Christian god, which brand? Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Branch Davidian? Which splinter group of each of these?"

You claim that all Christian Judean gods are the same and therefore the moral code must come from the same place. But each of these branches of the same god have a different moral code associated with their society. Catholics are not allowed to use birth control, protestants are. Mormons'' can have multiple wives, others can't.

Each of these groups believe that their version of god's moral code is the right one. How can you continue to believe that our moral code comes from one almighty being when all the people that also believe him can't agree what it is. Doesn't this prove that society, upbringing etc. has more to do with one's moral compass than an invisible being?

If you still insist that everyone's moral compass is set by your god, please answer the following from my original set of questions.

"Why is your god's form of morals superior to other others? Is Jihad moral, If not why not? Many believers of Islam feel this is not only moral but their duty to god. Is it moral to have more than 1 wife? Some Mormons and Islamist believe it is? Are they immoral for following what God authored?"

"Please explain why your moral code is right and the believers of other faiths are wrong. Isn't this why we keep having religious wars? Killing each other over morals doesn't sound very moral."

You partially answered the Jihad question with the following:

That's like asking 'Is war moral?' I think the Just War criteria are a pretty good general set of principles for deciding on the ethics of any particular war. These criteria do not support going to war 'on principle' - there has to be the intention to improve things. Jihad, as I understand it, allows people to fight unwinnable wars, which goes against these criteria.

Are those that practice Jihad not following the moral code as set down by god (many argue that Muslims, Jews and Christians all follow the same god)?

This gets back to the point that morals come from our upbringing, our society and our life experiences. As many other people have written here, morals can be explained through evolution. As social beings (such as baboons, ants, elephants, lions and countless other examples) it is in our best interests to look after each other and follow the rules as set down by that society. This is not to say that some individuals (or groups of individuals) will not operate outside those rules. But as with the other examples given, those that operate outside the rules will be shunned by that society and their chances of survival or of passing on their genes is greatly reduced.

Let me ask you, how often do you (or any one else for that matter) go to church and publicly disagree with the minister? Do you get up in the middle of his sermon and proclaim at the top of your voice to all in attendance "Although I am a Christian, I do not believe in a Christian God. I think a lot of what you are saying is utter bollocks". I would argue that you probably don't do this because it would be considered rude and their is a good chance you will be shunned by that particular society.

Where is it written that you don't do this? No where. You instinctively know not to do this because of your upbringing and societies unwritten rules. Morals are no different.

Over time these rules (read morals) change and evolve just like everything else.

I apologise for the length of my posts, but I don't get many opportunities to respond so I need to get all my thoughts out at once.

127. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55041 by Hobbit on July 9, 2007 at 8:49 pm

PaulEmecz wrote:

Hobbit made some comments (71.) and then quoted Ghandi. Ghandi was a very spiritual person, and I don't think that quoting his wisdom works against me in my argument that a purely physical world, that will come to an end, cannot have morality.

Hobbit said:

200 years ago many people felt that slavery was OK.


Sadly, according to some of the people on this thread, this amounts to the same as saying "200 years ago slavery was OK". I believe that, even then, it was not.

1stly to the latter response. I am glad you feel slavery is immoral.

Unfortunately I feel that your response missed the point I was trying to make (I apologise if I in return have misunderstood your point). I don't believe that my statement on slavery (which I feel was taken completely out of context) can be made to say that it was OK 200 years ago. In fact I will put the full quote here:

"If you believe that something is immoral, then stand up for your beliefs and try to change things. 200 years ago many people felt that slavery was OK. Many even used the bible to justify their position."

I also used the example of apartheid / racism and stem cell research.

The point was that there are many examples of people using their religious beliefs to justify a particular point of view or actions. By using these examples I was attempting to show that morals can exist without God.

You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Mahatma Gandhi

2ndly, I used this quote from Gandhi to counter several arguments on this thread sighting examples such as Nazi's, toddler killers etc. as proof that morality only exist because of God.

My understanding of this quote is that although there are immoral people amongst us, we cannot condemn all humanity as being immoral.

You have I noticed neglected to answer my other questions from comment 115, so I will repeat them.

