251. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69027 by SRWB on September 9, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Mark,

Thank you for pointing out the error of my comments in regards to the Christadelphians and my assumption that they also believe in a Trinitarian god – you learn something everyday! Nevertheless, while you may not believe in the trinity, many Christians do. I am also aware that such an approach is just argumentum ad numerum, and is thus no more likely to be true than your own specific beliefs. After all, why would your interpretation be correct, when the Pope feels just as strongly that his is the right approach (not to mention that of countless rabbis and imams, etc)?

I'm not sure that you are on firm ground in attacking RD's "unscientific" approach to characterizing Christian denominations as all the same or all as bunk. You suggest that Dawkins doesn't give religious belief enough attention and weight. I think his intent was (is) to point out the flaws and inconsistencies in any and all religious beliefs, regardless of denomination, Christian or otherwise. By it's very nature religion is unscientific, so should not be entitled to be treated in accordance with such precise methodologies. To pretend that (any) theology is worthy of reverence and respect, just out of faith, and without any evidence, is anathema to any accepted scientific practices. By way of analogy, it is not much different than submitting The Lord of the Rings trilogy to scientific scrutiny. What would be the point?

In regard to God's visits to the denizens of the OT, I used the term "regular" as a relative term compared to the dearth of visits in the last few thousand years. But I wish to pick you up on your comment with regard to God's supposed conversations with Adam and Eve. What proof can you provide? After all, Genesis is not written in the first person, so who recorded these conversations for posterity? The way I see it, we have a huge evidence gap here. You see, the Bible is a retrospective account of one religion's history, and it has been added to, amended, translated, much like a game of Chinese whispers. How can you honestly vouch for its accuracy and inerrancy?

252. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68560 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 3:36 pm

There is only one known version of the prophecy, as originally written in Hebrew. So far as can be ascertained, this has been passed down intact from when Ezekiel first spoke the words

We are in agreement to a point – IF this "prophecy" was indeed made (in Hebrew) then that would be the definitive version. But can we be sure that it was passed down intact? How can we even be sure that it was copied down correctly? Unfortunately, there is no way of proving it either way.

However, the "prophecy" is also very much about interpretation of one word – "lay". You suggest it unerringly refers to the construction of a causeway; I have difficulty buying that argument, given the complete lack of supporting detail and evidence.

However, note that it was not me who suggested a "lack of conventions and rules of scholarship" in regard to the Bible as a document.

You're correct – those are my words, but I was simply construing your last comments of post 1540, "What would be necessary to give it any force, however, is to show that in all relevant Biblical contexts describing a series of (related) events, the mention of those events in the text is always in strict chronological sequence. And I believe you would fail to do that, as I can think of a number of counterexamples…". I interpreted this as a "lack of conventions and rules of scholarship". Perhaps that is not what you meant.

I am not at all sure of the validity of "didn't fall to this attack"!

To echo JC, did Tyre fall to Nebuchadnezzar or not? If it did fall, was it as a result of the causeway which wouldn't be built for another 250 years or so?

253. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68511 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 11:18 am

The PC party is alive and well, at the provincial level across Canada. The federal PC party disappeared into what is now the Conservative party (at that level).

This latest stunt is the sort of nonsense that pisses me off. While Tory has opened a can of worms, the current premier, McGuinty, a devout Catholic, has only selfish reasons for maintaining the status quo. The only sensible solution is to get rid of all separate school funding and put all education under one umbrella. Any sect wishing "religious" education should pay out of pocket, preferably not mine!

254. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68462 by SRWB on September 7, 2007 at 8:05 am

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God,...

The quote above is another of those fascinating ideas that Christians would have us accept as true. In effect, we are expected to believe that some 2000 years ago God, as his own son, lived and walked among us for 30 odd years. He also made regular appearances to other assorted characters throughout the preceding centuries in various guises, like burning bushes, etc. The strange thing is that since then, he has not made a lengthy visit or even just a pop in for coffee to us "post Biblical types" (nicely put newatheist!).

Why not? Are we not as worthy as the erstwhile denizens of the middle east?

255. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68300 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Billy,

Thanks much for the response concerning PMs. There is still so much to learn!

Cheers
Steve

256. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68275 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Mark,

One more time! You are absolutely correct that for a prophecy to be worth anything it must be clear and unambiguous; as you said "… the meaning of words and phrases is exactly what it comes down to". But therein lays part of the problem. A very cursory search of a half-dozen different Bibles has turned up three other words in the verse under contention (26:12); these are "put", "throw" and "cast". So we are far from unanimously settled upon "lay" as the operative verb. I would grant that "put" is similar to "lay", but then you would be forced to agree that "throw" and "cast" are more in line with what I have suggested. The point is that there have been too many versions of this story written, and passed down, that it is of little use as irrefutable evidence.

You make an interesting point about the ordering of events in chronological sequence, and how this is not always the manner in which Biblical writings are formatted. Doesn't this admitted lack of conventions and rules of scholarship by the ancients weaken your overall argument of factuality and unambiguous use of terms and words somewhat?

Again, I will not concede that this verse comes anywhere near to the fulfillment of a prediction. Tyre didn't fall to this attack and it was only some 250+ years later that a successful assault was carried out. So I am not disputing Alexander's attack, just your interpretation of it as having been prophesized by Ezekiel.

257. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68229 by SRWB on September 6, 2007 at 12:32 pm

A question from the colonies - what is a PM? Other than the obvious? I assume it has something to do with the post.

258. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68027 by SRWB on September 5, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Mark,

OK, my comment about "semantics" may have been a tad harsh and not entirely accurate. As you say this IS about use of language. Nevertheless, I contend that this debate really revolves around the likelihood of Ezekiel's prophecy being true or not. The evidence that has been presented by those counter to your viewpoint has been overwhelming, in my opinion. That is why, for me, it's not about whether anything was "laid" in the "midst of the waters" and other technicalities of ancient languages; it's about hard and convincing historical evidence for the events that supposedly took place. Any "inspired prophecy" worth a shekel should have been able to come up with a name or dates, and not simply relied upon riddles and commonly issued threats.
For example, if verse 26:12 was in reversed order, i.e, if the stones, timber and dust were laid in the water BEFORE all the riches were spoiled, merchandise was preyed upon, and walls broken down and pleasant houses destroyed, I would be more open to your interpretation.

259. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67930 by SRWB on September 5, 2007 at 7:46 am

Mark,

Thanks for your very quick response.

I guess we will agree to disagree. You still maintain that Ezekiel's prediction is "very much exceptional" and "quite specific". I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
So to address the specific points again:

The laying, putting, placing, dumping, etc. is semantics, nothing more. You asked if there was a precedent. While technically not preceding the events surrounding the sieges of Tyre, let's look at the example of Carthage after the Third Punic War (149-146 BC). Carthage (another coast city) was completely destroyed and never built on again. To quote the entry from Wikipedia,
"The city was systematically burned for somewhere between 10 and 17 days. Then the city walls, its buildings and its harbour were utterly destroyed and, according to an unsubstantiated 20th-century historiographical tradition, the surrounding territory was supposedly sown with salt to ensure that nothing would grow there again."
So there is evidence that such practice was certainly not unheard of in the ancient world.

I remain unconvinced that the "midst of the water" is as definite and precise as you suggest, as it is a very vague term that could mean a few feet off shore or in the middle of the Mediterranean! I think you are translating this too literally as the author would have used exactly such lyrical language in telling this story. It is very unlikely that he would have written something as stilted as "they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the water but just a few feet off shore". It's poetic licence, nothing more.

You also suggested that the abrupt change in grammar suggests a new attacker. That might be the case, but is it also possible that is just simply bad editing, or a new author taking up the "pen" between verses? Again there is not a shred of proof such as a very clear time line, i.e., 250 years later, identification of a new attacker's name, Alexander, etc.

260. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #67773 by SRWB on September 4, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Mark,

...Richard Dawkins appears to be (as he certainly does all too often in TGD) inventing an imaginary version of God that fits his purpose, in order to prove that such a God does not exist. In other words, a straw man...

