religionisbullshit.net

I will tune in to this broadcast.
It\'s not faith that causes people to commit evil. It\'s their selfishness and greed that makes them do it.
They don\'t kill for God, they kill for themselves. Is that too difficult to understand Ben? or Tim?
Why do you blame religion?

RHF, 06.01.2006, 2:28pm #

Dawkins is a hero to the worlds largest underground religion---SWINETOLOGY

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 06.01.2006, 8:43pm #

Dear RHF---
If GOD is so perfect---then WHY?? according to the Bible was he constantly killing people. GOD is a mass murderer--yet one of his commandments is " Thou shalt not kill ??

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 06.01.2006, 11:42pm #

RHF---

I never said that I don't believe in GOD---you did. The Bible never ceases to amaze me how these desert prophets could write in perfect English without an error--. I think you need to take up a hobby like gardening?? Maybe rock collecting??

Warmest regards--
Ima Hog--

Ima Hog, 07.01.2006, 12:32am #

We can debate the validity of the Bible all day long with tose who believe blindly in its pages. Anybody got some ideas on what we can do to replace it. We need a plan and something else for people to follow if they must---Perhaps Swinetology is the answer??
RHF--You are a prime example of people who rant and rave from the bible. Have you taken my advice and got a Hobbby?? Cross dressing is a goood pastime also!!!
Try going to the Gym or Give all your posessions to those who need it.

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 07.01.2006, 10:01pm #

There is only one question that should concern us with the Dawkins programmes: will he be as rude about Islam as he will undoubtedly be about Christianity.

If he is then I welcome these programmes as a vital act of defence against the current assaults on free speech in the UK.

As for his argument, I suspect Dawkins will as usual muddle up the philosophical arguments for atheism with emotive responses to organised religions; and that he will fail to address the arguments for the predominance of Lamarckian non-Dawrwinian Interactive Evolution as opposed to natural selection acting on
random mutations. Presumably he will have a go at the straw men of six day creationism.

field, 08.01.2006, 11:54am #

XD

no you can't. you've been reduced to swearing and ranting because you can find no other way to debate with us short of personal attacks.

Shaggy, 09.01.2006, 5:06am #

Shaggy---Hi there!! Wonderful to meet you. RHF---with all of that name calling CERTAINLY exemplifies what bible bangers are all abot. WHERE IS THE LOVE RHF?? I swear those Christians are all alike!!! I would like to apologise for RHS rude comment about calling you a FAG!! More anti-social christian behavior.
You asked about SWINETOLOGY--THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION. (www.bloghogz.com )
For more information please go to my Blog and read more. RHF needs to go to Mount Silo as you will read about on BLOGHOGZ--SWINETOLOGY. RHF needs our help --especially to work on those cuss words. RHF needs to adopt a homeless person or something insted of excreting some dusty oudated verses from the bible. RHF have you seen Brokeback Mountain yet?? What are your thoughts on movie??
Isn't Dawkins wonderful!!!! He would make an excellent replacement for the Pope. By the way I have a great idea for turning the Vatican into a casino and St. Peters square into a theme park with a new hotel built. All proceeds will go to the needy. This is a better use of property and will benefit mankind. The main altar can be used to display automoblies for prizes!!!

Ima Hog - Pigseer and Profit

Ima Hog, 09.01.2006, 5:46pm #

Guys, if you want to have fun with RHF do it on the introductory thread or any other open one, per the comments policy. He's a troll and gets deleted when his comments threaten to derail a thread.

Ima, sorry but that last comment was (at least once I'd cleared down some of RHF's shit) completely unrelated to the thread, so I got rid.

Ben, 09.01.2006, 7:02pm #

Field, you know, there's really no need to point out my comments are intemperate - I know they are, I wrote them. Anyway:

1) He may mention them, yes, as an aside of the 'this explains things far better than any religion' variety. But as I said, why would he mention a specific scientific debate, let alone the wearying one we keep having? I repeat, your theory is wildly extrapolated from actual epigenetic studies; for him to address more established debates such as sexual selection on a program about religion would be rather odd, let alone your fringe effort.

2) In your view. That you're allowed to have. Yes indeed. And he should refer to this predominance - that only exists IN YOUR HEAD - on his program about religion? Are you that deluded? That arrogant? Will you feel it a shocking lapse if he doesn't turn to the camera at some point and say "Now, leaving aside the title of this show and what the producers are paying me to talk about, let's turn to evolutionary studies. Some anonymous bloke on an anti-religion website has cobbled together a theory of neo-lamarckism based on epigenetic inheritence. Let's take a look..."?

3) 'Rationally' might be just about up for grabs, but you haven't defended it very well. A mix of personal incredulity, 'you have to admit there's a possiblity I might be right', the occasional token reference to the research in epigenetic inheritance and a dizzying surge of goalpost moving whenever you're up against it doesn't count as a particularly robust defence in my book.

Ben, 09.01.2006, 7:49pm #

First off Christianity Questionaire is quite funny actually. This show is good and I'd just like to say that man talking about how women are dressed is an idiot, should we marry people if we dont know what they look like you might marry a gay man in disguise isnt that worse in theit "mighty religion"

Redacid, 09.01.2006, 8:55pm #

Much as I'd like to take credit for the Christianity Questionnaire after the kind comments, that's actually the work of Tim, the site owner.

Ben, 09.01.2006, 9:24pm #

Why, thank you! Must add some more of the responses I've received (I get several a week, but only a few are genuine).

But back to the subject. It was certainly an interesting programme, and scary in places, but Dawkins said nothing most atheists don't already know, or that any rational thinker would disagree with. I suppose that's the problem. Perhaps moderately religious people might start to question their beliefs (fundamentalists would dismiss it all out of hand) but how many such people would watch in the first place?

Tim, 09.01.2006, 10:46pm #

Ben -

You said:


" It's a program about religion. Why would he address any scientific debate, let alone one that's basically 'the modern synthesis of natural selection' versus 'something some bloke came up with on a website a couple of weeks ago that's wildly extrapolated from a few new-ish research papers'?"

As I predicted, Dawkins did assert that Darwinian natural selection accounted for evolution. In other words, he was being as dogmatic on that as some of those he sought to criticise.

field, 10.01.2006, 9:05am #

Dearest Field, Tim & Ben---
I thoroughly enjoy reading your debates. But alas debates are debates with each steadfast in his views and the issues which are all based on myth will continue till the end of time onfortunately for mankind. I live in Los Angeles and I don't seem to be able to find the Dawkins program to view. At his worst Dawkins makes sense. All religious script was written by man and not God. If today someone said that God is speaking with them they would be put in an institution. The catholic churchadded to the cannons what was in the best interest of the church to control people. Field--you seem to have all the tit-for-tat answers?? But I might ask? with all of your endless religious knowledge? Give me one single practice where you actually help a single human being?? And lets forget the religious mumbo-jumbo word peddling.