"To which god's morality do you refer? Vishnu, Brahman, Allah, Bob, The Rainbow Serpent, Jehovah, The Elfin Queen? Be specific. If it is a Christian god, which brand? Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Branch Davidian? Which splinter group of each of these?

Why is your god's form of morals superior to other others? Is Jihad moral, If not why not? Many believers of Islam feel this is not only moral but their duty to god. Is it moral to have more than 1 wife? Some Mormons and Islamist believe it is? Are they immoral for following what God authored?

Please explain why your moral code is right and the believers of other faiths are wrong. Isn't this why we keep having religious wars? Killing each other over morals doesn't sound very moral."

I will agree with Corylus that it is important that we encourage posts from believers of all faiths.

I do enjoy reading your views and I can see that you put a lot of thought into your responses.

128. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54226 by Hobbit on July 6, 2007 at 4:30 am

PaulEmecz wrote: "I believe that God designed the universe, and is the author of morality, and that sometimes if I search my conscience I find that the right thing is different from the pragmatic approach."

To which god's morality do you refer? Vishnu, Brahman, Allah, Bob, The Rainbow Serpent, Jehovah, The Elfin Queen? Be specific. If it is a Christian god, which brand? Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Branch Davidian? Which splinter group of each of these?

Why is your god's form of morals superior to other others? Is Jihad moral, If not why not? Many believers of Islam feel this is not only moral but their duty to god. Is it moral to have more than 1 wife? Some Mormons and Islamist believe it is? Are they immoral for following what God authored?

Please explain why your moral code is right and the believers of other faiths are wrong. Isn't this why we keep having religious wars? Killing each other over morals doesn't sound very moral.

Surely your morals are derived from many factors (where you happened to be born, faith of parent's, life experiences etc.

Atheists don't claim to have a monopoly on morals. Can the same be said of the leaders and a large majority of the followers of faith?

129. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54159 by Hobbit on July 5, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Bizarro Dawkins wrote:

"Chihuahuas are certainly not as healthy as wolves, nor are they better suited for survival in harsh environments. St. Bernard's may be larger than wolves, but they are extremely susceptible to hip dysplasia as well as a host of other health issues. I believe you are oversimplifying the issue by crudely equivocating mere difference with positive change.

If anything, the different dog breeds are excellent examples of the often destructive power of mutations. Granted, domestic dogs may not be subject to natural selection given the obvious factor of human interference"

Several points here (many have already been covered by better qualified contributors than I, but if I can figure out these obvious flaws, well.....).

Firstly to the last sentence. Since when have humans been removed from nature and hence natural selection? What an arrogant view of our place in the universe! We are simply 1 type organism among millions (or perhaps billions) residing on this planet. We happen to be very successful in our particular niche and therefore have immense influence over our environment.

There are many examples of species that are fully dependant on another species for survival and have evolved to fill a very specialised role within their particular environment. The fossil record (indeed the list of extinctions over the past 200 - 300 years) is full of examples of super specialised species that have died out as a result of changes to their environment. This has often resulted in a domino effect as other species that were dependant on the other one for survival suffered the same fate.

Humans have certainly played their part in bringing many of these species down as they change the environment to suit their own particular need to the detriment of others. Often this has been to the benefit of other species. For example, some will argue that wheat has benefited over other wild grasses due to the fact the humans discovered how to cultivate it and were able to change the environment to better suit its growth. Who is manipulating who here? Some species of ant will viciously defend a particular type of tree that they feed off to the benefit of the tree.

Now to the first paragraph quoted above. Domestic dogs (or any other domesticated species) have benefited from human influences in their environment. Whilst their genes are constantly being reproduced, their much more 'healthy' cousins the wolves have been declining in the 'harsh' conditions of the wild due to human influences on their environment. Does this mean wolves "may not be subject to natural selection given the obvious factor of human interference"?

True, Chihuahuas are certainly not suited for survival in harsh environments. The problem with this argument is that Chihuahuas DON'T live in harsh environments! They live in their own environment, i.e. with mostly middle to upper class humans who provide them with everything they need to survive (including the opportunity to pass on their genes to the next generation of small hairless ugly dogs).

