201. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97612 by SharonMcT on December 12, 2007 at 12:32 pm

steve99: I agree. The problem comes with the whole "moral authority" thing. When a person thinks that the "ultimate" authority is on their side, then they can be convinced to do or think anything.

If people want to believe that there is something "out there" that is bigger than themselves or that they will see their loved ones when they die, fine and dandy, I say. If that is what you need to get you through, no problem. I don't have an issue with that. But when these people band together and decide what their "authority" wants is what we should all do and follow, then I really do have an issue.

"No religion" doesn't necessarily mean "no belief in gods". I can imagine a world without religion easily, but a world without belief in something supernatural is a whole other thing. I don't want to tell people what they can and cannot think. Go ahead and think there is a god. Just don't try and follow that up with a lot of crap about what this god thinks and wants us all to do.

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

Comment #97551 by SharonMcT on December 12, 2007 at 10:35 am

Bonzai:

Just because it is more right-wing does not make it a rag necessarily. I also don't think we can judge all of the reportage by the criminality of the paper's founder. I prefer the Globe myself, but I try not to be so black and white about things I am not an expert on. I honestly don't think it's in the same league as the Daily Mail. It's just my opinion.

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

Comment #97533 by SharonMcT on December 12, 2007 at 9:23 am

epeeist:

The National Post is one of 2 national newspapers in Canada. The other is the Globe & Mail. The G&M is characterized as more left of center while the National Post is more to the right. We don't have a national newspaper that is similar in reporting style to the Daily Mail, however, we do have local rags like that such as the Edmonton Sun.

I do feel, however, that the headline is more of an opinion than a fact, and it does seem to me to be nothing more than the type of thing done increasingly in recent months just to try to sell newpapers.

204. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86530 by SharonMcT on November 9, 2007 at 1:22 pm

ADH - Please think for yourself, man. Where is the evidence of the rebellion? How are we to be convinced without a shread of evidence? Arguments from authority are not evidence. How can you have faith that you are correct in your beliefs if you can't provide an explanation for the contradiction?

205. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86524 by SharonMcT on November 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm

ADH - what are the "details" of this "historically true rebellion"? When did it take place? Where is the evidence?

Bonzai - Sorry for butting into your discussion. I am an impatient sort.

206. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86513 by SharonMcT on November 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Bonzai (262) - Very good question. I for one, would really love to know what answer ADH has for this. (or what answer CS Lewis had, perhaps)

I have been following along and enjoying the discussion very much, thank you all.

steve99 - I'm still smiling over your avatar. It was very creative. I think it will make you protest in that adorable Hugh Grant way of yours, but I must say you are as beautiful on the outside as you are on the inside.

207. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83295 by SharonMcT on October 29, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Dr. Benway:

I will be thinking of you and hoping all goes well. I selfishly hope you are not gone long as I will miss your posts terribly.

208. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80918 by SharonMcT on October 23, 2007 at 1:53 pm

steve99:

Here we go again with DG. I think that anyone not familiar with his arguments should read a few of the other longest threads on this site. If people still feel like there is any sense in discussing anything with DG after that, go right ahead. A lot of people (especially you, steve99) have already invested a remarkable amount of time and effort to counter DG's nonsense. If he had anything new to offer it would be welcomed, but I for one have trod down that long path a few times and it led nowhere. DG seems to be in the business of hijacking threads for his own purpose and I hope that we won't continue to allow it to happen.

DG:

I'm sorry, but I have completely lost patience with you and your circular arguements and your barely-concealed superiority complex. Write your own book and get back to us when it is published. People can then offer their reviews of it and you can happily defend your superior worldview on your own website. You're not offering anything new to us. Spread your message beyond this website and maybe you'll find some takers. If what you're offering is so much superior, then you'll have no end of followers hanging on your every word. I know it's more of a challenge to take on atheists, but you're clearly not up to it, as has been endlessly shown on all the other threads you have posted on. Can't wait to have you sign my copy of your book when you come to Canada on your book tour.

Best regards.

209. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77970 by SharonMcT on October 11, 2007 at 11:08 am

The problem with many discussions is that some of the debaters on the theist side have a tendency to 'reset' after their views have been challenged, and you find them putting the same old arguments some time later, or on a different thread.

210. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77965 by SharonMcT on October 11, 2007 at 10:24 am

steve99:

I feel that you know I was not in any way trying to tell you what to do, or get you to stop on my say-so. I wanted you to know that if you wanted to stop, I would offer you my opinion that you had countered the crap from DG admirably. I read your arguments. They are brilliant. I am so very glad that there are people like you on this site that are well able to counter his stuff and nonsense. I just wanted to say that on this thread, I think you have done it.

I meant it as encouragement in case you felt as though you needed to take a break from it. DG, as we know, can go on for eternity, and his real life doesn't seem to get in the way of his ability to post endless essays that rarely answer the hard questions he is asked. I just wanted you to know that I thought this was well-recorded on this thread.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that when one thinks others may be in danger, one should do whatever they can to help them. I admire you doing just that.

211. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77797 by SharonMcT on October 10, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I'm getting a strange sense of deja vu...does that mean there is a god?

;)

Seriously...again, I admire the patience of the people who continue to "discuss" anything with DG. But please remember that even if you stop, he still hasn't "won".

steve99, honestly, if you want to stop now, the previous posts are all still there and anyone can go back over them and read them as I have and understand that his claims only make sense to him and his idol plantinga.

As well, if everyone stops, then he may just write his own book. Personally I think he is just finding ways to procrastinate. Write your own book, DG, or are you afraid of getting some bad reviews?

212. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74138 by SharonMcT on September 27, 2007 at 11:33 am

_J_:

No kidding! One of the reasons I haven't bothered posting in a good long while is because I read Benway and all I can think of is Benway - damn that Benway. He is truly amazing. I never have anything I think is worthy to add, and people are surely tired of my constant Benway-worship. He's just...OMG... ;) It does save me a lot of time, however, because I can just barely keep up with the reading and learning.

213. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #66636 by SharonMcT on August 30, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Dr Benway wrote:

I would be more of an asshole, but I don't love you quite that much.

214. The Out Campaign

Comment #60297 by SharonMcT on August 1, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Elli:

IMO, you don't have to feel bad about being passionate or fearless. It's great that you are. When people mistake passion for anger, I feel it is because they don't understand the issues or the motivation. I think a lot of people have posted things they may regret later; I know I have. Still, for all those people who may take you (and/or atheists) the wrong way, there are some here that appreciate your contributions. I wanted count myself among the latter.

215. The Out Campaign

Comment #60203 by SharonMcT on August 1, 2007 at 10:03 am

Elli:

Loved your post (270).

Quetz:

All beverages, or all tea beverages? Because I hate to be sacrilegeous, I really do, but I prefer coffee. ;)

216. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59745 by SharonMcT on July 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Dr Benway:

Re: 1704...Beautiful subjects; amazing photos. Is there anything you are not great at?

Where is the backyard, btw? It's gorgeous.

217. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59679 by SharonMcT on July 30, 2007 at 6:56 am

Dianelos:

The evidence is there. I think most people who read this thread are well aware of the evidence. I'm not going to write an essay on it because you won't see it anyway through your god-goggles. This is the reason why a lot of people can't "see" it. They have been indoctrinated against such evidence and will not allow themselves to be convinced. The power of wish-thinking is too strong for some. I came to this conclusion a long time ago about you but I momentarily forgot.

_J_:

I'm trying my best. We'll see how long it lasts. I love reading what you write anyway, so I'm kinda glad there is no hope for you. ;)

218. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59558 by SharonMcT on July 29, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Dr Benway:

Thank you for that post. I totally needed that. The very next time I feel the urge to politely discuss anything with Dianelos, I am going to reread it...I'm writing it down...1672...it'll save me a lot of grief. Feel free to smack me upside the head with it if I forget.

219. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59321 by SharonMcT on July 28, 2007 at 7:38 pm

AARRRGGGGHHHH...I can't resist. ;)

_J_: please slap the deathsticks out of my hand...

Dianelos:

Some religious people persecuted others because of their religious beliefs.

