Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by krisking


151. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108292 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm

it's just a figure of speech.



Maybe, but they always contain meaning. Is she just saying she is excited?

152. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108287 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 11:56 am

And by the way, you haven't answered my question about what you believe


As for what I believe. Well, it's no longer straightforward. I used to think I was some sort of evangelical christian. I am not so sure now. If you asked my wife, she would tell you that I don't believe anything, and she is amazed that I am having any kind of dialogue in this forum.

I have for a long time had real problems with what I believe. This I think I have stated before. I am at present unwilling to relinquish the idea of the existence of God.

At the same time I am horrified at the way various christian denominations and some of the members of those denominations have behaved and some of the views that they preach.

I think that if God is real, then his reality would not necessarily need to be felt in the kind of way physical beings demand.

I also think that if God is real, then I find him very frustrating.

There... I think that more or less sums it up.

153. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108282 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 11:48 am

Perhaps you could summarise the relevant bit for me?


You only have to watch the beginning. She is introducing the main speaker....and was attracted by the title...."oh my god, everyone is so selfish...now our genes are selfish too....oh my god...." followed by lots of "oh my god....Richard Dawkins is coming to see me...oh my god, oh my god.....oh my god....."

Not bad for an atheist......drooling over her god, I would say!

154. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108277 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 11:25 am

... Chimpanzees and the Golden Rule


Interesting. We had chickens once who when they were nesting or had chicks would vehemently threaten anyone who came near. I guess though you would not see this as the same thing.

155. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108275 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 11:19 am

Veronique

Don't get too hot under the collar


Hello, Veronique. A pleasure to make your acquaintance.

KK

156. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108269 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 11:15 am

"Morality" did not suddenly appear with homo sapiens; not by a long way.



Interesting.

157. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108268 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 11:14 am

At the time he was no doubt assuming that people would actually read it before assuming they knew what it said


Oh, come on! You know book titles are chosen to help sell the books!!

Have a look at what Julia Sweeney says about buying the book.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-808547712754338659

158. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108261 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 10:54 am

This is absolutely NOT what Richard Dawkins meant when he coined the term


Well, perhaps he should be more careful in his choice of titles! As you know, language is important and a random use of words can communicate the wrong idea.

Though of course, to speak of a gene possessing a quality such as selfishness is itself a nonsense if taken literally - it is an image, that's all.


An image?!

159. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108244 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 9:59 am

Evolution. The first commandment is a garbled version. To be true to evolution, it should read:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill Those You Know, and Family. As Regards Anyone Else, Well, Who Cares".


How so? and how do you know?

160. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108229 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 9:29 am

what if the First Commandment was invented too?!



Invented by whom? and why bother to invent something that appears to be trying so hard not to be known?

161. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108226 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 9:26 am

You seem to be afraid that if religion goes everything will fall apart: the slippery slope argument. Dan Dennett has a good discussion of this in his AAI 07 award acceptance speech http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-808547712754338659 (or navigate to it by this site if that doesn't work).


Interesting. Julia Sweeney at the beginning of the video keeps repeating the phrase "Oh my god" !!!

Who or what is her god?

162. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108216 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 9:08 am

The moment you create a religion around yourself



I think that is precisely what the first of the ten commandments was warning against.

"I am the LORD your God,"
"You shall have no other gods before me"
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything.

This is the problem religions have run into. They have invented their own gods, and as you say, some people have set themselves up as gods.

163. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108199 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 8:39 am

Have you noticed that all the worst tyrants of the last 100 years have created cults around themselves: Stalin, Hitler, General Franco, Pol Pot, Saparmurat Niyazov, Kim Jong-Il? In other words, they have seen themselves as a kind of god and turned adoration of themselves into a form of religion.

The moment you create a religion around yourself - even a pseudo one - it's rather hard to see how you can be properly described as an atheist any more.


I'm not trying to diminish the problem here. You may well argue that people can't set themselves up as virtual gods in their own right if they believe in Christianity, for instance. (Though how General Franco or Antonio Salazar fit into that view of things is harder for you to argue.)


I agree entirely with what you say here, and as far as I am concerned that includes christian church organisations that set themselves up as the only truth.

Throughout time there are instances of people using religion as a motivating force to achieve their own ends.

164. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #108192 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 8:18 am

the Four Horsemen. Famine, Pestilence, War and Death.

It's a classic reference. I think:-)



Yes, of course and I am sure the four would have been well aware of it. Do they see themselves as bringing in these disasters?

165. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #108177 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 7:18 am

Horsemen


Why do they call themselves the Four Horsemen? There isn't a horse in sight.

166. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #108176 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 7:16 am

Horsemen


Why do they call themselves the Four Horsemen? There isn't a horse in sight.

167. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108114 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 3:47 am

Like this guy you mean - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Amalricus


Precisely!

It makes no difference.

168. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #108108 by krisking on January 6, 2008 at 3:36 am

But of course, in another sense your question is a non-starter for me


Yes, of course it is. Atheists have no idea what a world would look like if we all became atheists. One of the big differences between religions and atheism is that the first expect some standard of behaviour while atheism expects nothing. The scientists say God does not exist (or is extremely improbable) and were are made up of selfish genes. I am sure that for the dictators who instigated the destruction of large numbers of people, their actions were completely rational.

Of course, it would make no difference whether we were all of one religion, many religions, or atheists.

169. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107949 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I'm just hoping you see that there's a real problem here when it comes to attempting to convince us that there's more to your religion than we think there is.


I am not trying to convince anyone. I am trying to discover what being an atheist is really about. If I just sat here agreeing with you all the time, i wouldn't get very far.

I think there is more to belief than emotions. You presumably know people that you believe in and trust. That will be more that mere emotion.

170. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107945 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm

so what DO you base your beliefs on exactly? And why?



Well, I am still working this one out....and I don't have a closed mind.

171. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107938 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Mark Smith

Generally when Christians come to this site, one thing they can't seem to come to terms with is, if the Bible is ditched, that morality can be possible without an 'objective' source such as the Bible.


Do you know any society that you'd like to be part of whose morality doesn't have an objective source such as the Bible?

172. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107922 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 3:15 pm

You and I (and most people here, I should think) don't regard this as one of humanity's better traits.

Yet, strangely, one of our most popular gods apparently shares it


..and I appreciate your question. On the other hand, I don't think you would be very impressed with a God who expected certain standards of behaviour, who made polite and reasonable requests, who waited patiently for people to meet his standards of behaviour and his requests, and then who failed to act decisively when his expectations were entirely rejected.

The flood happened in response to man's response to God. The drowned Egyptians found themselves in that position because they were unhappy that the enslaved people of Israel had left, etc etc

173. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107915 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Radesq

why kill blameless animals,



Are you vegetarian?

174. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107914 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 3:03 pm

I don't suppose there are any atheists on this website who think that Christians have any physical evidence to support their beliefs



but it's not all physical, is it?

175. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107912 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I don't suppose there are any atheists on this website who think that Christians have any physical evidence to support their beliefs


No, I don't suppose there are.

176. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107899 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Still, I'm not sure we retrospectively deem that 'acceptable'.


Neither do I, but it does seem to be something humans of all flavours seem intent on in one way or another.

177. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107895 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I suspect we're perfectly aware that the "evidence" you draw on is of an emotional and, if you insist on the word, spiritual nature.



I don't think so. I am very suspicious of emotion. What I am exploring is the idea that the God of the Bible is not how we imagine he is nor how we imagine he should be.

The teachings and ideas found in the OT run counter to what was accepted practice and understanding when it came to approaching gods, who needed to be appeased (so it was thought)

Jesus in the New Testament was not averse to challenging the interpretations that the religious authorities had arrived at.

I think the problem for many people is that they are either approaching the bible as the absolute unalterable word of God....which then throws up all sorts of obvious difficulties.....and does not help us understand.

Or else they expect to find the writing factually accurate in a way which would have been impossible for humans to record them at the time.

The flood may be such a case. If the writer says that the whole earth was flooded and everyone on it destroyed....that may well have been his understanding from his limited point of view.

178. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107880 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm

You are talking about a total 100% flood of the earths surface



.....am I?

179. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107874 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:33 pm

But even without a religious context I don't see how it is acceptable that thousands (possibly 2 million) Arabs were displaced to allow the Israelis to establish a country in a land they ruled around two millenia earlier.


Isn't that what happened to the indigenous population of the Americas?

180. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107870 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Because it would have turned the Earth into a ball of plasma?



Why is that?

We've had pretty severe floods in the world since. In fact the video I saw at the Science museum explained that the central part of northern america was under the sea for a while.

181. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107864 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:16 pm

robotaholic

krisking, do you believe the flood happened?



Any reason why not?

182. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107862 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:09 pm

People misuse science, but that does not mean the scientific process is at fault.



...and people misuse religion.

183. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107860 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm

I'm afraid you're asking us to jump rather a lot of guns here.