As far as the theory of natural selection is concerned Chihuahuas are fit enough (i.e. healthy enough) to survive in their environment. If that environment changes (e.g. if Paris Hilton deems them no longer fashionable) then the Chihuahuas will either have to adapt / mutate / evolve to survive in the changed environment or go the way of the Dodo.

Natural selection does not care if the mutation is destructive, beneficial or benign.

Sorry, but your argument that domestic dogs "may not be subject to natural selection given the obvious factor of human interference" is quite frankly absurd and very poorly put. It shows a complete misunderstanding of how natural selection works!

You may not kill toddlers but you certainly sound like you are involved in their indoctrination into the belief of fairies, teapots, unicorns and scornful, vengeful gods that will send you somewhere really nasty for eternity if you have any form of free thought and don't do what the leader tells you, when he tells you and how he tells you, including flying planes into buildings, blowing yourself up to kill others, stoning people, start crusades, persecute gays, shoot abortionist, mutilating both male and female genitalia - need I go on.

Based on this, your quote - "Actually, in a Godless world ethics have no meaning or relevance in that morality implies choice." - sounds ridiculous. I would argue that it is in a world FULL of gods ethics have no meaning in that morality implies NO choice.

At this point I really want to make some very insulting remarks but you manage to insult yourself when you make stupid comments like this. It just shows that you are fighting a battle of wits with no ammunition (oops, an insult slipped through).

TWIT!

130. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53718 by Hobbit on July 2, 2007 at 9:23 pm

PaulEmecz wrote "I want to bring my (3) children up with the values of truth, justice, wisdom, and love. I don't view these virtues as having only subjective value, and I believe I detect in Dr Dawkins a respect for the quest of truth as well as other virtues. Is intellectual honesty really only subjectively valuable?

I am not ready to let go of objective values. Should I be?"

Everyone's moral compass is set slightly differently depending upon many factors (culture, up bringing, life experience etc.). Being an atheist does not mean we live in a moral vacuum.

The values that you want your children to to move into adulthood with are the same as I want for my own children. I choose however to allow my children to be able to think for themselves without someone filling their heads with contradictions, misinformation and guilt. By involving religion (of any type) in the mix this freedom of thought is removed as the followers must only believe what the leaders of that religion tell them is the truth (such as Jihad, ID or fairies).

If you beleive that something is immoral, then stand up for your beliefs and try to change things. 200 years ago many people felt that slavery was OK. Many even used the bible to justify their position.

As recently as the last 20 years an entire nation (a very religious one mind you) held the view that people of colour had to be segregated and treated as 2nd class. Many people in parts of the USA still think this way (KKK for example).

Many people think stem cell research is a bad idea (I am not of this of this view) for many different reasons (religious, scientific, enviromental etc). Are those that oppose this research for other than religious reasons any more or less moral?

I will leave you with 2 quotes:

You must be the change you want to see in the world.
Mahatma Gandhi

You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Mahatma Gandhi

131. What I Think About Evolution

Comment #46696 by Hobbit on June 1, 2007 at 7:20 am

Hi All,

One of the few problems with living down under is the time difference (there really aren't too many more down sides). By the time I get around to reading these articels, everyone else has covered all the points I would like to make.

But I am happy to contribute a few thoughts.

What a complete load of "Bollocks" from another teapot believer.

This a just another example of a politician trying to please all the people all the time with nonesence double speak.

"People of faith should be rational" - this is a complete Oxymoron. If you are a person of faith, by definition, you have abandoned rational thought.

"More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love." - The only reason that faith can understand the breadth of human suffering is because it is usually the cause of it (e.g. the middle east at any period in the last 2000 yrs you care to pick), all done in the name of love for their particular brand of teapot worship. If a loved one gets sick and doesn't get better, it's your / their fault for not having enough faith in the teapot.

The sad thing is that the religious right in the US lap this rubbish up.

Let's face it, if any US presidential candidate (right or left) happened to have an independant thought on the existence of Christ that differed in any way to that of the bible belt ministries, he / she would lose in a landside to any old teapot believer. That is why they all claim to know that the teapot is there (whether they actually believe it or not).