Some atheists persecuted others to gain power, not because of their lack of beliefs.

And some people (whether or not they were true believers is suspect) used other's religious beliefs to gain power over them.

Again, it's so simple, how can you not see it?

Elimination of 2 of these examples (by the eventual emancipation from religion of all the world's people) leaves one. And if the rest of us can concentrate on questioning and condemning and fighting against the persecution of others, it strips away the power of even that one.

220. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59250 by SharonMcT on July 28, 2007 at 2:23 pm

bouwe:

Thank you. For a while I thought I was the only one who saw this happening.

I totally get your point about not wanting to get drawn into it. I thought I had escaped many times and then I get to the point where DG says something crazy and I have to go and open my big mouth again. And then I inevitably regret it because I don't want to spend all my free time on this thread. Some people seem to be able to just walk away and I probably will too. I am going to Chicago at the end of next week on holiday and besides going to my first Cubs game, I will be able to see the Darwin exhibit at the Field museum. (hooray) I'm hoping the time away from this thread will cure me of the need to "discuss" anything with DG.

I also agree with you about the quote from DG in your post about atheism motivating crimes against humanity. That seems like an insane thing for him to claim and I am glad you called him on it (and our attention to it). He does seem to be just another apologist for religion once you dig through all the other stuff he goes on about. I can't for the life of me figure out how he wraps his head around his bizarre way of looking at the world. I should definitely stop trying (maybe I can quit smoking too ;)). I'm not sure whether I should feel sorry for his family or not. Maybe they are enjoying their "quiet time". ;)

_J_:

As usual your writing is beautiful and emotive. Thank you for your perspective. It's quite settling for me and I want to tell you how much I appreciate it. I aM always in a rush. I have so little patience. I guess that is pretty obvious already. Just when the discussion starts to peter out here, DG just riles me up with some inflammatory things. Does he do it on purpose? Or does he really believe what he says? When people try to pin it down he's off and running around the issue again. I've really got to let it go, thank goodness.

221. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59221 by SharonMcT on July 28, 2007 at 11:27 am

_J_:

It's not so much a matter of having a lot to say that is annoying in my opinion, as answering a question other than the one that has been asked and trying to cover up that fact with a whole lot of noise. Talking around the question just frustrates me.

Dianelos:

I am sorry if I let my frustration with your answers get the better of me, but in fact, I think that it has motivated you do be more direct in your last post, which helps me immensely. Thank you for that.

Feel free to continue to flower up your posts to everyone else who might enjoy it. I am very sure that my directness and passion can annoy people as well (and has done on many occasions). We surely all have our own set of flaws. I hope that I can laugh at my own as well as you can because I think that makes a person incredibly more interesting and likeable. ;)

Whether or not a country like Pakistan has enough of a nuclear arsenal to destroy the entire world, it certainly has enough to kill millions of people, and affect the health of the rest of the world. Just because it seems bizarre to you that religion might motivate some people to use such weapons is just not an argument. I don't walk around all day, every day worrying about nuclear annihilation either, but when religion is used to justify "smaller" atrocities, it does make one wonder just what could happen.

There are a lot of religious fundamentalists in the world. I don't know how many, but I do know they helped get a US president elected. That tells me that united, fundies can have a lot of power. I don't want them having that kind of power over my life or yours. I don't have a problem with your worldview persay, because it seems very benign and even helpful to you. But when you refuse to see the danger of other theists in this world, it bothers me. If every theist were as moderate as you are, I think we could all just agree to disagree and work together easily towards our common goals. But you are in the minority as far as I can tell, which you have pointed out yourself. Should we just sit back and watch more countries fall under religious power? Should we just relax and enjoy the freedom we have while others suffer?

Even if atheists can only cause fundies to pause and ask some hard questions of their faith, it may end up being worthwhile. Even if Sam Harris just gets people thinking and talking about religion in the world today, how can that be bad? We don't have to agree with everything he says. We don't have to be frightened unecessarily by the things he says. But we can't just dismiss what he is talking about because you think that religious people would never consider using whatever power they might have, or come to have, to do harm to others.

