101. 'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love'

Comment #178386 by phatbat on May 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

Absolutely disgusting.

Every culture will have people who are sick enough to kill their own daughter, but not many can lay claim to the friends, relatives, police, politicians, in-laws, neighbours and multitude or religious brothers and sisters of said sicko all agreeing that not only was it not a bad thing to do but that it was the right thing to do.

That, i'm not ashamed to say, is what puts people on this side of the issue on a much higher moral plain than the thousands (if not millions) on the other side.

Lets call a spade a spade people.

Lets see how many theists will come on here and try and point out how we've got that wrong.

I bet (or shall i say, i hope) not many.

102. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177108 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

So basically Christians don't really know what it is they believe in, but it's definately a something, but it's definately not knowable, but we think it hears our prayers, and we're pretty sure it sent it's son to earth, but it's definately beyond our comprehension.

So us silly atheists can't say we don't believe in god because they haven't even said what it is yet, and they never will.

Well we've been told.

103. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176813 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 5:36 am

71. Comment #176786 by MPhil

Agreed?

yes

I'm not saying religion will vanish completely - that reason "will win"... but it can get more foothold, and -as it does over and over again- get more people in its side.

Yeah - I think it's the whole social network playing a role in stopping reason breaking through. Most theists will feel a safety in numbers with regard to their unreasonable beliefs, which is understandable. If you take everyone else away and sperate them from the familiar i'm sure it would be an easier job to get them to be responsive to reason.

104. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176780 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 2:49 am

65. Comment #176775 by MPhil

I think then that we are agreeing - the santa clause example is not inate as you say, it is something that we were reasoned into by being told by your parents that santa will deliver presents in the night, and thus it happens. and there fore can be reasoned out of it by them telling you that they were making it all up all along.

I suppose you kind of arrive at the position of mind being something seperate to the body, but i think this is just because it does feel that way to most people and they haven't really thought about it much. Things like this just sneak in the back door un-noticed and it's only when you sit down and think about it and learn about the subject that reason sets you free.

Religious dogma does get specificaly taught to people in plain words and people just believe this stuff knowingly and consciously. It doesn't generaly sneak in the back door. It gets combined with a lot of emotional baggage that sometimes can't be seperated.

Some people however can be reasoned out of this stuff like a lot of people here i suppose. But it just depends on the individual's logical persuasion.

Maybe the phrase should be 'You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into unless you're very lucky'

105. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176771 by phatbat on May 8, 2008 at 2:04 am

55. Comment #176745 by MPhil

don't think that's a good phrase - because the answer isn't "you can't". For example, I did not come to the position that the mind is something other than the body or that there are objective moral values not through reason - but I abandoned them because of reason.
That's just one small demonstration - there are lots and lots more.

I see what you mean but I think you are talking about a different kind of position than that which that phrase is talking about.

I think what you are talking about are the assumptions that everyone makes without really either thinking about or even really acknowledging, like mind is something other than the body, etc. It is true that you can reason out of this position and many others. But i don't think that these are the positions the phrase is talking about.

When that phrase says '....weren't reasoned into' i think we just need to assume that it is a position that they actualy arrived at, having not had it before, as a result of something other than reason. I'm not sure you can say the same about mind as something other than the body, objective moral values, etc.

To say that homosexuals are all victims of paedophiles, as in the article, is not really in the same bracket as what you are talking about.

Although having said that i do think some people can be reasoned out of positions they weren't reasoned into, it is just not that many, and it's very very hard to do.

106. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174462 by phatbat on May 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm

17. Comment #174453 by Bizarro Dawkins

Yeah bizarro - it's different when god is getting brought up in a negative way isnt it.

It's just a sign of how sick a lot of people here are of all the piety that gets preached about god everytime anything really good/bad happens as if it's something to do with him. And what you see here is people bringing him up sarcasticly because you can bet your arse a theist will do the same to use it as an example of a miricle.

107. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174311 by phatbat on May 2, 2008 at 5:31 am

Re epeeist's link

Good god - that's unbelievable.

Do we take it from Ben stein now then that ID isn't really science after all? Since that would mean it could lead to murder just like all the rest of science.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard anyone say, shocking.

108. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174071 by phatbat on May 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Is there really such a thing as an atheist philosophy?