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 10.01.2006, 5:11pm #

Ben -

Only time for a quick response. Will deal with other points later. Re 4:

I think it is you who misunderstand. To say that a teapot can orbit in the solar system is of itself not an issue. Everyone of sense would agree that it is a possibility. HOwever, the issue of whether there is a first cause or a ground of being or something beyond physical laws, is a much more fundamental issue. It is not enough, in the face of a clear need for explanation of the fundamental characteristics of the cosmos, to simply say "I choose not to believe in God" without also saying what your explanation for the fundamental characteristics of the cosmos is. You know full well that science is nowhere near offering a coherent explanation of the fundamental characteristics of the cosmos. Also, if the teapot analogy does really hold, then Dawkins must be saying that the existence of God is a definite possibility - i.e. it does not offend against any known laws. Is that what he is really saying?

field, 11.01.2006, 1:47pm #

Ben


"2) Pathetic. If you'd read Unweaving the Rainbow you'd have had more of his "existential experience" tales then an ideological numptie like you could cope with. Come on, are you saying that relationships rely on faith rather than evidence? If a girlfriend says "I love you" but spends her time standing you up, shagging your mates and slating you to your friends and family, do you take her comments on faith? Do you bollocks. When the evidence piles up against a relationship, anyone with half a brain ends it. Dawkins favours truth as part of growing up, part of becoming an adult (again, read Unweaving the Rainbow for stories of his childhood), not the strawman you paint of a truth-obsessed android."

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you agree with Dawkins when he said it was better always to live facing up to the truth than to live in faith ir you don't. If you have a partner I am sure they will be pleased to hear that you are taking a purely evidence-based approach to your relationship and that you don't have faith in her.

If you are going to be completely rational you have to say to them: I know the evidence so far is that you have been a devoted and perfectly acceptable partner but this could change tomorrow. There is plenty of evidence of people changing overnight. So I won't have any faith in you that you will remain my partner for the rest of our lives.

Why don't you try it.

"3. Does it? Can you back that up? More to the point, what is your point? (as it were). What is your problem here?"

My problem is that Dawkins in a rather plodding way sets up an opposition between religion (of the worst kind one might add) and science (of the best kind one might add). It's a reductive and unintelligent way of proceeding. Philosophy predates science and science built on philosophy in developing its method.

4. I've read your most recent post again (pathetically rude as usual for some reason).

You certainly don't get the point and I think that's because you don't understand the philosophical issues. It is certainly true that an individual can ignore the question of whether there is a God in the same way that he can ignore whether there is an orbiting teapot. But the context is completely different so the act of ignoring the claim has a completely different meaning - just as the phrase
"I'll come back to you later on that" has a different meaning whether the context is a telephone call from a double glazing salesman or a reuqest from water from a dying man in the desert.

How can I explain this best to you? Try this thought experiment. Suppose we were both foetuses put into deep freeze and sent out on some windowless spaceship into deep space as part of a research projects into inter-galactic travel. There are robots on board to teach us language and nurture us to adulthood. But they tell us nothing of our origins and of course we have no idea we are in space.

Now let's suppose after a while person A (me)says to person B (you). "You know, I think there must be some sort of being or beings, a bit like us but only much more clever and powerful who made us and built us this home with all these robots and stuff. Maybe they did so for a purpose which we don't yet understand." Person B says. "That's ridiculous. Next you'll be telling me we're inside a giant robot. Look I can't disprove what you are saying but that doesn't mean what you are saying exists. Let's get on with trying to understand these circuit boards."

In other words, Person B is ignoring a fundamental, essential and necessary inquiry about how these two people came to be there, the nature of their experience and the dimensions of their home. I think that is what Dawkins is doing because he's either never read any philosophy or doesn't understand it. That's not a problem in itself for a scientist, but it is for someone who pontificates about reason, faith, religion and science.

"5. The Grand Mufti conversation was admittedly mild, but he snapped at both the Muslim and Christian in his more direct interviews. Why a convert is less 'genuine' to you, I don't know."

When you are looking for representatives of religions, I think it is odd to go to a recent convert. More established representatives will often tell you that means that teh convert "doesn't understand" the (for them) new religion.

Dawkins could simply have read from the Koran, Hadith and interpretatinos of mainstream scholars. That's quite scary enough.

"6. Two quotes from you in this thread:

"a vital act of defence against the current assaults on free speech in the UK"

"Why are there no curriculum controls on the awful Saturday schools that brainwash Muslim children?"

Are you trying to suggest I'm contradicting myself? If so, I don't agree.

Firstly, free societies are free to defend themselves. In world war 2 lots of illiberal things were done. They were justified by the Nazi threat. I am not saying we face exactly the same threat. We don't. But Islam - which all scholars agree involves application of cleric controlled Shariah law - is an implacable enemy of man made laws, democracy and free speech. So we have to defend ourselves against it through our legal system.

Secondly, free speech does not give people the right to brainwash children in my view. It is a right of adult citizens - not a right to control the minds of minors. Children should not be overexposed to religious tuition on top of the school curriculum and religious school criteria do need to be examined. Children should be brought up to consider issues freely. In short they should be taught philosophy. When they reach adulthood, they should be free to follow whatever religion they choose, as long as it does not set out directly to harm others in this world.

field, 12.01.2006, 9:00am #

Dear Field---

Might I ann that I find your debates informational and stimulating. My question was what do you personally do for others. You obviously have spent a great deal of time gathering information to support your theories. Therefore--with your focus on God---does this make you a better person? A test question would be---
Lets say you have been given 50 million dollars that you can use to build a cathedral for the glory of God--( Jesus, Islam etc ) OR? Help the homeless, starving, aids infected-----WHICH CAUSE WOULD YOU FUND? My sister Ama has added some thoughs if you care to review on my Blog under the topic Mount Silo. ( www.bloghogz.com )

Ars longa, vita drevis
Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 12.01.2006, 5:24pm #

Ben---

I agree with you !!!

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 12.01.2006, 9:11pm #

Heh, is that the best you can do? At least use some foul language or something.

1. But why? There are loads of debates and controversies within the scientific community, and that would have required a whole separate show, ever a series. What you 'predicted' is that he'd ignore your back-of-a-beermat theory, but you can't seem to explain why he shouldn't.

2. Again you've shifted the burden of proof, but give me a while to think.

3. No you've not - I asked you to back up the statement that philosophy predates science. All you did was repeat it.

4. It's the better option because your leap of faith is just as likely to be in the wrong direction. You take that leap and go no further, unable to know if you are right and therefore living in ignorance yourself. I work towards the truth, however slowly that might be.

5. Five seconds is, of course, bollocks. I recorded the show, do you want me to go back with a stopwatch?

6. Yay!

As for your Ima debate, I made those points because you say Dawkins isn't offering much to your list of the afflicted - so I showed that he is. Would you at least care to address points 3, 4 and 5?