This is an interesting turn of phrase. But as an atheist, I ask whether all gods aren't invented, and don't all "imaginary version(s)of God ... fit (someone's) purpose"?

Let me rephrase the question - What exactly does the unimagined, i.e., real version of God do, look like, smell like, sound like, etc.? If it's anything like the imaginary version, it's a whole lot of nothing! More importantly, what is his real purpose?

On the subject of Tyre - you can not rely on one verse in the Bible as the authoritative source for the siege(s) of Tyre. If Ezekiel 26-12 stated something like "the city will be attacked and damaged by the Babylonians and some 250 years later it will be captured by Macedonians (I would even accept Greeks)", I would grant you your point (even if it's apparent that history can only be written after the fact). But this "prophecy" is remarkably non-descript and unexceptional for the following reasons (repeated from my post 1182) and can be interpreted any number of ways:

a. If Tyre was razed it should be apparent that there would be much "timber, stone and rubble". It's also possible that much of it would be laid (dumped) in the "the midst of the water".

b. "Midst of the water" tells us nothing – how far out from land is the midst? Tyre was a coastal city, thus it is to be expected that detritus from the city's sack would end up in the sea.

c. How does this in any way suggest another attack, over a causeway, some 250 plus years later? To "lay" does not necessarily imply to build. Even if it did, it doesn't mean anything because the crucial timeline is not included in this so-called prophecy. Why would this not refer to Nebuchadrezzar's attack?

d. What else would the ancients have built a causeway of, other than stones and timber? That's hardly prophetic, seeing they didn't have steel girders, cement and the like.

261. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #66075 by SRWB on August 28, 2007 at 10:50 am

OK, cigarettes aside (only because they hadn't been invented), what did Jesus drink at the last supper? Oh yeah - wine!

For my money, beer is better!

262. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64051 by SRWB on August 17, 2007 at 12:15 pm

I think what is pissing me off here is the way it glaringly betrays once again the sheer arrogant arse-brained presumptuous fuckwittery of fundamental Christians.

J, no need to apologize, but tell us how you really feel about this! :-)

How can people so completely fail to understand what evidence means? How can they so utterly misunderstand simple arguments?

It's not that they don't understand. The problem is this little issue called "faith" with which most were brainwashed since they were infants.

263. The Out Campaign

Comment #62296 by SRWB on August 9, 2007 at 7:59 am

Philip,

I understand your comments. I feel the same way in that as far back as I can remember, I have never believed in god(s). In our family we were not particularly religious, but I always thought that something did not quite compute. I remember as a 9-10 year old asking adults where God comes from and inevitably the response would be something like "he's always been there". Only my father would say he didn't know or wasn't sure (I think he may be a closet atheist). It just didn't sound right to me then, and it doesn't sound better now as a 45 year old (29 -you're just a pup:-))

In regard to all the suffering you refer to, my feeling is that it boils down to "shit happens" and has nothing to do with god's predetermination or will. Everything that happens, just does.

264. The Out Campaign

Comment #62158 by SRWB on August 8, 2007 at 12:18 pm

mightyzimbo,

I'm not speaking for Richard Dawkins, but...

If the only reason the choir isn't being converted in droves is because they feel derided, then perhaps they need to grow thicker skins! For if it is as you stated, that Dawkins has indeed made convincing and good points, then a little insult shouldn't change the validity of his arguments. I (personally) would rather that people turn to atheism because it is logical and well-reasoned than because we don't insult people. Derision, or lack thereof, doesn't validate (or invalidate) beliefs; only facts do that.

Besides, I think Richard is pleasantly derisive and only where absolutely necessary :-)

265. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #62103 by SRWB on August 8, 2007 at 6:54 am

McGrath's argument is akin to Dianelos's argument (strange that that long thread involves McGrath as well) which goes something along similar lines like "God fits perfectly into my worldview so it is true". But as usual not a shred of evidence is presented.

266. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #61531 by SRWB on August 5, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Thanks – you beat me to it. What I find interesting is that whilst some atheists have recognized the horror of these words most on this site have written in defence of them. (Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if a Christian leader had said that it may be ethical to kill people because of what they believed?!). But those writing in defence are missing the main point. Harris is not saying that people could be killed because of what they have done but that they can be killed because of what they believe – if that belief could be deemed as dangerous. It is horrendous and even more frightening that so many of you are so tribal in your faith that you cannot countenance criticism of one of your prophets.

David, I would urge you to read it again. You seem to focus in on this line, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." And I agree that this is an extreme position, if it was said in isolation. Harris never once says people can be or should be killed for what they believe; he says "may even be ethical..." As I keep saying, he hedges his comments and makes "killing" such people dependant upon their behavior, and clearly indicates that these people are beyond convincing while inspiring others to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. Finally, he also posits this as a last option, ie, in that these people can't be reasoned with through dialogue and only "if they cannot be captured", we "may be justified in killing them in self-defense".

Once again, (he said wearily), Harris is not a prophet, atheism is not a faith or a "tribe", and we can and do take criticism while dishing it out. But such comments are really rich coming from you and your ilk; I know you may not have killed, tortured or burned any heretics at the stake in a while, but let's remember that was a fine old Christian tradition until you began cherry-picking all the "love thy neighbor" bits out of the good book. Like Billy asks, are you still locking up the children's swings in the playgrounds on Sundays? So give us all a break and lay off the rhetoric.

267. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60933 by SRWB on August 3, 2007 at 6:32 am

David,

You said...

Nice try but that is not what Harris says. We would all agree that people can be judged for their actions but Harris talks about beliefs which can lead to bad actions.

Here is the quote, in context, that I believe David is referring to, so you can judge for yourself...(David, if this is not the quote you are referring to please forward the correct one)

The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense...

Two points need further elaboration. First, the phrases "may even be ethical" and "may be justified" should be sufficient to convince anyone that Harris is not advocating wanton killing just for beliefs people hold. Second, the particular phrase "while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others" is perhaps the crux of the issue. To my mind, this at least implies that the perpetrators have moved beyond thought and belief, and have moved to action. Arguably, we now have a completely different set of circumstances and, in this context, Sam's quote makes perfect sense.

The irony is that on another thread David admitted he has "no problem punishing people who have already acted inappropriately or criminally" or "dealing with those who have a previous record".

268. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60715 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Both Bunting and David Flea have misquoted Harris on this statement, and they have been called on it, on a number of threads. The context of the quote is that it is not the "believing" that is dangerous but that the beliefs encourage or actually incite others to render harm, or words to that effect.

269. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60708 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 5:59 pm

What I would like to say is ... McGrath is still full of shit and Hitchens' comments about "enemas and being buried in a matchbox" came to mind!

PZ's article is outstanding. Lots of good info to add to the growing arsenal of reason and logic here.

270. The Out Campaign

Comment #60649 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 3:41 pm

You are right I do not judge God.

Now we're getting somewhere that makes sense, but then this...

And I do believe it is possible to know him. In fact I would claim that I do.

And therein lies the problem. Can you prove that you "know" him? And if so, how will you do so? But please don't quote from your website wherein you list the 10 reasons to believe, like "creation", the "bible", "religion", etc. These have already been debated ad nauseum and provide no convincing evidence (at least that would stand up in court). I know, I know, you'll disagree in your inevitable rebuttal, but we do really need some credible, undeniable proof. So have you got any video or even a black and white photo where you and God get to "know" each other (but not in the Biblical sense :-))? How about a short audio of a conversation you two had?

271. The Out Campaign

Comment #60522 by SRWB on August 2, 2007 at 6:02 am

Because the first is a judgement I was being asked to make about other people and I do not know. The second is a judgement I was being asked about the nature of God – and what I believe about God is that he is just. Surely you can see the difference?

Oh I can see the difference, but I think you missed the point of my questions(s). If you can't judge people you don't know, how can you judge God who you can't know either? As you said above, it's what you "believe", but in your original response you said you "know that God will judge justly and fairly". Just trying to get it straight.

272. The Out Campaign

Comment #60273 by SRWB on August 1, 2007 at 12:43 pm

David,

I am not in a position to make that kind of judgement. However I do know that God will judge justly and fairly..

