301. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72797 by the great teapot on September 23, 2007 at 2:06 am

Baning religion from school will just drive it underground.
Kids will start making up their own gods behind the bikesheds and before you know it they will believe in the most unsubstantiated nonsense.
This campaign must be stopped immediately

302. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72796 by the great teapot on September 23, 2007 at 1:59 am

Politically impossible?
So France and Russia amongst others don't exist.
My world is falling apart.

303. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72793 by the great teapot on September 23, 2007 at 1:51 am

Bremas

Strictly speaking the answer is non of the above.
They both rotate about their combined centre of gravity.(but dont qoute me- I am as thick as the average Frenchman)
But the video is an eye opener I was always under the impression that the French were perfect.

304. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72632 by the great teapot on September 22, 2007 at 3:12 am

Dianelos
I have read a large number of your posts and you have changed my view of the universe (Y).
I am now convinced that God exists and I don't.
This is a great relief to me, I shall start cancelling all my standing orders when the bank opens on monday.

305. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70821 by the great teapot on September 17, 2007 at 2:38 am

Credit where credits due to the Independent, but I suspect they couldn't believe their luck when Richard Dawkins, himself, replied.

306. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70557 by the great teapot on September 16, 2007 at 3:37 am

Iraq , schmiraq.
Hitchens worthy contribution is to ask people to question.
Mother Terresa is a by word for "Good" to nearly everyone in the western world. But ask anyone in the western world what she has acually done and how many could answer. Suprisingly the answer is jackshit.- that is hitchens great contribution.
His personal opininion on iraq is irrelevent.

307. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70554 by the great teapot on September 16, 2007 at 3:04 am

"and the sheer factual inaccuracy of Christopher Hitchens's rant"
Funny how facts are suddenly important.
Compare
"Dawkins's fact-based approach" which is thrown out as an insult.
If this were a 500 page review we could forgive the inconsistency, but on the same page?
Perhaps what he is advocating is a happy medium between facts and just making things up.
Relying on facts wrong, making things up wrong.
A small amount of facts & a small amount of making things up- Perfect.

308. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70550 by the great teapot on September 16, 2007 at 2:36 am

Is Richards response available yet?
Sorry, is the very reverend Dawkins response available yet?
(I forgot what an arrogant man he is when I disrespectfully called him Richard)

309. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70009 by the great teapot on September 13, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Icy water is cold, boiling water is hot.
Inbetween is difficult.
Yes I agree, I am not the one who claims to have absolutes. If the answers are absolute that suggests to me they already exist and are "written in stone"
My point is, if there is an absolute,why are there difficult questions?
Clearly I don't understand the point.
But even what is hot and what is cold is subjective and depends on circumstances etc.
I still do not understand why you need the security blanket of an external morality. It is beyond me.

310. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70008 by the great teapot on September 13, 2007 at 4:03 pm

My view of reality has been challenged.
I thought Dianelos only existed in the Alaister McGrath thread.
This clearly is a figment of my imagination.
I shall ignore all the evidence to the contrary and continue my life as if his posts do not exist here.

311. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70002 by the great teapot on September 13, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Clearly it is wrong to beat children. No one would deny that. Really? says who?
Is it wrong to beat a dog, eat a sheep, keep a chicken in bad conditions.
We know nothing of the self awarenwess of any other creature. I err(?) on the safe side. Do you Paul? Perhaps my absolute morals are more absolute than yours.
Belief in evolution brought me to this conclusion 25 years ago - harm no living creature for pleasure.(taste is for pleasure alone- I am still alive 25 years later so it must be)
Surely no right minded person could disagree.
Obviously xians need not reply.- not being of sound mind.
Final foot note , I am watching the VTM nieuws as I speak . Let us all say a pray for Madeleine as her parents continue their search. Cheap shot I know but all the praying , "look at us we are so good, we go to church" shit made me puke. Not for 1 minute am I suggesting it is a front, you understand.
Apologies for not having read "how to bluff your way in philosophy, etc.." before writing this.

312. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69979 by the great teapot on September 13, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Sbooder

Your comments are on topic.
See that it doesn't happen again.

313. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69663 by the great teapot on September 12, 2007 at 5:09 am

Keeping it simplistic.
Can someone tell me what these "absolute morals" are and where will I find them?
And why do we know that this is the source of absolute morals.
I would also like to know what are the inconsistencies in saying "I do not believe things to be the case based on no evidence" (the only thing all Atheists have in common) and living an altruistic life in which my own well being is not my only consideration.(Although living a completely hedonistic lifestyle rife with rape and murder is also completely consistent with an atheistic position , atheism makes no comment eitherway)
DG this is not an invitation to bullshit.

314. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69515 by the great teapot on September 11, 2007 at 2:57 pm

I can't possibly know the motivations of David or any of the others but at least David offers his opinions on this site for free. (I am still not sure it is value for money) and either he thinks it is free advertising or he has a genuine passion for the debate. I suspect the latter.
I have to say he has changed my opinion on one subject, I never believed the British soaps when bad or disliked characters kept on going back to the same local as their arch-rivals, I always thought surely they would find another pub. Clearly not.

315. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69494 by the great teapot on September 11, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Ronnie Harper

Which version of the article did you read.
I can't see it anywhere.

316. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69455 by the great teapot on September 11, 2007 at 10:09 am

Thanks for the link Ingeborg,
All my hobbies in one hit.
Laughing at the ridiculous opinions of the religious,learning Dutch and watching women bellydance.
I am in heaven.

317. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69435 by the great teapot on September 11, 2007 at 8:47 am

I don't know how many dutch speakers out there are interested but if you haven't seen it already the Dutch series "God bestaat niet" (God doesn't exist) is available at the following link
http://www.rvu.nl/rvu.php?i=4&l=0&n=806
Hope the above works, I enjoyed it, even with limited dutch. The guests all speak clearly enough for even an hopeless case like me.

318. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66474 by the great teapot on August 30, 2007 at 4:41 am

Hitchens was born in Portsmouth, England.
Can we offer a prize for the first person who has actually heard the well known saying "an Englishman has to be quiet when an Irishman speaks" before.

319. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64257 by the great teapot on August 19, 2007 at 4:29 am

what's wrong with prostitution?

320. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64132 by the great teapot on August 18, 2007 at 1:10 am

Where is it revealed that I should not rape a child because it is against "Gods" will?

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

Comment #64045 by the great teapot on August 17, 2007 at 12:02 pm

"Imagine 135 F and no aircon."
I don't suppose many Iraqis have ever known airconditioning. Most of mankind managed for 100000 years without it.

322. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63415 by the great teapot on August 14, 2007 at 5:11 am

42

323. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63410 by the great teapot on August 14, 2007 at 5:02 am

Did Steve Wright really say in response to Richard dawkins comment that coming from nothing and going back to nothing is not logical.
Logical must mean a different thing in DJ world.

324. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #63193 by the great teapot on August 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm

A question for the religious.

Would you rather live in a society without god or a society without law courts and a police force.

I wonder (he jokes , for the thick amongst us) would be the most law abiding.

325. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #63172 by the great teapot on August 13, 2007 at 11:35 am

What does the world look like without god.

Well mine looks like claudia Schiffer, bloody fantastic!

326. Believe it or not: the sceptics beat God in bestseller battle

Comment #62881 by the great teapot on August 12, 2007 at 7:25 am

I tried to buy a bible after reading the God delusion. I looked everywhere in the Humour departments under G but to no avail.

327. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62879 by the great teapot on August 12, 2007 at 7:08 am

"In this sense, while Dawkins's intentions are doubtless well meant, the rise of the atheist movement he symbolises could do more than the alternative spiritualities he disparages to threaten the fragile cohesion of our societies"

Is he suggesting that we all should believe in something that does not exist because it is the only thing that bonds us all together?
Is he refering to the cohesion in Northern Ireland or Isreal.