Is there enough in the definition to make a philosophy out of it?

109. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173304 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 3:28 pm

1820. Comment #173294 by TheTruthID

why not take a crack at dealing with this post i wrote to you the other day:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins,page32#170916

If we have direct evidence for some things evolving but just not every single link in the chain. are you suggesting that for just those gaps in the chain you think that somehow those individuals were just magic'd into existance in the manner mentioned in the above post?

110. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173265 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Thats good Carto, LOL.

I wish on these radio call-ins they would go back to the caller after the smack down, so we could hear them floundering. They'd probably come back with something like 'yeah...whatever....more like you are.....beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep'

next caller you're on....

111. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172923 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 7:08 am

351. Comment #172771 by clearmind Among others.

Wow - not one irony but 2.

Not only have you called yourself clearmind (which is ironic enough) but you go one better.

You seem to like saying that things that look designed always are. But your posts on this site have the appearance of not being designed while apparently actualy being designed by you.

Congratulations.

I have never read such a catalogue of posts by one person that i could believe could have just come about by chance.

Oh, and by the way, keep up the good work of making ID look bad. With you as an enemy, who needs friends. And the best thing is that the more you argue the better it is for us.

Oh and one more thing. Your acknowledgement or understanding of this is not a requirement for it to be effective.

Thanks again.

112. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172877 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 6:29 am

Anna,

Does that mean you and Al-rawandi are an item. I'm sorry if this is common knowledge.

Congrats if it is a new thing.

113. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172872 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am

Comment #172868 by seeker_of_truth

Can you or someone else here please explain the temptation to bring the concept of a divine being into this conversation?

Maybe because ID proposes that life on earth was designed by someone/something and nearly everyone who subscribes to it believes that something is their personal god.

114. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172742 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 2:58 am

102. Comment #172730 by Christopher Davis

Often, when I tell someone I'm an atheist, they ask me essentially the same thing and then try to "repaint" me as an agnostic. I think it's because that way, in their minds, I'm not evil...only misguided. I also think it helps them dispel a certain amount of cognitive dissonance since I'm such a nice guy.

I know what you mean, I don't really think there is any difference between an agnostic and an atheist anyway. Granted there are some people who say they know there definitely is no god, but those people are few and far between. Someone i know descibed himself as an agnostic the other day, i asked him why he chose to call himself that rather than an atheist and he said 'because i don't know for sure there definitely is no god' I explained that this also applies to me and nearly every atheist on the planet. He was surprised at this presumed difference.

People seem to think that to be an atheist it means you think there definitely is no god and to be an agnostic is to not be certain.

Both an atheist and an agnostic share the position of no positive belief in god. They also share the position of not being certain that there definately is no god. So why differentiate oneself from an atheist?

If an agnostic says he thinks there might be a god but he's not sure, then he must be positively atheistic about all the other gods that could not be real if there turned out to be a god. He just doesn't know yet which god he is agnostic about and which ones he is atheist about.

An atheist is an agnostic is an atheist - and of course a theist is also an atheist about all the other gods.

This seems to be a successful line of conversation so far on the few people who've tagged themselves as agnostics, in getting them to realise how trivial the difference is between everyone.

115. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172733 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 2:28 am

Here's the same problem occuring again & agian.

Atheism isn't equal and opposite to belief in god. You can be an atheist and then add on to that any other ideology/desire/outlook/philosophy that you want provided it doesn't entail believing that there is a god. There are no tenets for you to contradict, no dogma to slavishly follow. There is nothing to stop you killing someone and nothing to promote you to kill someone, just you and whatever other ideology you subscribe to.

Now this is not the same with a religion. Yes you can add other ideologies to it too, you can be good or bad, but you then have these tenets that you subscribe to and dogma that needs to be followed. Your 'add-ons' cannot contradict a lot of stuff. So seemingly harmless dogma's can cause problematic situations to arise where good is not done purely because it would contradict this dogma eg. stem cell research, condoms, abortion. There are aspects that might stop you killing someone, and there are aspects that might motivate you to kill someone.

Atheism is not an ideology - It does not require anything of you above the lack of belief in god.

An atheist is not the opposite of a theist.

