101. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97813 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Well, thank you, Mr Zara Smarty-pants! ;-) I'm crap at amths - you got me by the short and curlies there! Cold sweats and all! (All tongue in cheek, BTW!)

Heh. Don't worry. Was not just at you. Was just letting of steam generally.

People just do crazy things sometimes...afterlife or no!

Absolutely!

I agree that this is hugely complicated, but religion is certainly a major factor in many cases.

Even if the suicide bombers weren't motivated much by religion - even if their notes and videos where lies, or forced statements, this still reveals religion as a major factor, as a catalyst.

102. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97804 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:57 pm

If it is that suicide attacks are more effective in terms of logistics

Yes, they certainly are. No need for parachutes on planes, and no need for return tickets.

In Islam suicide is a major sin and the punishment is the reenactment of the death through eternity

No, it isn't. Not if you are a warrior going into battle against the infidels. This is viewed as Martyrdom, and is encouraged in the Hadith.

Finally, even if there is an afterlife it doesn't follow that suicide bombers will be rewarded.

It doesn't matter what you believe, or what I believe, or what most Islamic scholars believe, or what just about anyone believes. What matters is what the suicide bombers believe. And from the notes and videos they have left (perhaps the only real evidence we have for what they believe), they mostly believe there is an afterlife, and they will be rewarded. That is all that matters, and it is a religious belief, and it motivates them.

103. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97801 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:51 pm

But if a cause is strong enough, then dying for it can seem like a good idea. You don't really need this afterlife - just a fervent belief.

I don't know how much more clearly I can put my argument. Let's try math, as I find it fun.

My proposition:

Given cause strength C, and belief in cause strength B, and belief in afterlife strength A, and willingness to die for it (assuming it is a good cause), W.

then let (assuming no proportional multiplicative factors, which will factor out anyway in comparisons)

W1 = C + B

and

W2 = C + B + A

If A > 0

then W2 > W1

Hence, religious belief in an afterlife increases willingless to become a suicide bomber for a cause you consider good.

The irrelevant counterarguments to my case can be summarised as follows:

I am not arguing that W = 0 if A = 0.

I think that sums up a lot of waffle pretty simply.

To counter my argument, either show that A = 0, or that W is independent of A.

104. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97796 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:33 pm

It may be more rational, but how is that more moral and how does the world become safer as a result?

You need only ask the UK police and security services, who dealt with such situations when the IRA was active. Tracing someone who takes precautions to ensure their own safety is much, much easier than tracing suicide bombers.

105. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97793 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm

I didn't miss your point. I just disagree. In addition to my link Goldy provided several examples where people were motivated to perform the ultimate sacrifice where religion and after life didn't come into play.

Again, you keep putting forward points I don't disagree with. Putting forward examples where people went on suicide missions without religion playing a part would only be a useful thing to mention if I had ever claimed anything so nonsensical as religion being the single cause of suicide missions.

And if you just can't see that a belief in an afterlife is some assistance to motivating people to undertake suicide missions, then you are simply refusing to listen to the words of those who undertake so many of those missions. Unless you have evidence for them lying at that point....

106. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97790 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:24 pm

So in what sense can you still insisting on saying religion is the motivation and put it in a special category?

Because it has a unique ability to bypass reason. Because it positively encourages the bypassing of reason. When you talk about land, about history, about politics, you can generally get through, sooner or later. People accept that there might be debate about this.

Edit:

Many people seem to be missing the point by focusing on the suicide part.

No, I think the suicide part is a key thing to consider. It is something that religion can encourage through a belief in an afterlife.

107. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97783 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Martyrdom is not a uniquely religious concept.

You keep setting up positions I am not arguing against.

There were many examples of people undertake missions that they knew they wouldn't come out alive, even though that don't always involve strapping a bomb to oneself.

Of course. Some for honourable motives.

The after life doesn't have to be part of the deal to get people to give up this one.

Of course. I am not denying that. No-one with any knowledge of history could. All I am saying is that it is easier to motivate someone to strap a bomb to themselves if an afterlife IS part of the deal. Surely you can see that? And if you can, then you have to conclude that there would be, at least to some degree, fewer suicide bombers without the involvement of religion?