And they claim to be the most powerful nation on earth. Rational people of america, start knocking on doors like the Morman's. Start a TV / radio network to show the truth. Beat them at their own game.

Thank the fairies I live in Australia (although the teapot believers are getting stronger here using the same tactics employed by the US evangalists, unicorn help us).

132. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46330 by Hobbit on May 31, 2007 at 12:06 am

I forgot to ask something.

I'm new to this. How do I post a picture with my comments?

Can anyone help?

Also, please feel free to help me with posting etiquette if I get it wrong.

133. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46328 by Hobbit on May 31, 2007 at 12:03 am

Thanks for the feedback BaronOchs. Much appreciated.

epeeist, I not sure if it's Natural Stupidity, Natural Ignorance, Natural Pig Headednes or just a desire to purpetuate the powerbase of his / her own business interests (err I mean faith)!

Remember that people of faith don't want their spawn (or anyone else for that matter)to know any truth other than the one they aspouse. If they think on their own, they may take their money elsewhere!

As I now work in marketing, I understand the principle of brand loyalty. The earlier you can establish that loyalty the longer you are able to extract money from the faithful.

Creationism is just the latest attempt securing a new market with brand awareness.

Religion is the earliest form of a pyramid scheme. To be successful, all you need to do is get 10 people to buy your brand of faith. Then those 10 get another 10 people to buy your barand of faith and so on. Before you know it, you have a powerbase with a constant stream of money to support it. Remember the Amway slogan "Be your own best customer".

The major problem that is faced by the rational scientist is that we have no promotional give away at the end of the purchase (such as eternal life in fairyland with 7 Virgins blowing you while you contemplate Nirvana). All science offers is the search for truth and a guarantee of an open mind if presented with conflicting evidence.

The 2 most successful businesses in history have been the catholic church and the mafia (and some may argue that these 2 organisation are somehow linked).

Devolved and others like him/her are just trying to sell Amway.

134. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46271 by Hobbit on May 30, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Hello All,

This is my first entry into this forum. For the record I am a male in Australia with a science degree and I don't believe in the teapot.

I have been lured into giving my 2 cents worth by the mostly high quality debate and also by the nonesence being spouted by devolved (he truely did devolve - used to agree with evolution, now believes in the teapot, fairies, hobbits and the easter bunny simply because he can't disprove their existence).

I will not engage in a pointless excercise of trying to educate the uneducatable.

Lets not forget that it is not just the Christians in this boat. All religion and religious doctrine is about power. "The word of my god is the true word and yours is a lie. I have a book that proves it. If you do not believe in what I say you must be evil and I will send out the armies of my followers to smite you down".

Almost all people that follow a particular brand of faith do so, not because they have thought about it rationally, but because they have been indotrinated by the adults around them since birth. Where you are born and what faith your parents are will almost certainly determine which religous doctrine you believe in.

My 5 year old absolutey believes in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy (who came for the first time recently) because the adults in her life have told her they are true. They back this up with books on the subject. She is starting to question some of the belief's she holds because some of the texts contradict each other (the start of rational thought in practise). Instead of squashing this by putting fear in her (such as telling her that Santa, the Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy won't be good to her if she doesn't believe) we have decided to let her explore the rationality for herself. Would people of faith allow this or this doing the devil's work.

I am of the opinion that devolved and others are deliberatly clouding the argument with pointless semantics over 'evolution / devolution'. Darwin wrote about natural selection.

I am about to employ one of devoltion's favourite tactics, i.e. mine quote:

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Charles Darwin

We must, however, acknowledge as it seems to me, that a man with all his noble qualities...still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.
Charles Darwin

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
Galileo Galilei

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him.
Galileo Galilei


A closed mind is a good thing to lose.
Anonymous

No man deserves punishment for his thoughts.
Anonymous

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Napoleon Bonaparte

You do ill if you praise, but worse if you censure, what you do not understand.
Leonardo da Vinci

And my final quote, for everyone else, I have included as to why it is pointless to try to educate people of faith:


If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Bertrand Russell

Thanks for reading my little rant. I look forward to your respones.