Do you think Bush uses intropection to figure out what his god wants? How does he manage to get things so wrong, do you suppose?

222. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59077 by SharonMcT on July 27, 2007 at 7:46 am

Northern Bright:

Well done. Could not agree more.

223. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59068 by SharonMcT on July 27, 2007 at 7:18 am

Downunder:

I never said he was a warmonger. How you got that from my post, I'll never understand. But the fact that you can get things so wrong helps me understand why you get upset every time I question Dianelos.

Being polite does not excuse his patronizing tone, which may be too subtle for you to hear. I am not asking him to shut up, I am asking him to answer the questions that are asked. He latches on to a few key words in a post and goes off on a tangent. He bamboozles you with his ability to patiently bullshit ad naseum. You may have noticed that not many people here are willing to discuss anything at all with him any longer. This is not a sign that he has trounced them, but just that he has shown it isn't really worthwhile for them to continue. He sees things through a god filter that no one can penetrate. I can call him on that if I like. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but you can take your own advice.

Keep in mind that society rarely advances from politeness. If women at the beginning of last century sat back and were polite, I would never be able to vote.

Just because you don't like my contribution does not mean it is not valuable. I don't particularly like yours either since it really doesn't make any sense at all, nor does it offer the answers for the future that you are always going on about. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt however and chalk it up to your lack of clarity in writing. Besides, if no one challenges DG, he will stop writing and then you will have nothing at all to read.

Philip1978: Thank you for your kind words. I have admired yours as well all over this site.

224. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58979 by SharonMcT on July 26, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Dianelos:

I am sticking by my diagnosis of you being deliberately obtuse. No one can write the way you are capable of and yet still be so clueless.

Thank you so much for your definition of "nuclear annihilation", as if I didn't know what you were referring to the first time around. I am so obviously talking about fundamentalists like those in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan actually getting enough of an arsenal to do the job properly. (Not to mention fundies like Bush who might like to hurry along the rapture). In no way am I talking about a small dirty bomb. But I'm sure you already know what I am talking about though you deliberately misunderstand so you can refute a totally different argument. If you think people can't see through this "style" of debate that you you provide, you are sadly mistaken. You really do think you are smarter than the average bear, don't you?

Oh, and thank you so much for your interpretation of the history of the bomb. Because your little smoke shows at the end of each post really don't fool anyone either. The fact that you can wax on endlessly about so many things in no way helps further your core argument. Trying to hide it in amongst a bunch of other "facts" just shows how little you really have to say.

You must be very annoying at parties.

225. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58447 by SharonMcT on July 24, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Dianelos:

It is amusing how deliberately obtuse you can be.

The "risk of nuclear annihilation" is precisely one of the biggest worries Sam Harris has. It is why he is as passionate as he is. It very common to mistake passion for anger if you don't want to understand the issue. When you give the big red button to people who have no greater desire than to become martyrs so they can get to heaven, the world as we know it will surely end. What would stop them from pushing it? Your arguments about virtue? Get serious.

This is exactly the problem. They think they know what god wants and all, just like you do. If you think your idea of what god wants is better than theirs, then why don't you spend your time and effort convincing them?

Of course the end of life on earth is not a problem for you since you will finally be united with your god, but for those of us who know this is the only life we will ever experience, the threat is far greater.

Give up the "certainty" of a god and an afterlife and there will then be no justification for the complete and total destruction of humanity. It's quite simple really.

Dr Benway (post 1614):

I keep coming back to this thread for just such gems. Bird, I am envious of your talents.

226. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #58151 by SharonMcT on July 23, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Dr Benway:

Thanks for the info. As usual, I learn a lot from you. I'm really glad to find out that having to swear on a bible is not a common practice in the US. I'm not so happy to report that it still is common in Alberta courtrooms.

227. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57803 by SharonMcT on July 21, 2007 at 6:40 am

kurtdenke:

Thanks for the info. Very interesting. I suppose, like everything else, it's probably different from state to state as well.

derek:

Too right it is intimidating enough. I wonder what can be done to change this creepy custom here. My experience was in Alberta so now I'm wondering if it is a backwards western Canadian thing.

228. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57699 by SharonMcT on July 20, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Thank you, Bonzai.
I may not have been very clear in my question, but I was asking why is it still the custom in America to have to swear on the bible to tell the truth when giving legal testimony? Has it been challenged?

229. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57694 by SharonMcT on July 20, 2007 at 3:28 pm

I had to testify in a trial once a few years ago and it never even occured to me until I saw the clerk walking over with the bible in her hand that I was expected to swear upon it. This is in Canada, mind you, where we have no separation of church and state. Why on earth is this custom not dead in the US? Does anyone know?

I ended up telling the clerk that I was an atheist and so she just made raise my right hand and swear "to tell the truth and nothing but the truth", from what I recall. It was a judge-only trial, so I don't think the fact that I would not swear on the bible affected the outcome.

230. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57686 by SharonMcT on July 20, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Dr Benway:

Is it just me or does DG's patronising tone rear its ugly head more so when he is "discussing" his views with a woman? I can't seem to forgive him as easily as you might have.

I'm really happy to see your old avatar back. It really is your best side, in my opinion.

Elli:

Good luck to you. I lost patience with DG very quickly, though I learned a great deal from the others on this thread who did not.

bouwe:

Excellent post. We have to laugh or else we'd cry.

231. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57673 by SharonMcT on July 20, 2007 at 2:10 pm

In Canada, for the longest time I don't recall the media ever mentioning a candidate's religious beliefs. Before the current PM, the last few were catholic (and liberal). Religious beliefs became newsworthy once a few years ago when a Canadian bishop suggested that any catholic MPs, including the PM, who voted against the church on any issue, be denied communion. I am happy to say that this had little effect on catholic MPs. The PM even came out and said that his first duty was to the people of the country, not to the church. This is part of the reason why gay marriage remains legal in Canada, for now (and hopefully forever).

The prevailing zeitgeist in Canada is that religion is still a private affair for any person, including public figures. Being close neighbours with a totally different culture (the US) has had its effects though, it seems, as we have our first known creationist MP in the ruling government party. I think it is very telling of Canadians, however, that this party would never have been voted into power (even as a minority government) with that delusional man at the helm. I think most Canadians are still very wary of religious fundamentalism. They are entirely too tolerant of religious moderation though, in my opinion. Hopefully our example helps change the US instead of the other way around.

232. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57104 by SharonMcT on July 18, 2007 at 9:40 am

_J_ and Dr Benway:

Thank you so much for doing the work.

And _J_, thank you for coming back. Are you finished your play?

233. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57101 by SharonMcT on July 18, 2007 at 9:37 am

Dianelos:

Lather, rinse, repeat....repeat, repeat...

Oh, and then add some "beautiful" stories from the bible...

Cherry-picking and god-of-the-gaps.

At the end of the day, there is nothing new here.

234. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57076 by SharonMcT on July 18, 2007 at 8:47 am

Henri:

What if there are not enough volunteer troops to carry out your war on islam? Would you support drafting people for the fight?

235. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56902 by SharonMcT on July 17, 2007 at 6:40 pm

I think what people have to keep in mind is that this is a Canadian television show. Avi Lewis, as the interviewer, is asking questions that he thinks will appeal to a Canadian audience. Like it or not, Canada is a more socialist state than the US, by choice. He has to ask the questions that he thinks Canadians might want answered. I think he gave her a good opportunity to get her points across. I think he gave the Canadian people the opportunity to see that we should not dismiss what she is saying just because some of us might have biases against current American government policies. I think the Canadian media has given a lot of coverage to the recent "new atheism". In their own way, they are trying to strike a balance. Part of their job is really to get people talking and thinking about important issues. I think a lot of people in Canada will see this interview and be interested in what Ali has to say. How can that be a bad thing?

236. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55868 by SharonMcT on July 12, 2007 at 5:13 pm

USA_Limey:

I understand your feeling, because I was pretty much feeling the same way around post # 1099.