Let's get back to the main argument here. My view is that it unquestionable that if Bin Laden had not been a religious nutcase, so hooked on the religious drug, a drug that is celebrated in his culture, a drug that he can use to get others hooked, then it is almost certain that he would not have successfully arranged for the twin towers to be attacked. If he had tried pure politics as a method of encouraging himself and people, that would not have been sufficient. When Mohammed Atta's bags (which did not make it onto the flight he flew into one of the towers) was inspected, it contained a document in Arabic with the words "you should feel complete tranquility, because the time between you and your marriage in heaven is very short".

With the words of Bin Laden, and with the suicidal thoughts of Atta so explicit, I find it utterly bizarre the way that you and other are trying to deflect blame away from religious belief as a primary cause of the tragedy.

Why?

108. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97779 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:07 pm

In the first place, I can't say that I have been aware of having met many. We have some friends who are lesbian and live together. Doesn't seem to cause me a problem.

I am pleased to hear that.

Secondly, I think that from a biological point of view, it is probably an evolutionary dead end, but I guess scientists are working on this.

Yes, they are, and in certainly not need be an evolutionary dead end. What matters is for a gene to be replicated, not an individual. If there is a potential for a gay sibling to help raise a brother or sister's children, even if they don't breed themselves, that can in some circumstances, be selected for.

But, my question is still... why do you so (happily) disagree with the Nigerian Anglicans? How do you justify your disagreement?

109. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97769 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Without the rock, it can be a piece of glass and the sun. The means of ignition is incidental. The politics is the gun powder, you need to get rid of the gun powder.

If someone is there with the matches of religion, they can strike at any time (indeed, they are encouraged to do so). If they are up there with the flints, you at least have breathing space to negotiate.

In the same way, religion is incidental here. If not Islam, it would be other religion, if there is no religion it would be other ideologies such as nationalism, when there is nothing people will invent whatever belief system they need. That has been proven in history.

Yes, it has. But for some reason, you keep missing my point. Religion provides a motivation like nothing else. It is not incidental.

I am afraid your argument sounds to me like this:

"Nuclear weapons or swords, there would still be wars"

Sure, there would be. But let's go for nuclear (religious) disarmament first. It won't be a perfect world by any means, but people won't be quite so fanatical, and not quite so suicidal, and not quite so easily manipulated by maniacs.

Religion encourages more fanaticism because it promises everything in a way that nationalism can never do.

110. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97761 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I think a belief in a god is neither here nor there, as long as there is a belief in something, even a cause.

But the belief in an eternal reward must certainly help.

111. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97758 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 3:37 pm

.....but I suspect if you have never been part of that, it's difficult to understand what we are talking about.

I was part of that. I was a Catholic for the first 20 years of my life, and an agnostic for many years after that.

....and certainly I don't want to believe just because I want to believe....that would be ridiculous.

Good for you.

No....it's because of the fact that it is made up of bits and pieces and put together over a long period..but continues to have that air of authenticity....that makes it more convincing....

Actually, no, it doesn't. As we discover more history, and as Christian theology apparently keeps changing, we now accept less and less of the bible as historically true, and as theologically valid.

What would Jesus have said?

To the woman apparently caught in the act of adultery by the self-righteous religious leaders, Jesus said. "Neither do I condemn you"

So what is your view? Is it different from the US Episcopalians? It it different from the Nigerian Bishops? How do you reconcile both views with "what would Jesus have said?"?

And I ask you, as I have asked others who have posted here... where is your personal religious "rightness" meter, that allows you to differ from anyone else on this matter?

112. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97756 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 3:32 pm

So then why are you so fixated on the enabling cause?

Because I want to get rid of enabling causes. One by one.

It is like someone living atop a huge gun powder keg thinking that he would be safe if he gets rid of all the matches. Well some kid with two rocks who rubs them together hard enough or a magnifying glass would blow you up til kingdom comes.

Because when there is a kid up there with matches, and with rocks, you get rid of the matches first. Religion is the matches, rocks is politics.

Islam only became a political force in the last twenty or thirty years after Pan Arabism has failed. Its most specular defeat was the six day war in the hands of Israel.