Ben, 13.01.2006, 7:58am #

Dearest Field----

Religion has played an important part in mans past history. I even collect religious art --simply for arts sake. I appreciate religious architecture--BUT in modern society can we move on and away from its antiquated need? We have plenty of buildings for Gods greater glory. I don't believe that Jesus would have approved of the way monies given to religious faiths is used nor would he have wanted all of the buildings and trappings of organized religion. Believing in God is one thing--HOW WE HONOR THAT BELIEF IS ANOTHER. THE POPE AND THE VATICAN RESEMBLE NOTHING ABOUT WHAT JESUS PREACHED. We can debate the past contributions of religion all day long--but what is a better use of energy in todays modern society?

Ima

Ima Hog, 13.01.2006, 5:21pm #

Dearest Field---

I see your point. I agree and also disagree. I am sure you watch the news and correct me if I am wrong? but all of this Middle East turmoilseems to be coming from religion? My god is the right God? Religion seems to be holding people back from progressing mentally. Science is a wonderful thing and medical advances. Sure we have weapons of mass destruction but people seem to be doing a lot of killing for their God with basic weapons. Religion is the big problem in todays society that spreads hatred and death. Let us focus on the isuues at hand today --regardless of the past. How do we fix the world. What about religion that doesn't want people to practice birth control? We don't needany more people--we needquality people. But economy is based on having more people means build more houses, cars, clothes, boats, food-etc. All organized religion is based on having more babies means more money--power. It seems to have little to do with bettering mankind.

Ima

Ima Hog, 13.01.2006, 9:11pm #

"It's how we use science's discoveries that matter, not science."

Exactly, science is a very powerful, but neutral, tool. And I for one would prefer it if those wielding the results of science weren't prone to irrational beliefs. If science brings about the apocalypse, it will because of human ideology, of which religion is the prime example. Ditch the irrational thinking, the leaps of faith, and our chances of survival improve. Field's got it arse about face - if science is a threat, in many cases it's because of religion.

Ben, 14.01.2006, 12:31pm #

AA -

"Science, the understanding of how the natural world works, is neither good nor bad - it is totally neutral,"

This oft-spun line is really the product of naivety or downright dishonesty on the part of science's apologists.

I suggest you read "Our Final Century" by Sir Martyn Rees. You will see there that even on a minimal reading, there are scientific experiments that might conceivably be undertaken e.g. into the structure of black holes that could result in the complete destruction of the Earth. So no human beings has to think about deploying the "technology" - the experiment itself could create the disaster.

Similarly, scientists might go on inadvertently to create highly "intelligent" and mobile robots. They might do so entirely innocently with no thought about what might result. However, it is possible that such robots might get away from human control (into sewer systems, tunnels, caves etc might be one possibility) and might decide to replicate themselves. They might then decide because of some quirk in their system that we are their enemy and come out to slaughter us.

Rees examines these theoretical possibilities which require no decision by humans to deploy technology in a bad way. So the "neutral" argument is completely bogus. Science purely through naive experimentation could end in our complete destruction. One could multiply these examples by the way (virus research, asteroid engineering etc).

However those rather lurid examples are still unlikely to materialise but the threat of the robo-medicated brain is a very real one, one that is already half way here and one that will grow alarmingly in the next few decades.

It seems to me that while much of scientific experimentation might be formally "neutral", if it creates new possibilities that are difficult to police effectively then structurally it does have bad effects. So, I would say that any scientist who was engaged in an experiment to discover how say to minituarise atom bombs and make them simple and cheap to manufature is involved in a bad exercise even if he has no intention whatsoever of himself ever deploying such a device - or perhaps thinks they will be useful in building canals cheaply.

Regarding birth control, I am fully in favour: but the more natural the better. Hormonal contraception does terrible things to the bodies of young women and is best avoided.

I think that the Pope is hardly the threat to humanity you suppose. Italy, his domestic power base, has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. It is in fact the Islamic world which now has among the highest birth rates.

I am less pessimistic than you about resource use. Fossil fuels can easily be replaced with hydrocarbon crops of various types, wind power, solar energy and - if necessary - nuclear power. IN any case there's still loads of stuff locked up in tar sands across the world - once the oil price reaches a certain level it becomes economic to extract. Most finite store materials used can be replaced by others that can be manufactured or grown e.g. wood, ceramics, hydrocarbon plants, recyclables. Even pollution can be conquered by techonology. We could right now if we wished build plants across the world to capture pollutants and take them out of the atmosphere, but we don't. We will soon be able to control the global temperature either through reflecting sunlight on to the planet or shielding it. As for biodiversity, there is a bit of sentimentality about that I woudl suggest. I have no wish to see a single species go but you can't pretend that they are all of equal
importance to the biosphere.
Clean drinking water can be produced from the sea. But it may be that we will soon begin to use water preservation systems in the home.

The environmental dangers to humanity are nothing compared with those from medical science.

I agree with Ima and you however that we need to move from a quantity economy to a quality economy. Birth control is part of the answer. The planet would be far more pleasant with a lot fewer people: say half I would suggest.

The emphasis should indeed be on improving quality of life, reducing pollution, and exchanging increases in production for increases in "low energy use" non-work leisure time e.g. low cost sports activities rather than shopping.

field, 14.01.2006, 11:49pm #

hmm, wasn't RHFs long spam-rant on this? i cna't find it, i wanted to see his response. or maybe i'm just stupid and can't use a computer o_0

Shaggy, 15.01.2006, 4:05am #

Field, some final points and then I think I'm done here interminable interweb debates are not one of my favourite things and I doubt anyone besides me and thee are even reading anymore. To go back to the numeric points:

1. Fair enough, I disagree but I've made my point and we can leave it there.

3. I wasn't disputing it as such, just wanted you to back it up, it was a bit of a sweeping statement. It really depends on your definitions, in my opinion a rudimentary version of both philosophy and science probably go back to pre-history, and it's impossible to say which came first. Just to quote from Wikipedia: ??Aristotle, one of the most prolific natural philosophers of antiquity, made countless observations of nature, especially the habits and attributes of plants and animals. Even if we accept that science as we know it today started with Galileo, you should realise that you've committed another fallacy, by the way, with the statement ??it pre-dates science the argument ad antiquitatem. I know I'm making a big deal of this, but you seem to be a fan of philosophy.

4. ??You leap, not knowing for certain whether you are right?? and can never know. So what's the point? If it's such a fundamental, essential and necessary inquiry what do you achieve by naval-gazing? That's why the rational route is better, it actually achieves results. ??I think I have already shown that while you claim to believe that rational inquiry is always better than faith, you don't actually practise that? where have you shown that? You also say ??alternatively you will have to accept that his comments on Lourdes also apply to relationships but I'm fairly sure I've been consistently arguing that relationships are built on evidence. Is this a debating tactic, to wait until the thread has reached a length no one in their right mind would want to wade through, then claim your opponent has made the opposite argument? ??You prefer to die in ignorance as though spaceship field wouldn't also die in ignorance (if spaceship Ben didn't throttle him first)? A religious person is ignorant, he just thinks he's not.