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172707 by phatbat on April 30, 2008 at 12:51 am

5795. Comment #172557 by MPhil :

Concerto de Aranjuez by Joaquin Rodrigo is perhaps the most beautiful piece of music I know, especially the second movement

I whole-heartedly agree. So under-rated. I was in Barcelona a couple of years ago and there was a recital of it somewhere in the gothic quarter while i was there but i missed it partly because the people i was with were philistines tbh.

That piece really can take you somewhere else.

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172419 by phatbat on April 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Styrer,

I kind of agree with you to a point and others from that point onwards.

There are broadly 2 different types of bible god theists who may come out with the fact that they believe and worship and love the entity that has set up the system for me and my family to go to hell for eternity for incredulity.

They both think that they are moraly on safe ground loving this entity. Sure they believe this and for now that can't be avoided. But it is to let them think they are really not doing anything repulsive by loving and respecting the entity that they think would do this that is the bit that gets me, styrer and al among others.

Now the 1st type of the 2 will be very polite like that melissa (i think that was her name) from a few days ago. I think she is the type of person that should be spoken to politely, but you can still explain that you think they are taking part in a moraly repulsive thought process in what they say, and tell them just how horrible you find it, in a polite non-aggressive way. It is this which i think is where i agree with others who have critisised you. You could have left in all the critisisms you made but in a less aggressive way.

The 2nd type of poster is more like dickdawkins who just spouts aggressive attacks and mentions something like finding it funny that we'll all eventualy roast in hell for eternity. If they express this extra nasty little trait then they can be taken down with both barrells if you like.

Although i would say mostly the same things to both of them, i would just add in words like sicko or evil little sicko to type 2.

I think if you can succeed in making an otherwise good person recognise just how nasty they are being by loving an entity like that then that may be one avenue to shake the veil of faith from their eyes. Although probably will not work with most.

118. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171370 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 1:07 pm

well done seeker of truth you almost admitted al-rawandi's point was valid but not quite.

Maybe next time you will manage this before you give up, or, now here's a novel idea, actualy explain why it isn't valid.

119. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171331 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I can't see Tom Hanks from here but i can kind of see a bit of Vince Vaughn in you though. I'm not saying which bit mind. ;)

120. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171324 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I propose Benways 3 strikes rule should have an official title. What about:

Benways Principle of Fora Efficiency

What do ya think.

Oh and Al-rawandi - I've just realised who you remind me of. It's the actor that plays Milo in the 6th series of 24. played by Eric Balfour:

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

Your face is a little meatier (meant in the nicest possible way) but i think from the size of picture in your avatar the resemblence is there.

121. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171034 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:57 am

5180. Comment #171030 by Kardashovel

I agree - all good points - i think we are just talking about 2 different issues.

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171029 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:52 am

5172. Comment #171011 by blackhawk089

the whole point of this movie was to let those in support of intelligent design SPEAK FORTH!!!!

Which they did.

Why is that so difficult?!?!

It isn't.

All you do is resort to name calling and say how unscientific it is and yet refuse to even listen to any scientific evience for intelligence!

That isn't ALL he did, he did some name calling and then went on to explain his position, which makes absolute sense. He and many others have been asking for some SCIENTIFIC evidence for ID and so far none has been offered. This is obviously a problem if their claim is that they should be allowed into the classroom.

Science is supposed to ask questions!

Science isn't supposed to do anything, it is the name we give to the pursuit of understanding by very strict methods, these methods are not employed by ID proponents - there-fore it is not science.

Is it sinking in yet?

123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171010 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #171005 by Kardashovel

It is closer to the target to take them to task for thinking the bible is inerrant.

That is another good target but i was talking about another often missed target to try and take away that smug goodness that the theist in this example often feels about themselves.

To tell me quite inocently that they love and worship an entity that will be roasting me and my mum for eternity just for our inescapable incredulity, that is a nasty sentiment to hold to.

I compared it before to telling someone that i thought the man who raped, tortured and killed your mum was a great guy and very loving, he even loved your mum. This would be a horrible thing for anyone to say and i'm sure anyone would agree, but for some reason whenever someone takes up the 1st idea not many people bat an eyelid.

It is quite wrong i feel.

124. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171004 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:23 am

5157. Comment #170982 by DickDawkins

Lol, Dawkins got pwned, now he's crying butthurt and PZ Myers is permab& from theaters. Epic lulz. Win Ben Stein's pwnage. Burn in heck Satanists!11!

Fantastic!

It's made even better how well that sentence (if it can be called that) adds to your opposing side's case in the debate. A perfect example of the kind of no-think babytalk that paints a thousand words about you.

What's even better is that you acknowledging or understanding how bad you make yourself look is not required for it to be effective. Infact it's all the better for it.

Thanks again for your assistance in the fight against willful, proud ignorance.

125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170994 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 8:13 am

MPhil

My Condolences. My grandmother died too 2 weeks ago and funeral was last week.

I found myself having those exact thoughts when i read remnant (or whichever theist it was) saying how he worshipped this bible god who would set up a system where incredulity will get you burned for all eternity.

To believe that the whole idea is true is one thing, but to then tell everyone that you worship this bible god and can go about telling people you are doing good by following his wishes is a very nasty idea that i think everyone has just got used to accepting as not bad at all.

It's something i think should be called foul on more, whenever a theist takes up the idea that their bible god is good and loving and worthy of worship.

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170950 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 7:08 am

Wow this thread has exploded in the last 3 days.

It's good to know that this thread will have probably been read by many theists who haven't posted here yet who will have witnessed their usual arguments taken apart from the regulars here, but without the problem of having their ego's hurt by actualy having to climb down in writing in public and admit they were wrong. They can just quietly change their views from the safety of their computer chair.

Or maybe the fact i'm writing this will anger them and cause them to come on and post.

who knows?

127. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170916 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 6:26 am

Hi Truthid

Glad to see you have had a change of heart.

Now here's something i have always wondered about. If you find it difficult to comprehend the evolution of the eye, how do you comprehend the alternative of all the different animals being designed and just put there.

I don't know if there is a standard ID response to this but if you say that all life didn't evolve from a single celled life form then you have to account for what it would have actualy looked like when each animal of each 'kind' first appeared.

Lets say for bird 'kind':
Did an egg just appear on the ground? If so, then what? did it hatch and immediately fetch it's own food? or was there also a huge pile of live worms put next to the egg and somehow contained so that when the chick hatched it would have a constant supply of food? Or did it hatch out as a fully grown bird just this once?
Or did a fully grown bird just appear on the ground in one second and go about it's business?
Or maybe it grew from the feet upwards, first the feet and legs, then the body and then the wings and head? and if so, was it alive while it was appearing from the bottom up or was is static until the last feather was in place?

What about a mammal?

Did an embryo just sit on the ground all exposed to the elements and grow like that through first to childhood and then to adulthood all by itself with nothing to feed it and look after it? Or do you picture it just appearing all of a sudden like special effects on a film? or from the bottom up like in the bird example?

This is what you have to thinkn about if you think evolution didn't happen. However if you accept evolution then you never have this problem as everything always had a parent right back to single celled life.

I think i posed this to you before or maybe it was another IDist but i never saw a reply.

what are your thoughts?

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167765 by phatbat on April 24, 2008 at 10:08 am

Come on remnant - you're not answering the tough questions.

I asked you in post 3668 how then you can claim the robber with a gun is forcing and your bible god isnt. And also how we can be required to be both credulous and incredulous at the same time about different badly evidenced gods.

and then there is this:

3680. Comment #167667 by Remnant

Before the New Testament was available in completed form, men would ask the apostles and others for proof that the gospel was divine. To confirm the preaching, God bore witness with signs and wonders and various gifts of the Holy Spirit. Today we have the complete revelation of God's Word in the Old Testament and the need for signs and wonders in this sense have been supplanted with the confirmation of god's word in the Bible and fulfilled prophecy.

So you're saying that they found it hard to believe when these apostles were right in front of their face talking to them, so god wanted to give them evidence. But he doesn't want to give each of us evidence because some other humans compiled a set of small writings from people who lived a few thousand years ago and called it the bible, and we are just supposed to believe that what those same people said was in fact true all of a sudden.

You're still left with the issue that people back then weren't supposed to believe what the people said but we have to believe what they said now after thousands of years just because someone put it all together in a book.

The very fact that millions of people don't believe it shows that we obviously do need the evidence don't we.