Of course. I realise that religion can have intimate links with political situations.

I don't think I am. But I think it is dangerously naive to reduce international politics to religion.

I think it is naive to not realise the dominant role of religion in international politics.

I don't think I am. But I think it is dangerously naive to reduce international politics to religion.

I'm not. Most international politics has very little to do with religion. Most international politics is to do with money and economics.

But we aren't talking so much about politics, we are talking about terrorism.

I am not trying to simplify things; as you say, my approach is nuanced. International situations can indeed be a powder keg.

What I am trying to say is that religion is like a drug than can be used to control people's minds. It can bypass reason, and go straight for the emotional wishful thinking. It can even bypass conscience. Not all religions are the same. We aren't here talking about the "cannabis" of gentle anglicanism, with its vicars and tea parties, we are talking about the heroin of radical religion. A drug so addictive, that Bin Laden said that if he was not given his fix of Islam, he would snort paganism instead.

Religion is the most powerful of Dogma Drugs. It promises more than power, more than money, more than destiny for country; it promises the everlasting high.

You don't want drug addicts, desperate for their next fix, holding matches near a powder keg, especially when they think that they will get their eternal high by lighting the flame.

113. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97726 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:50 pm

....it's not important whether I belong to any particular denomination.

So if the denomination is not important, then the interpretation of the "truth" of the Bible is not important.

Being a lone horse is all well and good but you do throw a couple fo spanners in the works in that we can't know what you believe (or want to believe).

So don't believe any of it.

I am sorry if I sound harsh. I support your search for knowledge. Your views and your posts are welcome here, as far as I am concerned.

Edit:

I, for one, will not listen to a single thing you have to say about anything "just" or "merciful" if you try to argue that gay relationships are somehow less than straight relationships.

Actually, I would! If only one religious person would actually tell me how they know the truth. I don't want their views on interpretation, or the history of the bible, or historical context, or that they have some vague feeling. I want to know how they know that what they believe is right, and why anyone else should accept that. I have been talking about this for a long time now, and not one theist has come up with an answer.

114. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97720 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I guess I am still looking for the answer....but the atheist one does not satisfy me so far.

There is no atheist answer. There is only the atheist rejection of 'God has the answer'. It is surely clear to you from discussions here that God does not provide answers, only questions, such as 'which God', and 'what does he mean'?

115. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97705 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:31 pm

No, I don't agree, but neither am I going to claim that it's simple and straightforward. Why should it be?

If it is not simple and straightforward, could you please point me to the method that YOU use to interpret the bible, and could you please point me to a method that allows me to know that YOU are right.

Otherwise, I may just think your views are nothing more than wishful thinking, and I just won't believe you.

116. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97687 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:15 pm

The Bible was written by lots of people over a long period of time. I think true christians would say that it is inspired by God. That doesn't mean that it wasn't written by men. The Bible does not claim to be dictated by God. There are many passages which may have been written within the context of the times in which they were written.

Good. So you agree that no guidance can be taken from the bible. Unless you can tell which parts where inspired by God, and how to interpret that 'inspiration'. Can you?

None of us. No man who sets himself up and claims to have the truth is telling the truth.

Good. So you agree that no guidance can be taken from the bible.

If God gives ambiguity, ignore God.

He either does not exist, or does not care, or wants you to make up your mind without him.

117. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97668 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I would have thought these were self-evident. Can you list for me some ways in which they are different for different denominations?

I am astonished you ask this, as this information is surely widely known.

I am sorry to bore people here who know about this, but, being gay, I know a lot about homosexuality in this context. The Episcopalian church in the USA accepts homosexuality and ordains openly gay men as bishops. The Nigerial Anglicans declare that same sex relationships should be criminalised.

So, which of them is 'acting justly'? Same God, same reference material (the Bible).

This statement is made in the context of false teacher who are deliberately trying to mislead people.

Ah, so you have some 'false teacher' sense. That would be useful. I am sure it would be welcomed by many religious people across the world.

118. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97649 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 1:24 pm

It seems odd that you would use the poster's premise as a rebuttal while we are exactly debating the soundness of the reasoning behind it.