5. It would be pathetic, I know the reason I say it is that stuff like this is symptomatic of your style of debate. In other threads, you've made ludicrous statements about mutations despite admitting you know little about it and have demonstrated that you don't know what science or atheism are. Claim hyperbole if you want, but at least make it clear.


A few other points: I know you're talking to AA about birth rates, but do you not consider the Catholic church's stance on condoms a threat to humanity? Especially since they are outright lying?; in the '?Lying for God' thread, I asked you if you could tell me what books you've read on epigenetics, and if you recommend any in particular. Any chance of a response?

Ben, 15.01.2006, 11:16pm #

Ben/AA -

As usual you are both way off mark on lots of the points I am making.

Firstly, I am not appealing to Rees as an "authority". I am making the points myself. I was merely pointing at that the Astronomer Royal had made the same points and since I think we can all agree he knows more about such things as black hole research than I do I was wondering whether Ben also thought he had got things "arse about face". Ben, in desperation tries to shift the ground onto the question of whether Rees is saying explicitly that science is a bigger threat than religion which I never claimed. However, I would say that is a fair reading of the book. I think there may even be a qoute roughly to that effect.

The point that Rees makes as well and which you do not address is that a scientist in all innocence might conduct some experiment on the basic fabric of space/matter that proves disastrous. Now, you seem to be saying that there is now this requirement on all scientists to ensure that their experiments don't prove disastrous. Well of course I agree, but that is a far cry from claiming as AA does that it is purely the application of techonology that is the problem. Here we have honourable scientists whose only concern is to expand human knowledge and yet they might still cause the ultimate catastrophe! You can't say that science is "neutral" in such circumstances. The statement is meaningless. I could say mathematics is "neutral" (not that the statement would do me much good) but experiment is at the heart of science and if small experiments can have disastrous results then the neutrality argument falls at the first fence.

I have already given examples of perverse deployment of science. If you want specifics take nuclear weapons, the creation pollutant byproducts (e.g. feminising plastics), the use of ritalin as mind control for youngsters.

Ben is wrong on the spaceship example. The two could (unbeknownst to them)actually be at the end of the mission so they land, the spaceship opens and all is revealed including a pre-recorded message explaining exactly how the spaceship came to be built and the two people put on it.

If you want an example from real life: supposing two people go hitch-hiking and accept a lift from a seemingly pleasant enough person. However hitchhiker A has a "funny feeling" about the driver. He prays to God for guidance and feels that God is telling him to get out. Hitchhiker A makes an excuse and gets out at the next service station. Meanwhile hitchiker B thinks the behaviour of hitchhiker A is odd, since he has seen no rational evidence that the driver is in any way strange or likely to be a danger. However half and hour later the driver reveals themsevels to be a serial killer and kills hitchhiker B. Here we have clear evidence that hitch-hiker A made the right decision based on faith. However you will presumably wish to say that it was hitch-hiker B who took the sensible course of action!
The fact that hitch-hiker A may simply have randomly arrived at the right answer is of no importance by the way. A rational belief system would have prevented him randomly arriving at the right answer so the random system is still better. (It's a bit like Pascal's wager by the way.)

There are incidentally lots of cases where people have not got on planes because of premonitions and those planes have gone down. So this isn't a far fetched example.

I;ve no problem with condoms if people want to use them. I don't believe every sperm is sacred. I also don't think the early foetus is in any meaningful sense a human being.

AA sounds bit hysterical on the subject of birth control. Yes, I have one child so that makes me Ok mathematically - I;m doing my bit to reduce population!

Anyway, it seems to me that is societies are allowed to develop freely and the emphasis is put on individual self development as in the West we soon end up with societies with negative birth rates. There is no need for "mandatory birth control" in the West. Any increase in the populations of some countries in Western Europe such as the UK has resulted from mass immigration.

If countries such as China want to follow one child policies then I think they should be allowed to do so,
because overpopulation can only lead to mass starvation in the end. However, I think practices such as forced abortion as in China should be avoided. I think most people could be induced to follow a one child policy through taxation, housing and other policies.

However, since you both seem obssessed with the Pope and condoms, let me put this quesiton to you:

If it were shown that a programme of sexual abstinence backed up by religious teaching were shown to be more effective in combatting Aids than condoms, and thus saving millions of lives, would you back such a programme? Or are you actually more committed to your belief system than the saving of lives?

As for the energy debate I wonder where AA gets his assertion that "available" biomass is only a fraction of the energy we need. I find that hard to believe. I have read estimates for the UK - a densely populated fairly northern country - that suggest we would need to plant only third of our
existing agricultural land to produce enough energy. It seems to me that there are many parts of the world which might prove suitable for development of energy crops. I'm not saying we should try to supply 100% of our needs but as in Brazil, they could supply a a significant proportion - maybe 20-30%.

If you combine, wind, solar,
energy conservation, energy crops, nuclear, clean coal techonology, new fuels such as hydrogen, waste incineration and the remaining oil reserves I can't see disaster looming.

We should be more worried about global warming. But let's not forget we have alreadt nearly solved one major environmental problem (the ozone hole) - so let's be optimistic and say humans might solve global warming as well - pumping carbon gas back into rock reservoirs is obviously one workable solution.

field, 16.01.2006, 9:15am #

A truly excellent two part delight notifying us of the dangers of religion and indeed of its parasitic pickle. A logical documentary of which contrasts greatly with the muddled collated arguments that religious (fundamentalists) spew out.

Like a rotting carcass, religion is stagnating, splitting, fracturing, but more importantly, whilst doing so, it is deleting innocent lives. These lives are and were erased in a variety of circumstances, from burning convictions back in the 1500s, the Spanish Inquisition's reign of terror, conquest and destruction of vast lands, planes smashing into buildings, the current middle eastern skirmish I can aptly accredit religion to be the basis of the bulk of all world warfare, both current and indeed of the past.

Yet we must take the term '??life erasing' into a different light, perhaps a one of which sees individuals' lives not terminated, but instead played host to parasitic indoctrinated beliefs, plundering their lives into a constant battle with fear.

Religion is an ancient system of law and hypocritical codes designed to fool society into accepting it as a method of maintaining morals, but it is useless and serves no purpose other than to stagnate minds.

Whilst science and technology progresses, religion hinders this progress, clinging onto beliefs rooted in barbaric ages. With science we have a force for good, when used correctly, to perform its miracles, to try to render disease redundant, to make our lives easier and to supply the human mind with what it wants to do ? to learn, to break boundaries and to evolve.

Religiously indoctrinated individuals will always state of their non acceptance of such ideals, and yet the clothes they wear and the technology incorporated into their lives remind them of one thing :? Science.

This is religion's last stand, but a one of which doesn't bring misery, but of happiness, and of progress, and hopefully a new era of scientifically backed belief of the unknown then, and only then, will we have a path of clarity.