What makes it so much more believable now but not then? Especialy when you consider the fact that a lot of the bible is apparently supposed to be interpreted as analogy but with no idea which bits.

129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167642 by phatbat on April 24, 2008 at 8:29 am

3647. Comment #167576 by Remnant

Getting back to your robbery analogy, unlike the robber, God is not forcing anybody to do anything against their will. We have complete freedom to accept or reject His plan of salvation.

In that case then the robber is not forcing him either, he is free to choose to live or to die. The Robber is giving him that free choice to make, at least the Robber is letting him know he has the choice in the first place, and what is required of the victim is actualy something he has control over whether to do or not.

Once you have got over the initial issue that the robber is no worse than this god then we can move onto the next problem. Which is that the god doesn't tell each of us we have the choice in the first place (at least the robber does that). He requires us to demonstrate gullibility in order to just believe he is there even though there is no evidence of his existance and a lot of evidence against it. But, but, but it is only through NOT being gullible that we can shield ourselves from believing in other gods and generaly avoid being taken advantage of by conmen. And if we believe in the wrong god then we also go to hell. So we are required to not use the very faculty of incredulity that we have to use in order to get through life not being tricked.

Please do not confuse the 2 aspects to this point remnant. 1st point is that if your imaginary god is not forcing anyone then neither is the robber with a gun. The 2nd point is the arguement of requiring us to be both credulous and incredulous at the same time over many equaly bad god stories all of which having no evidence for them.

An please refrain from listing bible verses, they are not required to deal with this issue of reasoning.

130. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167230 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 6:31 pm

855. Comment #167224 by TheTruthID

How do you guys feel about Dawkins pretty much admitting to a creator in the movie, Expelled? Wasn't it great? Or do you think he got caught off guard, flustered and had a brain fart?

Any thoughts?

Why didn't it occur to respond to the points put to u before asking another question.

perhapse you could have said something like - I have read the argument which says ....... and here is why i disagree with it. But no, you have done exactly what one would expect had you never read any of the well established responses to your points or you have read them and you haven't got a response of your own.

Explain where i've gone wrong please.

131. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167225 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Thats it TruthID - just keep ignoring the points put to you and it will be like they never existed.

132. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167210 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 6:07 pm

3557. Comment #167047 by Remnant

I forgot to mention one thing. Why are you ranting about the standards for righteousness of the God you deny? You are a living example of a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

You can't have it both ways.

I am not ranting about your imaginary friends standards, i am critisising you for worshiping an imaginary god that you think does that.

so please deal with the issue, not the issue you imagine.

133. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167188 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 5:44 pm

3552. Comment #167027 by Remnant

I am sorry that you struggle with the word symbolism in the English language. Anyone with a 7th grade education can clearly see that I used the word "funny" as in ironic, not as in laugh, enjoyment,or humor.

So how does funny being taken as ironic (even if it could be ironic in the context you meant it) get you out of the fact you still worship a being that set up the situation of someone here roasting in hell for simply not being able to believe in him. THAT was what lead to the comparison with raping and killing your mum, not the fact you found it funny. The fact you could admit to worshipping a being like that and still feel like you were good because of it.

That, my village idiot, is the point you should have addressed, rather than the meaning of one of the less important words in your rant.

I ask you again. defend that you nasty little man.

134. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167010 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Comment #166948 by Remnant

The problem you atheists have is not that you cannot see evidence for a Creator in nature. You refuse to because of the implications.

No, it is because we cannot see any evidence for a creator and we see a lot of evidence against.

Every single solitary point raised in the rest of your rant displays a lack of research on your behalf which would be remedied by simply reading a book about evolution. Just because whoever has told you this stuff didn't want to do the research doesn't mean you have to be just as lazy.

If you have read the arguments that defeat your points then try arguing with those arguments which would demonstrate you have done the leg work. Otherwise we will all have to think you haven't read up on this issue and are just spouting stuff you've heard from someone else, without researching to see why all these many thousands of scientists disagree with your position.

And finaly you deserve nothing but hate if you hold to the position that you would find it funny if someone here roasted in a hell for eternity because he just couldn't believe that god exists. And then say that you worship the being that set up the rules that make that happen. Thats like me saying i think the guy that raped and killed your mum is great and thinking i was a good person for it.