You indicated that by your report that Bin Laden was prepared to use almost any religion to support his views.

I actually haven't expressed an opinion on whether the world would be a better place without religion.

Riley was claiming 'that was what atheists wanted'.

I think the world would definitely be better without certain ideologies, whether religious or not.

I agree.

Extreme ideologies strive under the harsh conditions of oppressions, poverty and alienation.

I disagree. We see that in the USA right now, where fundamentalist creationist Christianity is rife. We see fundamentalist views (such as anti-gay sentiments, the oppression of women, lying about condom effectiveness) in the Vatican. Are the Pope and cardinals oppressed, poor, or alienated?

We will go a long way if we actually eliminate some of the these conditions rather than putting up a poster with a badly off the mark reference whose intention is clearly to offend and accuse rather than to "provoke thinking", as you say.

No, I believe that both have to be done at the same time. And I disagree about its intention.

119. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97637 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 1:05 pm

"He has shown you, O man, what is good,
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."

I think that is clear.

Right.

First of all, which Lord?

Secondly, what does 'justly' mean?

Thirdly... how does that mean one should act towards slaves, women, homosexuals, the eating of shellfish, and the wearing of clothes of mixed fibres?


Edit:

That very confusion is another demonstration that the holy scriptures cannot be from a divine omniscient god.

Or, it is from a divine omniscient God who does not care that we are confused, so why listen to him anyway?

120. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97635 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 1:02 pm

See my reply to gr8hands above.

I know, and it only backs my argument. I backs so much I have posted on this site.

Religions people often want support for their views. They don't want to question their prejudices, their gut feelings. Their religion helps with this. For some, all they need to do is seek out the right passages in scripture, the right interpretations of their holy book and they can claim (and even believe) that God backs them up. Bin Laden simply was prepared to cast a wider net for supernatural support. He still would have believed that enternal spiritual forces backed his intentions and actions.

That means he was probably not motivated by any specific doctrine. Islam happens to be convenient. So without any religion he might have use Lenin or George Washington.

I think not. Neither of those promise those who Bin Laden wanted to motivate eternal paradise and lotsa virgins.

I think you are missing the power of religious belief.

121. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97620 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Now you are trying to rig the game in your favor by only talking about things from an angle you think you have an upper hand. :-)

The poster describes imagination and theology. So of course it is about motivation.

If I were the intended victim, I would feel a lot more secure if I know that you don't have the means to attack me even though you have the intention to, rather than knowing that you have the capacity to kill me a hundred times over even though you don't feel like doing it at the moment. Isn't that what the psychology of pre-emption is all about?

Right, so we have a poster saying (summarising yours and Riley's) posts:

"Imagine no testicles, and no planes"

Religion doesn't have an existence independent of society, history and politics. Only the believers think that their religion has an ahistorical, eternal existence. I am surprised so many atheists subscribe to it.

Well, I don't, which is why I keep saying 'one of the factors'. This is another straw man argument.

You are quite wrong in this. In the 2007 beyond belief conference Scott Atran quoted Bin Laden in saying that even without Islam, the pagan gods would have commanded them to drive out the Americans. So it was politics, the specific doctrines probably played a much lesser role than you think.

Fine, but doesn't this make my point in an even stronger way? It is not just Islam that could have been used as a motivation for the attack, but the pagan gods as well. This is surely an even better illustration of how the religious mindset can lead to things such as the attack on the twin towers. You are actually pushing the message on the "Imagine No Religion" poster more than I intended to.

122. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97616 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm

He wants you to make right choices.

Diacanu's statement is certainly correct.

You can say "He wants you to make right choices", but unless there is some unambiguous way for you to know what "right choices" means, and we know of no such way... what is the point? You might just as well say that God said "do stuff at random and good luck".

123. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97603 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Humans will always find excuses for fighting each other.

But without (at least some) religons, they won't do this and call it holy. They won't be motivated to fight by the thought of everlasting paradise. They won't be succeptible to preachers telling them that God wants them to hate and kill. They may stop and think a bit first.

124. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97602 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 12:13 pm

This is not what his analogy was about. He addressed the tendency to generalize

I thought I was the one addressing the tendency to generalise. (Such as the generalisation that atheists wanted a world without religion)

Without science, the atomic attack would definitely not have happened.

We aren't talking about things that where used in the process of making attacks, we are talking about why people did things.

There is not much doubt, no matter how anyone tries to argue out of it, that Islamic doctrines were a significant motivation for the attack on the twin towers. There is a good chance that without that motivation, the attack would not have happened.

That is what this is about. Trying to divert this into issues of generalisation is missing the point.

125. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97579 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 11:43 am

Not because of their opinions on masculinity, but because of their masculinity, I mean hormones, aggressive tendencies etc.

This is the opinion of some radical feminists. I don't agree with that opinion. Riley's point is that there are people who do make that kind of arguments and there is a symmetry to the blanket claim that religion is responsible for terrorism (as the sign clearly tries to convey)

I think the comparison is quite valid.

I think it is seriously flawed, and wildly irrelevant. The poster is about ideas; about ways of thinking about reality and truth; about who you get moral guidance from.

The poster is not making a blanket claim that religion is reponsible for terrorism. It is that religion was a major factor in the destruction of the twin towers, and invites people to consider wider questions, other circumstances.

It does not say "NO RELIGION"; It simply asks people to imagine, to ponder. It challenges.

126. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97573 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 11:28 am

That's quite an assumption.

Are you seriously trying to say you don't believe that the world would be better without a doctrine of "kill the infidel or apostate"?

127. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97548 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 10:31 am

Perhaps you will be satisfied if Fanusi starts off all his posts with the phrase 'In my opinion'

Well, for me, it would be a start. I guess I am just used to the British legal situation, where it is both inappropriate and legally dodgy to comment on a case before the trial is over. Indeed, many cases have had to be cancelled because of excessive media speculation.

128. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97545 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 10:01 am

Well said. I am not really getting a picture of how atheists think the world would be if we were all atheists.

Well, for one thing, to give a minor personal example, there would not be an established church here in the UK that is campaigning to restrict my rights because I am gay. Sure, there would be plenty of individuals, and even many groups, who would feel that way. But they would not be able to claim that what they were doing was holy; that restricting my rights was God's will. Their views would be shown no excessive respect, they would have no special seat at the table during discussions.

Of course we don't need to make everyone atheist for that to happen; all we need to do is not give any weight to the religious justification of opinions.

129. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97537 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 9:33 am

Riley.

You seem to be setting up so many straw men...

why are atheists asserting this "world without religion" utopian belief under the banner of atheism?

Are they?

Dawkins says things would not be so bad if religions only consisted of moderates.

Dennet wants teaching of all religions, not caring what people believe providing they learn about other religions.

Harris says all religions are not the same, and only some cause problems.

Hitchens does not believe that religion will ever be eradicated anyway.

In truth, all most so-called 'militant' atheists seem to want (and I include myself in that group) is for the religious to leave us alone, and to stop allowing unsubstantiated beliefs to influence public attitudes and policy.

All that banner is saying is that without religion, the twin towers attack would probably not have happened. It may not have been the only factor, but it was a decisive one. It is supposed to be thought-provoking, not a demand for everyone to give up their religion.

130. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97490 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 7:31 am

as a side note i took a prickly pear cactus fruit from the cactus earlier this year in california (and im not sure what structure it actually is)but damn, those evil little spines, thinner than a hair that get into your finger tips,

I believe I have that species at home. It is Opuntia microdasys. An evil plant; clearly the work of the devil.

131. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97481 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 7:14 am

the reason giant fruits dont usually grow on trees is that the tree itself and its thinner branches can only support so much weight

There is a counterargument to creationist nonsense at the smaller size scale. Fruits so small that we can't use them. Wolffia angusta has fruits 0.3mm long.

132. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97473 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 6:44 am

The person who wrote this garbage simply has no talent whatsoever as a children's writer.