Luke Daniels, 16.01.2006, 9:41pm #

Luke Daniel's--

I applaud your comments. I have never heard it put more simply and clearly. If people could only wake-up from this spell of following antiquaited religious beliefs that are literally putting mankindin the grave and robbing him of enjoying his time on Earth.

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 16.01.2006, 11:14pm #

Field, thanks for some valid points.

It is an unfortunate situation for science, for it has been distracted through the countless ages by primarily, war, and has had its neutrality manipulated by the various powers behind these wars.

In terms of the warfare's nature, especially the current skirmish taking place in the Middle East, to me, it adopts a very neo-crusade type demeanour. One only has to look at the islamo-fascist fundamentalists totting around with guns and then turn to the Christian conservatives in George Bush's administration, advocating totting around with guns for their armed forces. We can encapsulate the administration's attitude with this quote by George Bush Senior:

??I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." What in his god's name is wrong with these people?? If you aren't a Christian, you aren't welcome in this country.

This is a disgusting quote and is running to the brim with bigotry, hypocrisy and all round disrespect for the human race, and I feel lowered to use such a quote. More importantly, this is precisely where scientific progress has been cut short, fuelling its use into warfare, warfare, warfare.

I digress and I come back to your previous points concerning memory modules and whatnot. We might not have achieved to this level, yet, but science is developing nevertheless and contributes to your everyday life, enriching it, prolonging it, developments in health for example how would you react if I was to say that the aging process could be slowed or indeed nullified?

I wish to support Ben's stance that the profession of science is neutral, yes it is, yet it becomes unduly agitated when in the control of religious nutcases. What of the other religious individuals, the ones that do not base their (violent) actions around merely one callous quotation - they are called hypocrites. This is where the fracturing occurs at the expense of innocent (atheist) life, as they are brought into the fury.

Your list seems to be dominated by Huxley style ruminations, a belief that humans are becoming more machine and machines might become more human; I hope that the human race will tread very carefully during and after the development of artificial intelligent based robots, as to not flare up the religious sectors.

Scaremongering is the only term I can apply to religion, it is out of touch with the evolved world - people have morals already, it has been proved, genetically. Religion implants horrid imagery in children and peoples heads, a constant reminder of unrequired misery. We do not need the tuition of various contradicting fables in the main two polarised evils: Christianity and Islam, for we have evolved.

We can see from passages of text of the underlying thuggish violence and contradictions in Christianity:

Violence and general nastyness:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34

"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
Genesis 11:7

"... because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Hosea 13:16

"Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
Genesis 22:2

"But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

That is a tad ironic.

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."
Exodus 21:20-21

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."
Exodus 22:2-3

"Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."
Leviticus 19:19

"There are, however, some winged insects you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. You may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper."
Leviticus 11:21-22

This contradicts with...

"If anyone eats blood, that person must be executed."
Leviticus 7:27

For insects have blood, just of a different colouration.

Which brings one onto some contradictions, compiled by the webmaster of Godlessgeeks:

God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6

God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings, sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12

There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7

God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33

God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31

Public prayer sanctioned
1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
Public prayer disapproved
Matt 6:5,6

A man may marry his brother's widow
Deut 25:5
A man may not marry his brother's widow
Lev 20:21

The list does indeed carry on...

Luke Daniels, 17.01.2006, 8:14pm #

Ahahahahahahahaha! Oh field, can we assume then that every point you've ever failed to address any further - and by gum there's a few! - you have in fact conceded? Marvellous!

Seriously though, if you want to draw me back into an argument (I can't speak for AA, of course), you could try not being a self-important, obtuse, intellectually dishonest twunt rather than doing the net debate equivalent of going 'Chicken! Bwak-bwak-bwaaaaaaaak!'. I know that might be a bit of a stretch, but if you believe in yourself, I'll bet you can pull it off. I can't help but be reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail - 'the Black Knight always triumphs!' 'Running away, eh? You yellow bastard!' etc

Ben, 18.01.2006, 12:19am #

Luke -

You seem incapable of addressing the argument. Instead you simply keep asserting that science is "neutral".

Let me break it down for you into easy pieces:

1. Do you accept that any social phenomenon (be it religion, ideology, poulluting industry, economic theory, philosophy or whatever) cannot be described as neutral if it can lead directly to the destruction of the biosphere or humanity - even if no one makes a conscious decision to destroy them.

2. If your answer to 1 is yes, then do you also accept that black hole and virus research experiments carry the risk however slight of destroying the planet or humanity?

3. If your answer to 2 is yes, then why do you still claim that science is "neutral" - what on earth do you mean by that claim.

4. If your answer to 1 is no, then please define what the hell you mean by "neutrality". It sounds to me you are defining it to mean anything you personally like.

5. If the answer to 2 is no, then please explain why you think such experiments are not potentially dangerous in this way.

I notice also you fail to answer as to which of the items I list you think are examples of scientific progress.

As for the Bible quotes you obviously read the Good Book a lot more than I do. I've never tried to defend it and I don't now. As Churchill's son said after winning a bet to read the whole of the Bible (set by Evelyn Waugh) and being asked what he thought of it: "Isn't God a shit!"

Ima -

You seem completely unable to construct an argument to defend your position and simply issue little statements of praise for those whose views you find congenial. Fair enough I guess.

Ben -

I'm happy to revisit any point you think I have given up on. I invite you to do the same: to explain how science is "netural" if it can, without any malice aforethought, wipe out humanity at a stroke?

I've noticed that the more vulnerable your position, the more you resort to the feeble attempts at humour.
I have not behaved in the hysterical way you allege. I have put the points I wish to make coherently and I have asked reasonable questions, as with Luke above.

AA -

You may like to flatter yourself that you are a "pretty astute" observer of human nature but you are a rotten historian. Abstinence (from full sex, at least prior to formal engagement) was the norm amongst young people in the late nienteenth and early twentieth century. It is the norm for women at least now in many societies e.g. most Islamic countries. So a culture of abstinence is perfectly acheivable. What you have to have is the right ideology to back it up adn that is the point you seem determined to dodge.

However, I don't want you to dodge the point.

The condom may be effective in preventing disease. That wasn't the question I asked.

First of all the question is hypothetical so you don't need to worry about the real world for a moment. Simply answer whether - if it could
be shown that abstinence backed up by religious teaching was the most effective way of saving lives would you support it?

I would however make the point that the real choice is not between condoms and
a call to abstinence. It is clear that sexual experimentation with persons who have had other partners clearly is more risky than abstinence until lifelong commitment to one partner
who has also been abstinent. So the question then is whether a culture of
sexual experimentation plus defensive measures is more effective at preventing disease than a culture of sexual and religious suppression. If you choose the former even though it leads to more deaths then clearly saving life is not your first concern. I'm not saying you are wrong to do so.