First, provide evidence that there's a god at all.


I think all you are saying here is that you cannot perceive God with the physical senses you possess.

184. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107853 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 1:49 pm

In the 19th century it was thought smoking was GOOD for your lungs.


This was falsifiable, and indeed turned out to be false.



Indeed, and it took a long time to get there. In the meantime, a doctor who claimed it was harmful was struck off and many people continued to believe it was good for you.....and tabacco companies are still producing it as though it were not harmful.

185. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107848 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Sam Harris talks about religions practising human sacrifice and that this is recorded in the OT.

He mentions Abraham who was asked to take his son to be sacrificed....but Human sacrifice is NOT what God wanted and He wanted to show Abraham this.

The 10 commandments of Moses are in very much the same vein. God telling his people that there are limits to the way people should behave towards each other.

186. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107847 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 1:28 pm

The most mysterious claim to me by anyone who claims the Bible is inspired (yeah I'll give him his wiggle room) by God, yet he wouldn't admit that it should be perfect in 100% of it's content.



I don't think "inspired" is the same as "the actual words of God"

Does anyone know what pagan societies were like at the time the 10 commandments were written?

187. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107840 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 1:16 pm

we try to make sure that any new ideas can be tested.


Thank you Steve for once again producing a clear and understandable answer.

188. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107834 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 1:05 pm

All things bright and beautiful, the Lord God drowned them all.



But have you looked up WHY He did?

189. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107810 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 12:07 pm

how generation after generation of people have thought the same only to be proven wrong when mind blowing discoveries are made


Scientists don't always get it right. In the 19th century it was thought smoking was GOOD for your lungs. One doctor was struck off for saying that it was bad for you!!!

190. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107808 by krisking on January 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm

cannot be falsified


I keep coming across this term in these discussions, and I have to admit, I don't really understand what you guys mean by it.

191. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107112 by krisking on January 4, 2008 at 5:34 am

Could use some help here.



Can you really take seriously a blog that entitles itself "Atheism sucks"?

192. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #107045 by krisking on January 4, 2008 at 2:17 am

meh...quotes and italics no worky...



use the word blockquote with these symbols<>

193. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106896 by krisking on January 3, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Evolution does not necessarily move in the direction of greater complexity, but does that matter?



Does it move in any particular direction? I would have thought the the very title of RD's "Climbing mount improbable" suggests that it does move upwards...and that therefore we are higher.

(..and I may not have read his books, but I have watched the videos)

194. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106885 by krisking on January 3, 2008 at 4:25 pm

I don't expect he'll publish it.


I can't believe anyone is taking him seriously. Does anyone know how many hits he's getting?

195. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106857 by krisking on January 3, 2008 at 3:31 pm

extended phenotype


Thanks for this explanation. It seems clear now. I had a conversation the other day with a friend who is a psychologist. She tells me that there are many instances of homosexual behaviour amongst (non-human) animals. She seemed to be implying that we should not be surprised to find similar amongst humans.

I visited the Science Museum in London today. Very interesting. I was quite impressed by seeing the medical history exhibition, which showed how much progress science has made in the last two hundred years or so.

The iMax video of prehistoric sea monsters was fun too, although my daughter's (unsolicited) comment made me chuckle. "I think humans were around at the time. It makes sense!" She wouldn't say why, just that it did! (Don't blame me, I've not taught her "young earth theory"

196. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106843 by krisking on January 3, 2008 at 2:58 pm

He puts some origins of homosexuality down to "child rearing patterns and family dynamics"


Yes, that's my understanding too.


Genes for something need not be in the bodies that express that thing.


I'm not sure I understand this.

197. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106833 by krisking on January 3, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I am interested - what is your view, krisking?



I don't think I have much of a view at the moment. I have not met many gay men, and as far as I know none for at least twenty years. I've certainly not had a proper discussion with any on the subject.

I read an item recently by Oliver James the psychologist, but I don't suppose you would agree with his views.

I think the church has had huge problems with sex at least since St Augustine.

198. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106806 by krisking on January 3, 2008 at 1:51 pm

What about this one then?

Proverbs21:19 Better to live in a desert
than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.

199. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106803 by krisking on January 3, 2008 at 1:39 pm

I thought Christians were gay. Now we know.


http://christiangays.com/

200. Changing my Mind

Comment #106430 by krisking on January 2, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Roland_F

The theists are brainwashed and indoctrinated since childhood,


Not necessarily true. There are people who have been atheists who have become Christians.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next