That is just silly. Even the slightest research shows that Pullman is a highly respected writer. A summary of the awards he has won is on wikipedia:
"The first volume of the trilogy, "Northern Lights", won the Carnegie Medal for children's fiction in the UK in 1995. The Amber Spyglass, the last volume, was awarded both 2001 Whitbread Prize for best children's book and the Whitbread Book of the Year prize in January 2002, the first children's book to receive that award. The series won popular acclaim in late 2003, taking third place in the BBC's Big Read poll.

In 2005 Pullman was announced as joint winner of the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award for children's literature."

I believe I sense some possible defensiveness generally: "Hey, it doesn't matter if it flopped, those boycotters achieved nothing - it was a crap film".

It may be more comfortable to believe that than to believe that a religious boycott achieved something, but surely it is better to face the truth, whatever it is.

If a boycott has been against a reasonable, though perhaps flawed film (the consensus of the critics) based on a story by a world-class writer, that would make the boycott look even more foolish, and inspire us to more action.

133. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97459 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 6:05 am

What would you think if a women's group put up a poster like this:
"Imagine No Men" and on it were the worlds worst serial killers. (all of which are male, of course)

Bad example.

Firstly, not all the worlds worst serial killers are male, as in the case of Aileen Wuornos.

Secondly, there is little or no evidence that motivation for their killing is their opinion on masculinity.... "I am male, therefore I should kill".

The is little doubt that a major motivation for the attack on the twin towers was religious.

134. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97423 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 4:15 am

Dawkins totally pwned the Mr. Morris and the Pope

I am sure he would be happy to hear that :) Does that also meet he is l33t?

135. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97413 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 3:40 am

From the article:

Peel Police are investigating Aqsa's death. It's natural to want answers about why this tragedy occurred, but we really don't have any of those answers yet. So it's important to avoid speculation or rumours.

I am a bit concerned that people are jumping to conclusions. This is a case under investigation. No matter what we think now, doesn't it make sense to at least wait until the case is over and we find out what the result is?

Edit: incredulous beat me to it, and said it better.

136. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97409 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 3:25 am

The people hearing those reports were not gullible suckers waiting for any religious idea to come floating along, nor were they prone to believing myths and fairy tales as if they were historical fact. People knew the difference between something presented as a fictional account, a legend, a made-up story, or a belief, and something presented as a factual, non-fictional news report.

You HAVE to be kidding, right? This suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of human nature combined with wishful thinking.

I don't know if you remember this:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007461/milkdrinking_statues.htm

I can remember at the time being absolutely astonished that people could be so gullible, and not only believe fairy tales, but actually imagine them happening right in front of them. It was a lesson I have never forgotten.

No amount of explanation, no amount of rationalising, will get through to some people. You can explain that the UFO they saw was really someone throwing a hubcap, and they will STILL believe.

137. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97400 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:59 am

I thought it was a sideways boner.

Naah. It is clearly sideways cleavage.

138. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97394 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:38 am

But for the sake of the argument, if there is no God and no judgment like you claim, then why is rape bad, according to you contradicting hypocrites? What happened to your "there is no such thing as sin," "survival of the fittest" mantra?

Assuming that you wanted to reduce it to survival of the fittest, then the answer is so obvious that anyone can think of it. If you rape my friend, I'll make sure you suffer. When I have finished with you, you are going to be less "fit".

And if you had any knowledge at all of world religions, you would have heard of situations where people have justified rape based on their interpretation of what God wants.

So when we have a situation where people say rape is bad because of God, and people also say rape is justified because of God, then even someone like you can surely see that the only sensible thing to do is to say that the idea of God should have no bearing on the question.

The reason is that when people bring in 'because of God', parts of their brains shut down. Bits of their brain that would normally wonder "is this really right?", or "is this really wrong?". The Bits of their brain that allow them to realise that millennia-old teaching about slavery, or homosexuality, is cruel. The bits of their brain that would allow them to open their eyes to reality and not hide fearfully behind some ancient book.

139. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97384 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:08 am

Yes, definitely worth repeating.

Indeed. That was my point to you about the motivation of the attack on the twin towers. If the attackers say they are religiously motivated, they we should not disbelieve them.

140. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97185 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 3:45 pm

I mean, you can imagine a message that was created by humans being open to misinterpretation, but wouldn't you expect a message from an omniscient, omnipotent god to be absolutely unmistakeable?.