I think I personally would argue for a mixed approach. Condoms are not enough. Young people should be made aware of the dangers of promiscuity and should be encouraged to stick to one partner, whether married or not. In some parts of the world where AIDS is rife there is a culture of sexual promiscuity which is deadly.

field, 18.01.2006, 9:08am #

Dearest Field---

An overly intelligent person such as yourself shouldn't pick on little old me. Why is it that people who hold God so dear are always so condeming of others. Oh wait---I forgot that the Biblical God that you so admire was always killing and making humans suffer. Since you believe that you were made in God's image and likness?---I can understand your arrogant behavior. Sorry Field for another pathetic little short post--but I will not be crushed or made silent by your weighty and somewhat flimsy groundless posting. I await more of your Dark Ages arguments.

Little poster
Ima
p.s.---the size of the post isn't what matters.
SCIENCE IS GOOD!! RELIGION IS BAD!!

Ima Hog, 18.01.2006, 4:51pm #

Excellent, I get to use a field-ism.

As usual you are way off the mark on the point I am making. The last thing I want you to do is revisit any of the points you've not replied to, I'm not that masochistic. The purpose of my comment was merely to highlight your hypocrisy - you drop threads and apparently think nothing of it, and I don't think you've been accused of running away scared. In return, your first comment when you think someone else has dropped a point is 'You may notice that Ben and AA have gone awful quiet about the neutrality issue. I think it's because they can see...' etc. Not only do you trip over yourself to point out a lack of grappling with that point in the latest comments, you even have the cheek to claim it must be because we've realised the error of our ways.

All in all, a fine example of self-important, obtuse, intellectually dishonest twunttery.

Ben, 18.01.2006, 10:00pm #

I feel that I have encapsulated the answers to your questions...

You asked me:

1. Do you accept that any social phenomenon (be it religion, ideology, polluting industry, economic theory, philosophy or whatever) cannot be described as neutral if it can lead directly to the destruction of the biosphere or humanity - even if no one makes a conscious decision to destroy them.

The examples that you have given me, for example, philosophy, economic theory and ideology are not neutral, for they are professions, disciplines, of the human mind. As we have seen from the past, many of these are war creators, when directed by the human mind, and war is immoral, and hence these not neutral. (If one desires to go beyond what is good, and what is evil, then perhaps a separate thread about Friedrich Nietzsche's beliefs with regards to this would suffice. Incidentally, this is where your belief comes into play, Field; he had his glorious works sabotaged by the Nazis, hence his work will not be neutral, certainly not to you).

Religion is certainly not neutral, not until it's separation from state politics and influence on present "holy crusades."

"...or whatever", I take it you are including the profession of science under this little addition; I feel that the profession of science could lead onto a world as advocated by Aldous Huxley, if we are not careful. But it most probably won't be scientists at the helm of such an operation of change, but more like politicians or neo-technological embracing religious splinter groups.

2. If your answer to 1 is yes, then do you also accept that black hole and virus research experiments carry the risk however slight of destroying the planet or humanity?

Yes, such professions for science do bare risks.

3. If your answer to 2 is yes, then why do you still claim that science is "neutral" - what on earth do you mean by that claim.

I don't...I believe that standalone science, irrespective of the profession of it, bares a field of uniting the universe that our current minds cannot discern yet. I believe that this is a neutral force. Science is my God, especially when the theory of everything is released, as of a later date.

Luke Daniels, 19.01.2006, 4:22pm #

Dearest Field----

When I think of religion--this is what I think--
----------------------But, as it says in I Corinthians:
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a
child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things."

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 19.01.2006, 6:08pm #

Luke -

You now say you do not claim that science is neutral. But in an earlier post you said that science's "neutrality" was being manipulated by various bad people. So then you were claiming science was essentially neutral. In other words, you have contradicted yourself since something that is not neutral cannot have neutrality.

Also I see you haven't even answered question 1. You've answered an entirely different question - "What are your views on the various disciplines I have mentioned".

Ima -

I don't know that you read the same posts as I do. Hardly anyone here seems to be basing their arguments on what is written in books. I have referred to a book by Sir Martyn Rees but my argument doesn't depend on it: I simply offered that as evidence in support of my argument regarding experimentation.

As for a test of humanity, I would say that the requirement is to remain polite rather than friends - since friendship can only develop between people who know each other really well. I'm not saying I've lived up to the standard at all times but my patience has been sorely tested by Ben's offensiveness and your refusal to get a grip on any of the issues.

As for the quotes, try this:

"PHILOSOPHY WEEKLY - Field's posts have shot holes through the
poorly defended cause of atheism. His opponents in the debate seem reduced to silence, digression or feeble and ineffective attempts at humour."

field, 20.01.2006, 8:52am #

Just a quick response to Field's question, prior to my post regarding the hypocritical murderous acts committed by the terrible two.

You said:

??You now say you do not claim that science is neutral. But in an earlier post you said that science's "neutrality" was being manipulated by various bad people. So then you were claiming science was essentially neutral. In other words, you have contradicted yourself since something that is not neutral cannot have neutrality.

Yes, it can be said that science (of which the profession of it derives from), begins as neutral with regards to the various sectors and fields it encapsulates, before having its deportment manipulated by the various bad people. Hence, it goes from being a neutral science to an un-neutral exercise of the pofession of it, and as we know, the force of science that unites the universe is neutral, yet the profession of it can lead to un-neutral ground (often in the hands of religious groups, intent on blowing each other up, holding onto bronze age scripture, as opposed to striving for a theory of everything).

Luke, 20.01.2006, 9:27pm #

Luke -

So you are saying that science has undergone a historical process: it started off as neutral but it is no longer - now it is non-neutral and, indeed, has bad effects. So it seems you are in conflict with AA, Ben and Ima on that.

AS for your figures, that kind of argument is highly dubious. I could certainly quote back at you the wars started by anti-religious people in the twentieth century. The deaths there ran into 100s of millions of people. Also, many people woudl not characterise the Iraq war as a religious war -
they would say it was an economic war, for control of resources. At least, it is certainly a matter of debate.

Also, it is difficult to think of any human phenomenon that does not have some bad effects. Dentistry though good at dealing with bad teeth and removing the causes of pain has led to mercury poisoning and deaths from sedation techniques. Football, though a wonderful fun form of exercise has been associated with on field injuries and
riots by opposing supporters. Classical musical performances at concert standard have been asosciated with mental breakdown in some performers as it is a high stress activity. Name me an activity and I can think of some bad effects.

So to say here is a list of the bad effects of religion is nothing. You have to weigh all the effects - good and bad - together and make a judgement. Some people would argue that the benefits of religion: the beautiful buidlings and music it is asscoiated with, the social solidarity it encourages, the energising of the human spirit it produces are all good effects that may outweigh the deaths in religious wars.