Also have you noticed how Richard needs to eat food, just like the pope does? Come to think of it has anyone ever seen them in the same room together?

328. Science and the Islamic World

Comment #62806 by the great teapot on August 11, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Is Al Hathan that chap who made his great discoveries while incaserated for some trivial reason or other.
Giskard, he was the first person to realise that sight came from something outside the body ie light and was not a sort of radar system emitted from the eye.
It is amazing how everything is obvious when someone else points it out. When he observed this fact it was not that elementary, no other self conscious being on the planet had noticed it before and recorded it.
However further insights from the arab world do seem thin on the ground. but I am no expert so I may stand corrected.
A british TV personality/ ex politician (Kilroy silk) almost ended his career for voicing your opinion. Even if what he said may have been true.

329. Science and the Islamic World

Comment #62769 by the great teapot on August 11, 2007 at 10:06 am

All IS revealed in the Koran, but only to believers who have the eyes to see.
see the link below, infidels
http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm

330. Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Comment #62183 by the great teapot on August 8, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Is this really only the 3rd poast.
It really is amazing that such rational thinking produces nothing. The wee flea and his nonsense creates mountains of h-rse--0-i

331. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57247 by the great teapot on July 18, 2007 at 4:35 pm

clearly there are a lot of addicts here.
This thread is feeding an addiction for sure.
Morality Paul, leave it alone. we are nice because we want to be liked and people to treat us nice. if we act like arseholes we increase the chances of someone knocking the shit out of us.
It ain't philosophy it is the law of the jungle.
It isn't cast in stone and nor does it need to be. Get to grips with it.

332. The New New Atheism

Comment #56626 by the great teapot on July 16, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I wish this fashion for Atheism would end so we can all go back to believing in things without a shred of evidence.
Atheism seemed fun at first but now I can see a great void in my life approaching that not believing in things without reason simply can no longer fill.
What is the next fashion, can anyone advice me,I don't want to appear out of touch.

333. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56439 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Re comment 79
Yes, but we still all understood what she meant even if written down it is utter piffle. It is strange isn't it how we correct and fill in the gaps etc to get the gist, no matter how poorly stated the question. Thank mmm.

334. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56437 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Rtambree

At last an optimistic voice.
I believe that if left to our own devices religion will disappear completely. With good education and no totalitarianism etc religion will all but dissapear. In the Uk, inspite of the fact 30 years ago atheism was a semi dirty word, now saying you "believe" is like standing up and admitting to being a tiny bit nuts. So long as this is a free choice it is virtually an unstopable trend. No god is to Monotheism what monotheism is to polytheism. Who would have thought 20 years ago communism would be almost obsolete.
It will happen in the next 2 or 3 generations.

335. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56431 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Demon haunted world?
wtf?
Oh yeah It's coming back to me now. That nerd with the colander on his head. Where's that delete button.
Jodrell bank ? Isn't that cockney rhyming slang?

336. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56427 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Downunder has the penny dropped yet with the Monty Hall question.
I inwardly digested it yesterday (sober). How wrong can you be. Perhaps I am wrong about god as well.
Ik hoop niet.