It is depressing sometimes. For the last decade I have carried around a feeling of sadness about how many people waste the one and only life they have "preparing" for the "next" life. Sometimes you just want to shake them. (Not recommending this)

It's hard to imagine, but for some people, admitting that they are wrong or that their parents are wrong is just something unfathomable. The sheer amount of time and effort it must take for someone so intelligent to hold onto their god has indeed been wasted.

All is not lost though. I think a lot of people have read through this thread and are encouraged, as I have ended up being, because we have seen the best that a theist can throw up, and how soundly it has been knocked down.

237. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55761 by SharonMcT on July 12, 2007 at 7:10 am

*laughs*...no fear, _J_...I'm totally in love with you by now...

238. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55519 by SharonMcT on July 11, 2007 at 11:43 am

so...courtesy because it can benefit you in some sense vs morality for the sake of feeling good about being moral? I can see that difference, I think, in the motivation. How do things like passion and emotion factor in? Are you able to reason it away or do you even want to?

239. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55496 by SharonMcT on July 11, 2007 at 9:53 am

_J_:

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate all that you and others have done to further my understanding and clarity regarding the atheistic viewpoint. You (and steve99 and Dr Benway especially) have spent an amazing amount of time and effort on this thread. If I can presume to count myself among the jury, my vote goes to your summation. I have learned so much, as I have previously mentioned. You have all shown courage, patience, persistence, and incredible intelligence. DG has also impressed with his stamina and artful dodging, but after all this, his reasoning is still clearly faulty. You have continually cut through to the meat and exposed the errors of his arguments, time and again. I know you didn't continue for the praise of others, but I thank you anyway. I've enjoyed it and I am inspired by it. The quality of writing, reasoning and thought has been as good as I have encountered, and one of the many great reasons why I have kept coming back to this site for more.

240. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55310 by SharonMcT on July 10, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Dianelos:

I will defend my mechanism for societal change with a quote from one of your recent posts:

"Love does not entail soft-heartedness."

Sharon

241. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55246 by SharonMcT on July 10, 2007 at 10:49 am

Henri:

I think I can tell from your posts that you are not a psycho. I hope I never suggested any such thing. My questions are not judgements in disguise. I just want to understand how it works. Philosophy at this level is very new to me. I have read a little about nihilism since reading your posts. I'm just trying to work it out. Do you ever have inner conflicts between what we know as morality (assuming that you were brought up by parents with some kind of moral code) and your philosophy? I am looking for a weakness but not so that I can pounce on it and prove you are somehow wrong, only so that I can reject it or accept it in my own mind as a reasonable option.

242. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55021 by SharonMcT on July 9, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I've never talked to anyone who lives this way. And so I'm just incredibly curious. I admit that I have far more questions than anything else. So, how's it working for you? Is is practical?

243. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #55012 by SharonMcT on July 9, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Henri:

I'm quite fascinated by what you have said so far. I'm not quite ready to expand on my illness question yet.

May I ask another question though? What do you value?

244. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54986 by SharonMcT on July 9, 2007 at 3:17 pm

alovrin:

Yes...universal healthcare. I live in Canada and we have it here. I would not want to live in a society that did not. I am lucky to have been born here and in this time, (let alone to have been born at all), but it is a struggle to keep our healthcare and we have had to be vigilant about how important it is. I also worry about the 3rd world. I am not really too sure what the answer will be there, but I would like to contribute.

Dianelos:

O...he deems to direct his essays once again in my direction. ;) I thought I had lost your favour forever.

I said, "no tax dollars for faith-based schools". There is a vast difference between religious indoctrination of children and teaching religious history. I have a great book about Greek, Roman, Norse and Celtic gods. I enjoy learning about mythic history. But if someone told me they actually believe that Thor is real, I would ridicule this belief. Someday I think it will be as ridiculous to profess aloud a believe in any gods. That is one way that encourages society to change. If someone says aloud that they don't "believe in" gay marriage or equal rights, I feel no shame in ridiculing that belief. If they believe that women should be subserviant to men, and told me so, I would be happy to embarass them in public for holding such a belief. It is one of the best ways to bring about rapid change in society. Kind of like 80's big hair. How embarassing for those who still have it. ;)

Sharon

245. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54731 by SharonMcT on July 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Yes, fatal...a potentially fatal illness. I should have qualified my original question.