I'm not here to defend religion so I don't have to make that case. But I can reasonably ask you and others to show that science is taking us to a good place and knows what it is doing. I would argue it isn't necessarily and it certainly doesn't. I would use the analogy of a fully automatic fast car with no driver. We got in the car and it has taken us to some marvellous places. The thing is, it keeps accelerating and no one seems to know how to make it slow down. We are going faster and faster and it seems there is a real danger we might crash at some point. Perhaps we won't. Perhaps we will see more marvellous places, but no one knows for sure.

Religion may have a been a plodding old horse but we could direct it and we knew that while there would be the odd stumble it was not going to trample us to death.

field, 21.01.2006, 4:19pm #

Field said:"Hardly anyone here seems to be basing their arguments on what is written in books. I have referred to a book by Sir Martyn Rees but my argument doesn't depend on it: I simply offered that as evidence in support of my argument regarding experimentation."



I know that this was stated to Ima, but you make an assertion without justification here. My 'triple threat' to humanity conjecture of resource-depletion due to overpopulation, pollution and loss of bio-diversity are all drawn from conclusions in books I've read recently. Here they are presented as backing evidence of my conclusion.

1. Collapse by Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond. A look at why societies fail and what we can learn from it(or not).
2. Guns, Germs and Steel by the same author. A look at why some societies have overtaken others in history. Diamond won the Pulitzer for this book.
3. Powerdown : Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World by Richard Heinberg. A look at the options for humanity after the coming decline in energy supplies. Heinberg's a bit of a science-phobe along the lines of you though especially in regards to genetic engineering (of crops mostly). I think some of his advice is quite acheivable though.
4. The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century by James Howard Kunstler. I disagree with some of what Kuntsler says, but it's good wake up call.
5. The Future of Life by Pulitzer Prize winning author and world-renowned biologist Edward O. Wilson. Wilson presents ethical arguments to the problems of overpopulation and the depletion of earth's resources and diversity, but I'm not as optimistic as he in regards to human nature.

These are not presented as an argument from authority, but as a rebuttal to your statement of not "basing their arguments on what is written in books". You asked earlier "As for the energy debate I wonder where AA gets his assertion that "available" biomass is only a fraction of the energy we need. I find that hard to believe." Um, maybe I read too. I didn't just make it up, scientists (and others)are constantly studying, research and writing about other things than black hole experiments going awry or nanotechnology self-replicating out of hand, including energy, pollution and availabilty or scarcity of resources. Out of these 5 recent reads, I suggest at least reading Collapse and The Future of Life. The Long Emergency goes to places even someone with my pessimistic outlook WILL find disturbing (we're talking die-off on a global scale), so it may not be suitable for some readers. If I can, I'll try to read Rees' book, (I've read others by him), but I've got a few (really lots) of others in line first.

As a free bonus Field, here's a link to some of Richard Heinberg's writing:
http://www.museletter.com/archive/159.html

I'm sure others here read a lot as well as can been inferred from some of the intelligent material found on this site, just because we don't mention it doesn't mean it isn't a factor of where we draw our conclusions. Of course some others that have posted here should read more than religious texts, I'm certain we can agree on that.

AA

AccursedAtheist, 23.01.2006, 7:24am #

Luke,
are you sure of the accuracy of the figures you present?

RHF, 24.01.2006, 1:29am #

AA -

Bit busy to answer at present. BUt will try in next day or two.

Ima -

My position is:

1. Rationally, on the basis of what we know and our reasoning powers, it seems to me (and many others who have thought deeply on this subject) that it is much more likely that there is something that might be called a deity that lies behind the reality we know. It is more rational than believing that the cosmos and physical laws popped into existence out of nothing.

However, I have not ruled out entirely an atheistical explanation. Perhaps we will discover something that will explain everything in a non-God type of way. However, ironically, an atheist has to have faith that is the case since there is certainly no evidence for it. Quite the contrary.

2. Personally, I don't believe in any kind of personal God and even if there were some type of God on the Christian/Jewish/Islamic model there's still an argument about whether you have to go around obeying his commands, worshipping him etc. You might still choose to ignore him though that might be a bit difficult.

3. I think that if there is a God, he has probably created the cosmos as a means of self-realisation (as Hegel suggests - not claiming this is an original idea). And our "role" if we want to find one is live as fully as we can in that spirit of self-realisation. Atheists however are often better self-realisers than theists.

field, 24.01.2006, 8:53am #

My dearest Field--

I have a better understanding of you know-and--might I add that we are very much alike in our thinking--especially when it comes to organized religion and it's interpretation of GOD. Mind you that no matter what anyone believes who is participating in this thread debate--that all of our opinions are conjecture except for science. The existance of GOD is based on a belief system without any proof. What gives the validity to a GOD belief system is the greater the number of believers in one man's opinion---the truer it becomes. In my opinion --science is a better path to making the Earth a better place. Thank you--

Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 24.01.2006, 5:42pm #

AA -

You don't seem to understand what a hypothetical question.

If you asked me: "If you were offered the chance to travel, free, to the moon by rocket would you go?" and I answered: "I don't believe that anyone is going to start offering free travel to the moon. Rockets are very expensive. Really they've got to find another way of developing cheap travel to the moon." then I haven't answered the question. Instead I've offered a commentary.

That's what you did in response to my very simple question about whether you would back abstinence and religious teaching if it saved millions of lives.

To answer a hypthetical question properly you have to say yes or no - or offer a plausible explanation as to why a yes or no answer is
(in terms of the hypothesis itself, not the real world) not appropriate. You haven't done so.

As for books, I wasn't suggesting your views weren't based on reading. I suspect they are based on too much reading by the sound of it, or not reading the right stuff.

Environmentalist Paul Erlich in the 1960s predicted we would all be starving and starved of resources in twenty years' time. It never happened. None of the major prophecies of environmental doom have yet come true, although I remain open-minded about global warming. But even with global warming the solution of sequestration of carbon into the vacated oil and gas spaces is the obvious answer and is already achievable with current techonology. It's just a bit expensive.

As for biomass - I looked that up on the internet. What I saw suggested for the USA that potentially biomass could provide something like 80% of the USA's energy needs.

Biomass is jsut one technology - we also have clean coal, wind, hydro, tidal, wave, hydrogen and solar. The problem with most of them is that they are way more expensive than oil at the present. But if the price of oil doubled then that would change. A doubling of the oil price would be damaging for the world economy but it woudl be good for the environment (we would all drive less) and wouldn't mean the end of civilisation as we know it.

There is loads of energy ultimately from the sun and eventually we will have the techonology to capture it and get it back to earth. As for pollution, for any pollution process there is a clean-up equivalent. It is just a quesiton of spending enough time and money to make sure that the clean up processes are put in place.

Black hole research, virus research, robotics, mind altering drugs, genetic engineering however do really threaten the end of civilisation as we know it.

field, 25.01.2006, 9:08am #

Why do you keep blaming religion for all these deaths? Where in the new testament is anyone commanded to committ attrocities?
Atheists are just as bad as the religious when it comes to killing.
People kill in their own name, not in the name of Jesus.