337. LA Church 'agrees abuse pay deal'

Comment #56422 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Is deliver us from evil on the net, if so I'll watch it.But with a critical eye.
The notion that the priesthood creates paedophiles by stunting the sexual growth of the priest is a very good point. I wonder if the church is aware of this possibility and if so has it tried to do anything to prevent it, I suspect the denial would be too strong. And even if the priests were aware of the phenomena would that prevent them falling victim to it.
Phil Rimmer - it does deny them the moral higher ground I agree. But I wanted to remind everyone that doesn't give us the moral high ground either.
But you are both right,

338. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56415 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 4:53 pm

I have to say I was a little dissappointed with the repetetive nature of Harris, Hitchens (in Hogwarts dining hall) and Dawkins et al, but 1Town reminds us all that just because we heard it 6 months ago doesn't mean the rest of the world did. If they repeat, it is because their act is honed down to the best sound bites, adlibbing can produce more misses than hits. Experts have probablly done this repetiton on the after dinner circuit since time began (circa 4000 BC) it is only the interweb that has exposed it.
Billy Connelly once said everyone thinks they are a great comic because they made everyone laugh with their best man speech, but the real comedian has to do it 40 nights in a row with the same script.. (loosely quoted.)
Speaking of Billy, if the 10 th commandment were "don't deep fry everything" for humanitarian reasons can we give Scotland a special exemption?
Is the talk on Einstein available?

339. LA Church 'agrees abuse pay deal'

Comment #56405 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 4:14 pm

No one thinks less of religion than me but do we have to expose the human frailities of the church in such a gleefull manner.
We all know religion is man made, we all know priests are men, untouched by god. There is enough wrong with religion without gloating over the fact cruel people hide under its wing.
This is shamefull enough for them without atheists using it as a stick.
Just the fact that religion is make believe twaddle is enough for me to find it derisible.
The way I see it is these men are imposters, if you really believed there was an omnipotent being watching your every move would you do that. These child rapists are bigger atheists than you and me.

340. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55627 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 6:32 pm

No
If you switch, you have still only 1 in 3 chances.
You can't claim credit for your first choice which also may be the correct one- but you have just discarded it.I can only choose one of the 2 remaining which is still actually a choice of 1 in 3.
Even if the puzzle is a play on the wording.
If it was possible that my original choice was correct and nothing suggests otherwise all options present equal chances.
If I could choose both of the other 2 then my chance would double. But I can only choose 1.
What the proposal is, I think, actually saying is that if you never make a definite choice you stand more chance of winning. Doesn't sound quite so counter intuitive put like that.

341. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55622 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Probability does n't work like that.
You can't revise figures with hindsight and you still only have one choice. The previous choices must be discounted as if they never existed.
This reminds me of a question on talksport last footaball season.
What is the probability that Southampton will meet Portsmouth in the next round of the FA cup.
There were 32 teams left,our esteemed talk sport presenters were convinced the chance was 1 in 16 because the 2 teams could draw each other either at home or away. The fact that they could meet the other 30 teams home and away seemed not to occur to them
They consulted the betting expert who corrected them, there is in fact a 1 in 15 chance he said- problem solved the expert has spoken- no amount of non expert opinion could convince them otherwise- I despair.

342. The US map of faith

Comment #55611 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Johnny O

Given the time they have taken to build that church in barcelona I doubt even tieInterceptors inflated cijfers.

343. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55604 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Oh boy.
I am going to finish this bottle, go to sleep and think about it tomorrow.

344. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55597 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 4:20 pm

I can see the answer is 1000/6.3 ish mm because the %change in radius is still actually very small as is the % change in circumference.
But I still can not see why my chance of wining a goat is not the new figure of 50% for both changing or not changing my mind.

345. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55590 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Dr Benway,

Was this a blind date ....until the lightbulb came on.

Why do the chances increase if you change your mind?

346. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #55586 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Darwin2,
If they find out what you're taking, you're going down for a long time.
Oh I see from your previous comments you believe you are already.
Good luck in your next parole appeal.

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

Comment #54126 by the great teapot on July 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Religion sucks, because it is nonsense.

348. The Panel

Comment #53419 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 11:32 am

This shows that the people taking part have a life and don't spend all day swotting for a physics A level they took 30 years ago.

349. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53416 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 11:04 am

PaulEmecz
This post on another thread may be of interest to you.
Thanks cbhg21808 ( Do you have a brother in manchester the name seems familiar)

Moral Relativism begins with the proposition that there are no objectively definable absolutes and no absolute truths, within any moral premise. Thus, the assumption is that everything is potentially relative and can be regarded has having potential actuality, as an aspect of mankind's 'moral' character.

Moral Relativism assumes that any moral question can be judged based on socially excepted premises and even the whim of the moment, simply because it is impossible to define a universal moral framework that relates to mankind as a whole and the individual as a unit.

The main claim for Moral Relativism then, is that 'anything goes' because there is nothing to 'go at'. In other words, if Moral Relativism is a true proposition, then any action is potentially moral, because nothing is immoral relative to mankind. Indeed, if everything is considered as relative and there are no universals with regard to morality, then by definition everything becomes relative and nothing can be seen as immoral within that framework.

If it were really true that Moral Relativism was the common standard and one could not identify objective moral universals... then to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife are both relative positions, because there are no absolutes in the context of Moral Relativism.

For Moral Relativism to have even a grain of truth, one would have to start from the premise that mankind had no capable way of identifying its own individual nature - its physical, psychological and philosophical nature...

But the fact is that mankind can understand the 'atomic' nature of the individual. The individuals physical, psychological and philosophical nature can be understood and indeed is being understood as mankind's knowledge progresses. It is because we can understand our nature more and more and are able to frame that nature within a universal context of morality, that allows us to conclude the Moral Relativism is a false proposition.

If it were genuinely true that we could not identify moral universals, then it would also be true that we could not create moral standards that protect individuals from the initiation of force. It is only because individuals are beings of a certain kind and behave in a certain way; that allows us to define a moral framework based around that behavior.

Coming back to the point of 'whether to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife' - and why we can identify the moral action as apposed to the immoral one. The reason mankind as a whole can agree on such a moral standard as "the initiation of force against a fellow man is morally wrong" is exactly because of mans nature (of course there are exceptions that would not be seen as initiating force, one may stab another in self-defense for example... maybe in a war situation).

An example of just one aspect of an individuals nature, is the emotion called empathy. We know that serial killers and tyrants are able to kill and even torture because they lack empathy. Empathy is basically the internal feeling or emotion that "I would not like to do to others, that which I would not like done to myself". Thus, if we see a stabbed man or woman in the street we empathize with their predicament... We essentially vicariously put ourselves 'in their shoes' and we have a deep welling up of empathy. The very fact that we are able to identify universal moral standards is because those standards have real concrete definable attributes such as empathy (we would most likely feel sympathy in the 'stab victim' situation too).

The fact is that, the more civilized a society becomes... The closer that society is to understanding it's own nature and how to incorporate that nature within a moral framework. Indeed, some societies are more civilized than others. Thus, we know that genital mutilation and honor killings are not good strategies for human beings, but in many Muslim countries such actions are being carried out. The moral standard in such countries has not shifted to the same degree that it has in more civilized western societies.

Another real concrete definable attribute is happiness. We recognize happiness as a universally good character trait... A happy individual is a rounded individual. Indeed, above all else... The degree by which an individual is happy is the degree by which one can measure the universal standard of moral stability. The happiest societies are known to be the healthiest societies. Actions such a genital mutilation and honor killings do not lead to happiness and stability. Indeed, ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali a Somali women who escaped from her Muslim past, in which she suffered terrible beatings and genital mutilation. She escaped Somalia and a forced arranged marriage, to live in the West and has become a successful author and public speaker... Ask her if she is happier now, I have little doubt of her reply.

Once you realise that Moral Relativism is a non-concept and that morals can be universally defined, based around mankind's innate nature, then the need for a a first mover or God to fill the 'moral relativistic' void; shrinks to zero.

350. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53412 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 10:48 am

chbg21808

That's your opinion.

I hope you don't mind, I have posted your comment on the inferior design thread. There is a god botherer on there who finds the idea of absolute morality very important. (for some reason I can't understand)