Why are you in a position to make THIS kind of judgement? If you can judge one idea why not the other?

ForestMist - Sorry, I didn't see your previous comment!

273. The Out Campaign

Comment #60190 by SRWB on August 1, 2007 at 9:24 am

Elli,

David is at least predictable and direct, unlike the redoubtable DG. You sound like you need something a little stronger - try a Long Island Iced Tea

Quetz - is this "tea" acceptable?

274. The Out Campaign

Comment #60172 by SRWB on August 1, 2007 at 8:23 am

Being evicted from your house? Is that really a Christian thing to do? Is that what Jesus would have done? Throw that back at them if you have any trouble.

But what do they think of you now? Do they know you are an atheist? Do they think of you as a decent, moral person? If so, what does wearing a t-shirt change?

275. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58319 by SRWB on July 24, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Philip,

I too was somewhat surprised by DG's comments in reference to Sam Harris's "End of Faith". I couldn't put my finger on it as the book is at home and I read it over a year or so ago; but I don't remember anything like what he describes. But DG might be making the classic theist counterattack against atheists - that we are all filled with hate and want to expunge religion and faith, and that we will do it violently if necessary. He's using the "how dare you question the existence of God" gambit.

276. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57971 by SRWB on July 22, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Dianelos - 1570

Well my wife (with very little help by me) managed to do exactly that a few years ago :-)

Yes, I too have assisted in creating life - twice in fact! Poor phrasing on my part, but you did refer to God as a person, ie, like you and I conceivably. But we both know that it wasn't the way you meant it when you referred to God as a person and creator. So is he a person or not?

Virtue is not a matter of definition, but a matter of similarity to God's character. And how do we find out about God's character? By looking inside to how we ourselves are built.

Sure virtue is a matter of definition - it is our definition that we use. It is only your theory that God exemplifies virtue, but as yet you have provided no proof. Virtue, like morality, is subjective and changes over time and varies between societies.

277. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57630 by SRWB on July 20, 2007 at 10:56 am

Bouwe,

Here, here! An accurate summary of the whole "experiential environment"

278. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57617 by SRWB on July 20, 2007 at 8:51 am

According to the basic hypothesis God is a perfectly good person and therefore willing to share that goodness.

"Person" and "good" to boot? And willing to share?

So S/He creates us capable of growing in virtue

Since when can a person create another? And whose definition of "virtue"?

If the hypothesis is right then, our experiential environment must be optimized for this goal

Big "if", big "hypothesis"!

Now one grows in virtue by exercising one's ethical will

Only if that will is used for good and not evil (subjective assessment).

Because, even though the whole point is not to make it too easy to us, God does not want to give us an environment that would misguide us.

So it's about choice and free will? Why can't it just be about living in a physical world that is sometimes inexplicable, yet simultaneously wondrous and sometimes nasty as well?

279. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57601 by SRWB on July 20, 2007 at 5:22 am

Dianelos,

God first observes which choice we make and then gives us the corresponding experience when we observe the screen

What "choice" did those hundreds of people on the recent Brazilian airline make so that God would give them the "corresponding experience" of being immolated on impact? Was it the choice to fly TAM airline or something else?

280. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57440 by SRWB on July 19, 2007 at 11:14 am

I would argue that it also has to do with the "value" or worth we place on objects as well as the "social contract" (not denying it exists). There is a difference between handing in £120 on one hand, and a pen or some other less valuable item. I can really appreciate getting the money back (and I would be less upset even if it was only £10 or £20) than if it was a pen or other "worthless" item.

281. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #56829 by SRWB on July 17, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Today this case was reported on in the local paper here in Ottawa, Canada.

Bottom line - it's still just a ring and it does seem a tad harsh to ban it in school (especially if, as has been reported, the school allows other outward religious accoutrements). And as has been pointed out the whole idea of freedom of thought and expression is at play. So unless the article causes some one else a real risk or threat, or is so disruptive to order and discipline in the school, it should be allowed.
By the same token, I also agree that if you allow other obvious signs of religious freedom of thought and expression, then it could be argued you are obliged to allow same for any other reasons related to freedom of thought/expression (with the above proviso of course).

282. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56821 by SRWB on July 17, 2007 at 12:14 pm

That's the crux of the issue - all those monotheists are so sure their god is the right god. But to believe that there is only one god (let alone any at all!) really makes no more sense than believing in a whole family of gods ,i.e. a pantheon of gods, like the religions of old. Afterall, why not? Remember that the big three religions of today insist that we humans are made in god's image, and clearly we reproduce to form families, so why wouldn't god(s)do the same?

283. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56751 by SRWB on July 17, 2007 at 5:45 am

I don't believe that Thor exists. But I believe that God exists, so the situation is quite different, don't you think?

Why is this belief different? To go back to your consciousness argument, couldn't Thor have hammered consciousness into our heads? But in all seriousness, how can you earnestly differentiate between these two beliefs using tangible evidence. What is your proof that God exists but Thor did (does) not?

284. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54720 by SRWB on July 8, 2007 at 5:59 pm

The faithful use terms like "militant" to portray a sense of threat and urgency. Note the opening paragraph of this article:

"Atheists are on the march. The idea of God is under fire. The practice of religion is being condemned as a major source of evil in the world. The latest assault comes in a book entitled God Is Not Great by polemical writer Christopher Hitchens."

Note the very military-style language being used; "on the march", "under fire" and "assault". It helps the faithfuls' cause if we can be portrayed as violent and willing to do almost anything (besides just engaging in rational debate as most of us do) to overthrow religious belief and rid the world of it! Personally, I really don't give a rat's ass if people believe; some in my family do and we get along. I just don't think we should stand idly by while this tripe continues to be spread, often aggressively and sometimes violently.

285. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #54719 by SRWB on July 8, 2007 at 5:45 pm

Sharon,

That's exactly the problem - too many people have "replaced" religion, as organized by their respective religious leaders, with their own versions, very often watered down and cherry picked. Hence the vast profusion of sects and churches, synagogues and mosques all believing their own "true" version of the faith. Many others, like some people I know, need to believe that this life we live now just can't be all there is - the bottom line is that faith is a security blanket for many.

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

Comment #54718 by SRWB on July 8, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Henri and Dr B,

The key is the honoring of promises, not the making of them. So I would not criticize anyone for NOT making promises, but would do so for breaking them without good reason.

Our western society places far too much emphasis on compassion in my view.We live in a feminised society today

You're going to have to explain this comment.....

287. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54360 by SRWB on July 6, 2007 at 2:03 pm

This is getting complicated! First of all, the question "do you think the Iraqis deserve the hell they're in right now?" implies that the hell in Iraq is the fault of the US (and others). That is too simplistic again. Yes, the war has become a clusterfuck, but let's remember there wouldn't be the continuing carnage if it wasn't for the Sunni, Shia and other assorted lunatic assholes who are trying to fill a power vacuum. If you believe that the US, and others, should intervene to save people from themselves or their governments, i.e. the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, and such, then it was perhaps the right thing to do.

And there are many other dictators around the world that deserve to be dealt with. But remember
realpolitik plays a role as well - some of these miscreants are just too powerful to take on. For example, is it really worth an attack on North Korea or China or Iran, etc., and all the lives it would cost, to prove a point of principle. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

288. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54332 by SRWB on July 6, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.

That's arguably too narrow a definition - by way of illustration, in Canada there is an ongoing debate about the morality of the bomber campaign over Germany, ie, places like Dresden, during WW2. By the definition cited above, that campaign could be termed terrorism. Was it? By the same token, does America (or its allies, Britain, Canada, etc) deliberately target civilians in its current conflicts? I don't believe so - I think the facts demonstrate that civilian casualties are accidental and unintentional (unlike Dresden for example). That of course doesn't make such casualties any less lamentable.

289. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54292 by SRWB on July 6, 2007 at 9:40 am

Xenocratic,

By your interpretations, I would be hardpressed to name any country that wasn't a "terror state". That may be a little over the top! What about Canada, where I live? We have our problems as well, and like many other states have come about by conquest (you know in the usual way, by white christians with guns taking the land from indigenous heathens without). The point is that no country's hands are free of blood, if you go back far enough. But that is also too simplistic a view, as is blaming the US and the West in general for all the ills of the world!