Sicko.

135. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166339 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #166322 by Steve Zara

There are many excellent popularisers of science, who give you the full experience of the complexity of a subject.

This is why i respect Dawkins because this, i think, is a rare tallent.

I agree, everyone has got very used to throwing scientific opinions around, based on something they heard once, and critisising others based on these opinions. This is an arrogance that needs to be called out when it happens. But the actual honest questioning and speculating i think is a good thing as i'm sure u agree with, as it is through encouraging this that you encourage people to get better educated in science.

This is what annoys me with 'expelled' and its supporters, they call it 'questioning' evolution. Which, if that was all it was, wouldn't be a problem. If someone is questioning, then you can give them the answer. But they're not questioning, they are are coming to conclusions based on bad reasoning and non-scientific methods.

I think we've started talking about 2 different things though tbh.

136. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166315 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #166300 by Steve Zara

I think steve that if it is just speculation phrased in questioning ways then that is fine, i'm sure every regular here does that at some point or other. But it's the conclusions people come to as a result of the speculation that is where it becomes worthy of ridicule or being elitist about (as you did).

I think to take it any further than that though would be unjustifiable. Due to the many popularisers of science having made some issues apparently understandable you can understand why people would speculate on them. Provided they don't get carried away as discussed. No one has popularised brain surgery yet (probably wouldn't be possible either) which is why i think no-one would want to chip in on the subject.

137. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166306 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 5:41 am

Comment by Winston:

Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force.

Yes exactly. This is the problem it is very cohesive, unless you're not a part of that particular religion.

Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty.

I've seen your TV work Winston and i do feel you displayed a 'kind of certainty' about how a baby develops in the womb among a whole host of scientificly discovered issues. There is a 'level' of certainty indeed. Something you cannot say about the claims of religions, but i don't hear any demonstration of this lack of certainty when religions make claims or perscriptions, none what-so-ever.

The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life.

So which questions are these specificaly then? Scientists have probable answers to many questions based on the evidence observed.

But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain.

That's odd is it? what he fails to say though is that it does find answers to questions we already had and then unearths more questions to investigate thus increasing our horizon.

In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous.

Science and religion are both symptoms of uncertainty yes, but only one of them actualy achieves reducing the level of uncertainty held. The other one achieves an illusion of certainty in the form of faith. I don't think that qualifies as a paradox tbh. Yes certainty in religion is dangerous. Certainty in science is often warranted and depends entirely on how much evidence exists in support of the proposition.

The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.

So it would be much better then if religions stopped trying to force their ideas on everyone and then people like Dennett and other wouldn't have to present the polarising position to it which you object to. So why not attack the start of this polarising process and aim your critisism at the start of all this.

138. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166283 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 4:59 am

Comment #166280 by Styrer

No, Phatbat, that was not what I was talking about. My own student example was provided to show that this was precisely not the issue.

I know that was not what you were talking about, i just provided a teacher student example as i could see you were a teacher. My point was that you were critisising an 'elitist' attitude in defence of arrogant attitudes. I think we should be arrogant back, and elitist back at them when they do this so they can learn to treat their own knowledge about science or what ever the subject with the caution it deserves.

Which is why i agree that Steve taking the position he did should be respected.

139. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166265 by phatbat on April 23, 2008 at 4:22 am

Steve & Styrer.

I agree with Steve's point, it is one i have been thinking a lot about recently especialy in relation to the ID/evo issue.

When people just QUESTION scientific issues, and show that they recognise their lack of training in an area then i don't believe saying what Steve said would have been appropriate.

However, questioning is very different from coming to conclusions and then asserting them as the crux of your argument which is posted to critisise someone.

If someone displays this kind of arrogance then i think it is almost a duty for someone to call foul on this with the kind of attitude steve used. I'm not saying that someone else can't take the attitude of educating them if they wish. But i would be very wary of claiming the moral high ground and critisise this 'elitist' attitude in defence of someone with an arrogant attitude.

If a student stands up in a class and asks the science teacher a question on something which appears contradictory then a good teacher would answer this and clarify the matter. This is a layman 'questioning'.