Unfortunately, that is not the case given some theist reasoning. If faith is a virtue, then God would ensure that messages would be ambiguous. Incidentally (and I know this is not going to make me very popular) this is a possible theist response to the question "why does God not heal amputees?" - it is because God may want people to 'come to him' by methods other than direct evidence.

141. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97165 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 2:27 pm

They may say that religion is the main motivating force, but their intention is political not religious.

You don't get to say what their intention is unless you have detailed personal knowledge of them. And unless you do, you have to admit you are almost certainly wrong about this.

142. The Pagan Christ

Comment #97151 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 2:05 pm

If God exists and he decides that the rules of the game include a supernatural element, who are we to tell him that's not OK?

The problem here is that first you have to show that God exists, and then you have to show that you know what he has decided. Then you have to show that he is right.

Until you have done that, you are in no position to put this case. All you have is a flimsy structure of 'what ifs' trying to justify wishful thinking.

143. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97147 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I think you are being naive if you think that religion was the motivating force behind the attack on the twin towers.

It is not naive. We have to listen to what people like Bin Laden say, and what they say is that religion is indeed the main motivating force. These motivations include liberating 'holy sites' in the Middle East from supposed Jewish and American control, and the general promotion of universal Islam and sharia law.

144. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97126 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 1:17 pm

....but what is prayer for? Have you read how Jesus responded when his disciples asked him to teach them to pray?

That is irrelevant considering the way a large number of Christians pray, which is to ask favours of God.

145. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97030 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 10:01 am

That is a total of $81M worldwide. It's not $81M just overseas, it's $81M total.

Ah well, I misunderstood. However, I remember films such as the Fifth Element, which had poor takings in the USA, but over a period ended up with total takings that made it highly profitable. 3/4 of the takings were outside of the USA.

It just think it is too soon to judge one way or the other. However, from the sound of things, the company that made this film need some profits soon..

146. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97017 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 9:31 am

I find it odd that people are generalizing about the reviews, with phrases like 'sucked'.

Reviews included the UK Guardian, which rated it four stars out of five, praising Nicole Kidman's casting and saying it had "no other challengers as this year's big Christmas movie.", and Roger Ebert described it as: "challenging [..] a wonderfully good-looking movie, with exciting passages and a captivating heroine."

There were mixed reviews, but there is no way that such a range can be summarized as "the movie sucked".

I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is that the boycott will reduce its success in the USA, but it will do pretty well overseas. That will make the religious boycotters look rather silly, and (at least a section of) the USA look petty and unsophisticated.

147. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97004 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 8:55 am

They must be gutted to have taken 'only' $26million in the first weekend. In their position I'd be crying all the way to the bank.

They have 'only' taken $26 million in the USA. Outside the USA they have taken $81 million. Not bad, really.

148. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96975 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 7:31 am

But he is absolutely right that it is a failure. To argue otherwise comes across as misplaced desire to just prove another priest wrong about something. Look at the facts and realize that this movie has simply failed with the majority of audiences.

It is far too early to say. The box office takings outside of the USA have been pretty solid, and if they carry on as they have, then the film will make a good profit.

Of course it may not, who knows? But poor ratings in the USA does not necessarily mean failure or even lack of profitability.

149. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96901 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 4:22 am

Is it going to flop? Well yes if you read the UK reviews. Mostly bad.

Not sure I agree. Mixed reviews, but they include some stunningly good ones.

Also, although not doing as well as hoped in the USA, the film seems to be on course for being a success elsewhere in the world, taking $81 million outside the USA.

It certainly is not a flop. Well, not yet anyway.

150. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96897 by steve99 on December 11, 2007 at 4:12 am

Let's not discount what evidence there is for further study, nor shove aside very valid concerns over the loss of informed consent and a mass vaccination program that does not take into account genetic and toxicological predisposition to adverse reactions.

This is a dangerous attitude. Informed consent is highly problematic unless the population as a whole has a detailed understanding of chemistry and immunology. And the greatest care is taken with the development of vaccines. To claim that they don't take into account genetic factors and toxicology is nonsense.