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

Comment #54286 by SRWB on July 6, 2007 at 9:19 am

Contrary to the common argument that compassion has helped mankind develop, it could be argued that it has hindered the evolution of mankind by proliferating the weak.

Depends upon what you mean by "weak". As human society evolved and developed ever more complicated technology, physical strength has arguably become less and less a requirement for existence. People who are physically weak might compensate for this by being mentally and intellectually stronger, thus having a different, yet very important value to the rest of humanity as a whole.

291. When is a bishop like a suicide bomber?

Comment #53804 by SRWB on July 3, 2007 at 9:37 am

And what about the girls? Do they only get laid once every seventy two days? That's only five times a year. It's going to take them ages to become proficient at sex.

That problem has been taken care of - only one "go" is allowed because after her first time, the "virgin" is no longer a virgin. So she too is expendable!

292. 'Purity' ring case in High Court

Comment #51349 by SRWB on June 22, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Fine line here......

The whole idea of freedom of thought and expression is at play. But why care, unless the religious article, i.e. "fashion accessory" causes some one else a real risk or threat, or is so disruptive to order and discipline in the school? That's why, the examples of driving above the speed limit or murder for God are not relevant to this debate. In such cases, someone else is at real risk of injury or death.

By the same token, I also agree that if you allow it for religious freedom of thought and expression, then it must be allowed for any other reason related to freedom of thought/expression (with the above proviso of course).

293. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #51326 by SRWB on June 22, 2007 at 11:07 am

Also according with my worldview personal actions transform a person. When confronted with two different courses of action the action that transforms the person closer to God is better than the other one.

Better for who, the person affected or God? You still have not established an objective ethical standard. For instance, if I have a choice between life and death, for instance, and I have to kill someone to save my own, or someone else's, life have I just been transformed closer to God? I would argue that such a decision is "better" for me, but having just killed someone it may do nothing to "transform me closer to God" – you know that rule about "thou shall not kill" and all that! So such choices are still very subjective.

But then ethical precepts need not always be objective in the sense that they depend in part on the individual person - not withstanding the fact that all ethics is rooted in the objective reality of God.

So ethics (and morals) are objective, except when they're subjective. That clears it up!

294. Richard Dawkins: Atheist

Comment #51020 by SRWB on June 21, 2007 at 6:57 am

Striking a balance between lumping all the faithful together or sorting them into discrete benevolent-malevolent piles is difficult. If we focus on the issue of belief without evidence, which is the common thread pulling them together, atheists have a point. The problem for the moderates, when they distance themselves ideologically from the fundamentalists, is that they are virtually forced to admit they are interpreting the scriptures to suit their own personal comfort levels, i.e, they are cherry pickers. Moderates are now on shaky ground since logic then dictates that, if it possible to consciously disregard all the BS in the "good books" in this way, then it is also apparent that it should be no great leap of "faith" to live morally without such supernatural guidance.

However, it would also be presumptuous to automatically lump all the faithful together. There usually is a marked difference in behaviours between moderates and fundamentalists, and that may establish a clear dividing line. To illustrate, in the recent past there were numerous threads related to Sam Harris's much debated comments with respect to "killing people for their beliefs" (to be clear, that is not what Harris advocates, and he has been misquoted repeatedly). The whole point was about the unambiguous divide between thoughts and beliefs, and behaviours and actions. Most of us would agree, based on previous commentary, that people should be free to believe what they like. I think we would also agree that those beliefs should only be countered vigorously, with more pre-emptive force than verbal sparring, when such religious thoughts and beliefs become manifestly threatening or actual violent action.

295. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48533 by SRWB on June 8, 2007 at 9:36 am

No matter how wrong you may think they are, I don't think statements like this are appropriate.

I'm kinda on the fence here.