If a student stands up in a class and tells the science teacher he has got something wrong and then proceeds to demonstrate his lack of education on the matter, then he has displayed a level of arrogance that should be called out by the teacher and anyone else that feels like chipping in. We shouldn't be encouraging this kind of talk, as it seems you want to do Styrer.

I wouldn't back down on this issue steve, a lot of arrogance gets ignored by most people and i think your response is commpletely defensible.

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163363 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #163341 by Bonzai

You guys all make it sounds like belief is some kind of intellectual exercise which at some point stumbles because of bad logic and poor empirical thinking. "Facts" and logic are often not the point at all as your own example of RM shows.

I don't think this is what anyone is saying. The fact that RM did that has no bearing on the issue of what we were saying about holding up belief without evidence as a virtue being a very bad thing.

141. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163339 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 8:08 am

2371. Comment #163330 by Bonzai

You make the assumption that if a person is irrational in one belief, he must be consistently irrational in everything. I think that is a rather strange assumption. Most of us are not always consistent in our views and actions, and it is particularly strange that you would assume perfect consistency from the very people who subscribe to irrational theistic beliefs.

Why do you think i assume 'he must be consistently irrational in everything'

I don't assume that. I'm just saying that apart from frightening children with stories of hell (which still haunt my friend now and they're 32) simply holding up belief without evidence as a virtue is also setting up your child for a possible fall later in life. I don't understand your point.

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163323 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 7:43 am

2357. Comment #163313 by Bonzai

I think that is simplistic. Many "home grown" jihadists go radical to rebel against their parents who are only cultural Muslims. I find this whole thing about childhood indoctrination rather poorly supported by data. Children do have their own minds and agency.

They do have minds of their own, but well meaning people prime that mind to believe things on insufficient evidence. Once the mind is primed to accept this as a virtue then it can be very dangerous for the individual when they grow and develop the mind of their own.

My friend suffers a lot cause her logical side knows that the christian story just doesn't add up but she has been so used to believing in the afterlife that she has a battle all the time. It causes huge amounts of hurt for her when dealing with death.

If you are blessed/cursed with strong logic circuits and brought up that way then it can lead to great emotional distress in trying to undo the conditioning. Some people may find this easy but not everyone, and since you don't know whether your infant child is going to be one way or the other then it is a form of abuse (all be it, well meaning) to inflict this principle on the child.

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163253 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 5:22 am

2314. Comment #163230 by Sargeist

Some of them come back later, but before that they have already been assumed to be too afraid to return.

To be honest, people usualy do this when the person has not been engaging arguments and has been just coming out with what they think are killer arguments that show how stupid we all are. I do find it a bit annoying when some people come out with the abuse a bit early on, when others are making polite questions that reveal the fallacies contained in their posts as it just gives them an excuse to ignore the real hard questions and concentrate on the easy ad homs. But if someone disappeares and others just say stuff that presumes they're afraid, then maybe, if that person was afraid it will inspire them to come back and prove them wrong and everyone wins or they would have come back anyway as they were just busy and still everyone wins. It will only prove the accusers wrong won't it?

I think the reason it doesn't happen to others is because the others aren't posting stupid things and then running off as all too often happens.

I'm with you on the over-use of abuse which just gives them an excuse to ignore the serious points.

144. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #163243 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 5:05 am

Comment #163171 by clearmind

(The computer cannot reproduce there for how could it not have a designer.)
Sorry your arguments does not sound right or logical or you are missing the point which I get used to it;
Computers and our brains
Plane and flies
Cameras and our eyes
Radars and seismic monitors
Anything that has a design requires a designer. Period. Your argument to prove otherwise is not argument but only an effort to play with the words to prove your are right. (I refer you to the comment i wrote for dawkings on the first thread for today)

Oh dear.

You compared a computer to a brain and i pointed out that you can't compare the 2 as the computer does not have the ability to produce offspring, where as the brain is part of an organism that can. If you want to argue against that then u are effectively arguing that black is white and i would say people will just ignore u. But if you want to be taken seriously then you have to actualy read carefully what people write and respond carefully, instead of the pitiful paragraph above.

145. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163228 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 4:44 am

2308. Comment #163222 by Sargeist

Why is there this seeming urge to assume that those people with whom most of you disagree have to stay here for ever and ever, answering all your comments ad infinitum? Are people not supposed to take a break, go to bed, go and do something less boring instead? When Paula nips off for a while, people don't start declaring a time of death for that. Is it just pure and simple mean-spiritedness?