If you know why I am asking, then explain, please...

246. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54727 by SharonMcT on July 8, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Henri:

Really? Wow. Sorry, but I am genuinely impressed. Could you tell me why you wouldn't?

247. Emory Brain Imaging Studies Reveal Biological Basis For Human Cooperation

Comment #54722 by SharonMcT on July 8, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Henri Bergson:

If you became ill, would you take medicine to cure you?

248. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54713 by SharonMcT on July 8, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Downunder:

What I get from your last post is that you are suggesting we have to replace religion with something else. (Let me know if I am wrong in my understanding of what you wrote.) It seems as though the suggestion is that we will only get rid of the addiction if we replace it with some kind of placebo - kind of like giving methadone to a crack addict to help them kick the habit.

I don't think it can work that way. First of all, for me, giving a weaker god (or LIFE as you call it) as an option is unethical. It would still be lying, even if you could get them to believe it (which I highly doubt).

Why can't we provide them with science instead; a thorough understanding of the scientific method, of evolution and natural selection, rational thinking, and the history of philosophy and law should do the trick for most people. We need them to understand how a moral society works without faith (because not only can it work, it will work better). Education is the key. Religious indoctrination of children has to be eliminated. No tax money for faith-based schools for a start. Better pay for teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on kids. I had some great science teachers that really inspired me and made me want to learn about this universe. Learning about science and philosophy (what little I have so far) is what cured me of my childhood agnostisism. I think if we concentrate on the next few generations of school kids we can really turn things around.

Sorry if that sounds sickeningly optimistic.

Sharon

249. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54509 by SharonMcT on July 7, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Dr Benway:

"Thus there are degrees of objectivity" - precisely. It's not just black or white. Could not agree with you more. Plus you're just damn funny.

Steve:

I am in awe of you. I have indeed learned so much already from you and other posters on this thread.

Downunder:

I think Steve has done a great job refuting some of your comments. I don't think DG has converted you because he's preaching to the choir as they say.

I disagree that the alternative is negative. "Nothing" is not negative. "Nothing" is zero. The world has been enslaved by religion for far too long. And I don't disagree that DG should have his god. He seems harmless enough. Would that all people's gods were so...invisible.

Atheism may not provide the answers you are looking for, but it depends what the question is. I feel very strongly that people can learn to live without being slaves to the next life. They need the freedom to be able to give it a try. In a lot of the world, that is not an option. People can help change that.

I did not say that DG's language capability intimidated me, I said it seemed like it was designed to impress or intimidate. I live in Canada and I have 2 languages. I am not as proficient in either as I would like to be, but I'm young and there is still time to learn more.

I'm quite sure I have let slip more than one grammatical error myself.

I think that I am helping to contribute to a better world. I do this in many ways, some of which I will tell you about. I try to learn and become a better person. For as long as I have worked full-time, I have continued part-time studies. I also read as much as I can about the subjects that I think will help me better contribute to society. I speak to my friends, my family and my co-workers about politics and religion. I speak out when I see injustices done to others. (Too many people choose not to) I belong to a political party in my country and try to be as active as I can be in the shaping of my society. I vote in every election. I have a great many friends who believe in god and I love them fiercely regardless. For those friends of mine who are atheist, I encourage them to speak out as well. The more voices, the better.

I believe that education is the key. Children need to be educated, not indoctrinated. It takes far too much time and effort to undo the damage that religion does to a child's mind. We have to remain vigilant in our efforts to be sure that children are learning "how" to think, not "what" to think.

I think the world will change so that someday people will be embarassed about holding beliefs that have no evidence (faith), and I hope it happens in my lifetime. I think that visiting this site and listening and learning from others here can help me be confident to continue to do my small part to change the "moral zeitgeist".

My society has changed its views on abortion, sufferage, racial prejudice and equal rights for gays, just in the last 100 years! These views changed because people spoke up and spoke out. I am inspired by their courage. I know that we can change the world for the better, and I will do my part.

Sharon

250. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54387 by SharonMcT on July 6, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Dr Benway:

Thank you for your kind welcome.

Sharon