On the one hand, I'm a little frustrated with following this tortuous (and torturous) thread to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that Dianelos's "understanding of Christianity differs from traditional dogma in several points...", i.e. the cherrypicker gambit, and that he can "only meaningfully discuss (his) Christian worldview with other Christians versed in these obscure concepts". Once again, no proof or evidence, just impressions and faith.

On the other hand I sort of agree with you. After all we need these sorts of posters to keep this site interesting and active. There doesn't seem to be much point in debating each other, seeing we essentially agree on most issues!

296. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48111 by SRWB on June 6, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Anyway my main point is that the proper understanding of God is that His/Her various abilities are contingent on God's will, which in turn is contingent on God's goodness.

What does this mean? Can an entity not have abilities whether or not they are contingent on will, even if such an entity is not inherently good?

And that in fact one of the basic tenets of theism, namely that God created the physical world that science studies, makes it literally impossible for science to contradict theism.

Conjecture. Admittedly, it is true that science doesn't have all the answers yet. But what does creation as a basic tenet of theism prove? It should be blindingly obvious that it just proves that it is a tenet of theism: it does absolutely nothing to provide evidence of the veracity of such a belief.

297. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47839 by SRWB on June 5, 2007 at 5:17 pm

james_the_doubter and the great teapot,

As one who has "sparred" with Dianelos on another thread, I can understand some of your frustration, because I felt the same. But of course, I'm speaking epistemologically, not ontologically or obscurantically :-)

Dianelos,

On the issue of perfection, I'm not sure that gets us anywhere either. We humans are by our very nature not perfect, so to conceive of something "perfectly good" is nigh impossible. As an example based on your qualifiers, I can posit that my wife, and certain friends, are "perfectly good" in that I trust them in situations where their will can affect me (most of the time). But that does not mean I wish to become similar to them in all things. Obviously, there are certain qualities of theirs that I would wish to attain, and hopefully that is reciprocated by them wishing to gain some of mine (assuming they exist – good qualities that is). However, the entire concept falls if "perfect goodness" means, in part, that others wish to be similar, but the very value system being used to appraise the goodness is flawed. For example, what if the "perfectly good" person you wished to become similar to were a liar, cheat and thief, among other things?

What such a person would "choose" to do is also an unknown. The options are many; such a person could do only good, only evil or any combination thereof.

298. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46451 by SRWB on May 31, 2007 at 9:34 am

BillySands,

A concise and entertaining tome! But do you think David the Flea won't try to rationalize his way out of all that? After all, that's NOT what HIS religion believes and teaches. It all comes down to interpretation and reading between the lines; deep down in your heart you KNOW it's really about love and all that mushy stuff, after all. We just have to ignore all that other nonsense - it's just so passé and not really what God is all about. Obviously, we non-believers have just not been paying attention, on account of our fundamentalism!

299. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46420 by SRWB on May 31, 2007 at 6:59 am

The Wee Flea said,

Already on this thread there has been one atheist who has said that violence may be necessary in order to remove religious belief. I'm afraid that the language of hatred soon leads to actions.

Are you sure that's what was said? I seem to recall that this is in reference to Sam Harris's statement, which you continue to misquote.

I believe that sex is a gift from God designed for one man and one woman within the context of marriage. I realise that to say this will invite a chorus of ridicule.

So how would you define other animal sex? Is that too a gift from God, or is it simply a way of reproducing? And do other animals get married? Clearly, the sexual act leading to reproduction does not depend upon being married, as the rampant social problem of unwed teenage mothers amply demonstrates.

But perhaps you could allow me to ask one simple question? Do you think polygamy is wrong? And why? Do you think having sex with a 14-year-old is wrong? And why?

What do either of these have to do with homosexuality? In any case, both have been adequately answered. Surely you are not suggesting that homosexuals are by definition polygamists and paedophiles as well, are you? If so, that's very Jerry Falwellian of you!

300. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45792 by SRWB on May 29, 2007 at 9:39 am

For more on the David's "Proofs" debate see the thread entitled "Shout-your-doubt-out-loud-my-fellow-unbelievers", where we flogged this particular deceased equine at some great length.
David has faith, and has provided suitably unconvincing platitudes, and that's all there is to it! Why can't you heathens just believe like he does?