Who are you talking to/which comment/s are u responding to?

146. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163205 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 4:15 am

Comment #163184 by Egomaniac

While I believe in evolution, I also find it to be astoundingly difficult to believe that the first form of life could have assembled itself randomly.

How the first form of life arose is only a tiny part of what the ID brigade are really critisisng, If that's all you have difficulty with then you can still understand from that point onwards everything works very well with evolution.

As for my first post -- well, I wasn't saying that you all are my intellectual inferiors... but some of you clearly presume that I, and people like me, are beneath you

You know fullwell i said your post sounded like you thought you were 'moraly' superior to us as you would never think you were superior to anyone.

Everyone is superior to someone else in one way or another. If someone here thinks they are superior to an ID supporting, lying, unreasonable film producer in those areas then there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean you are just better than them full stop. Just in the areas mentioned.

I'm sure there are aspects about other people that you don't like and know you don't do it because you think it is not as good to do it. Like lying to sell something, mollesting children, having the arrogance to think you know better than 99% of the scientific community about an issue of scientific fact, to name a few. And if you witness someone else displaying or doing any of those things then you are justified in being superior about it and condescending about it.

147. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163167 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 3:34 am

Comment #163162 by Egomaniac

Is it really the typical behavior of a person who is not bitter towards another person to criticize every little detail about them?

It wasn't every little detail it was a few obvious facts that were very annoying. Bitterness is not the only thinkg that might trigger the response. Perhapse irritation, anger, wanting to make sure his readers no exactly his faults. Bitterness is just one reason sommeone might do as you say.

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163158 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 am

Comment #163150 by Egomaniac

If you allow the theoretical existence of a being that could create matter out of nothing, and could create a soul (which is a necessary component of an afterlife), I think you have to concede that this being would also likely be able to create and manage an afterlife, correct?

This just says if god can create a soul he can supply an afterlife. but doesn't say why a soul can't exist without god and there-for can't have an afterlife.

[EDIT] oh steve beat me to it

149. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163148 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 3:08 am

Comment #163137 by clearmind

Most of what you just wrote clearmind is, im sorry to say, completely incomprehensible.

However i can see you are still going on about evolution - I reponded to your brilliant critique of evolution over on the 'Religious education as a part of literary culture' thread. Why dont you go and read it and respond.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2469,Religious-education-as-a-part-of-literary-culture,Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion,page3#comments

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163130 by phatbat on April 18, 2008 at 2:53 am

Comment #163115 by Egomaniac

"He [Ben Stein] certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough."

He's reviewing the film and like any bad film it will get bad reviews. After the way RD was treated being tricked into it by the man he's being 'condescending' about isn't a bad thing - he deserves whatever RD says about him. He is famous for having that voice anyway. He clearly shows a lack of reasoning skills by drawing comparisons with Nazi germany etc. And he clearly has a lack of scientific knowledge as demonstrated by his allegence to ID. This is a non point.

"I thought this movie would be good for a laugh, but apparantly [sic] not."

You really should name who it is. But what's wrong with this - he is stating that from the info given it is apparently not worth seeing for a laugh. It is not condescending to find it funny to watch some non scientists running around thinking they've found some great contraversy within science when they haven't.

Condescension is not always a bad thing if the target of the condescension is deserving of it and probably far more than condescension.

I think your attitude in your first post below indicated that you were looking down on the atheists for not being as moraly exemplary as you who would never do that to anyone.

Bravo, my fellow atheists! Let's all give ourselves a big pat on the back for our intellectual superiority over the masses of peons that share our meaningless existence, yet like to delude themselves into thinking life is about anything more than self-praise and the belittling of inferiors!

They are not inferior completely or any less deserving of human rights, they are just demonstrating a complete lack of reasoning skills while at the same time thinking they are. They are making a judgement on scientific issues with absolutely no scientific knowledge, thinking they know better than 99% of the scientific community, thats arrogance, they made no effort to try and understand where the ID ideas fall down - they just lied and tricked their way into people like RD's time and made a film like this. This deserves condescension anyway. Try and defend their point instead of just coming out with holier than thou ad homs like that.