RHF, 26.01.2006, 12:24am #

RHF

YOU RE-DEFINE THE MEANING OF
(( IGNORANCE IS BLISS ))!!

LOVINGLY,
IMA HOG

Ima Hog, 26.01.2006, 5:10pm #

Well Ima, I didn't know that. Read your history books. Nations go to war for power,not for religion. Blaming religion for attrocities is akin to blaming Ben for the bad weather we have in the UK. Those who killed in the name of religion are not christians, i.e. followers of lord Jesus Christ.
You atheists show your ignorance of human nature when you make these claims. You atheists all sound the same.
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. Neither do any of you, even Ben.

RHF, 27.01.2006, 12:51am #

Your idea of religion seems so vague, so esoteric that I don't see the point. If you want to step outside the causual framework you open up a world of possibilities as to what started this all. Look at all the religiions that exist or have existed. Don't they all have the same validity? In the final analysis all you seem to be saying is "we don't know", lets call it god? This is such a desd end street. If all the different religious explanations aren't equally valid, what do you use to choose among them? If it's faith or "inspiration" then my claims for my particular explanation is as good as anyone elses. Religion truly is bullshit as near as I can tell.
JIm

jim, 27.01.2006, 4:30am #

My dearest RHF__

You are as emotional as a Christian bible thumper standing on a street corner preaching. Please get your Jesus juices under contol and present a more eloquent presentation of your opinions as Field has done. Channel that hostile Christian --Jesus preaching condemnation into a more fluid style --like Luke. I firmly believe that you need to look at the historical facts of religion from it's beginning in the Bible and note all of the killing that was done in God's name? If Jesus is the son of God?--can we not assume that the apple does not fall far from the tree?

Concerned--
Ima Hog

Ima Hog, 27.01.2006, 4:39pm #

Ima, Jesus never commanded anyone to murder. I've made my point earlier why attrocities happen. Jesus never commanded anyone to murder.
Read the wonderful gospels of Jesus christ, our king and lord.

RHF, 28.01.2006, 12:18am #

Ben -

Before I reach for a selection of dictionaries, would you like to explain exactly what you mean. Are you saying that an atheist can believe in some kind of deity?

I think we had this argument before and I think I ended up saying that actually although you call yourself an atheist you are strictly speaking an agnostic, but one who obviously doesn't like religion very much.

field, 28.01.2006, 12:24pm #

So if I have an absence of belief in the moon being made of cheese then that does not imply that I believe it is false to say that the moon is made of choose.

OK...

UNfortunately bit busy right now but will get back on your rather self-serving definitions.

field, 28.01.2006, 5:24pm #

Fortunately the meaning of words is not decided by infidels.org. It is decided by people in general.

The Oxford Popular Dictionary I have to hand, published by the same Oxford University Press that publishes the OED, defines an atheist as "a person who does not believe in God." So presumably OUP think that, rather than any other meaning, is the one most people ascribe to the word.

Now I can understand why you would want to mean it somethign else - it gives you a lot of leg room when it comes to making your case. Unfortunately, you can't go first class in debate - you have to fight for your leg room like everyone else in economy.

We all know what atheist means. Stop the self-serving self-defining and try and show how the cosmos and consciousness could have come into being and stayed in being without some kind of creative and sustaining force existing beyond the four dimensional world we know.

If your view is correct then a theist is equally justified in saying "I have an absence of belief in the proposition that there is no God. That does not mean I don't believe in that proposition, so don't expect me to back it up. There may come a time when I come to believe it for all I know. So for the present I can pick and choose whatever I want to talk about. If you find a weak spot in my theistic religous beliefs I will simply tell you that I never said I didn't agree there was no God so there is no point in trying to debate the matter with me."

All that would be absurd (and some wishy washy Anglican types do just about try that kind of tactic) - just as absurd as you trying to avoid responsibility for your very obvious beliefs.

field, 29.01.2006, 4:04pm #

lol...walnut...that made me laugh. yes, i am taht bored right now :|

Shaggy, 29.01.2006, 11:58pm #

Field,
Can you explain to me your statement "Are all religions of equal validity? Of course not! That's nonsense" Why is it nonsense? Why are some more valid. I'm really curious about your thinking here.
I also feel you avoided or chose not to answer my questions. In fact you repeat more or less the same things you've said. For example in your response to Ben you say "try and show how the cosmos and consciousness could have come into being and stayed in being without some kind of creative and sustaining force existing beyond the four dimensional world we know." We're supposed to believe that the cosmos and consciousness could not come into being but a creative and sustaining force-blah, blah, blah, could. I read this entire blog including your responses. At first I thought your arguments had some intellectual validity but it's obvious now that you avoid answering my arguments and others because there is no answer. Same circular argumentts, nothing to convince any critical thinker.
Jim

jim, 30.01.2006, 2:08am #

Praise be to the invisible sky man and the magical salvation zombie who sent himself to sacrifice himself to save us from himself! glory to gawd and jeezis kryasst!








Crikey, wouldn't ya know it, i done it again! o_O

Shaggy, 30.01.2006, 4:42am #

Jim the short answer regarding not all being equally valid, is that they must ethically be tested against what we know about what it means to be human and philosophically tested against what we think we know about the world and the cosmos. But of course, so must science and any other example of human co-operative effort that claims some sort of universality.

I don't think I've dodged any question. You've failed to understand that the "but what came before?" question cannot by definition be relevant to a (hypothetical) self-sustaining creative force. If you are saying that everything has to be subject to the laws of causality including anything that was the source of the cosmos, then you have to explain why you think that is so. And I would note that you seem to accept the absurdity of the idea of a causal chain stretching back for infinite length of connections. You also fail to acknowledge that we already have evidence of parts of the cosmos (e.g. the quantum world) where causality as we know at the big level breaks down.

field, 30.01.2006, 5:53pm #

No, I'm not claiming that. Did you ever read an argument you didn't try to re-draft into a strawman you could tackle? Just once, try addressing what I actually say rather than re-writing it first to alter the meaning.

Your logic goes wrong here: "If it is a possibility then surely it must be a possibility that you will believe that a God exists, if enough evidence comes your way and all the inconsistencies you point to now are properly explained". If god is shown to exist through actual evidence, belief is not necessary. An atheist does not believe in god. He/she demands evidence before accepting the existence of god. Belief is accepting that existence with no evidence. And lord help you if you now attempt to argue about the definition of belief, because you know damn well we're talking about religious belief - faith.

And this isn't a diversion - a diversion from what, pray? - but a necessity. You are trying to argue against atheism without knowing what it is. Your misunderstandings and wrongheaded statements are legion and frustrating to try and address in a format like this, so I thought it'd be useful to highlight one of your core errors, to get you to focus on one important point. And even on this one point, you continue to blather and wave your hands and argue dishonestly - frankly, addressing any wider debate with you would be a waste of time while you continue to fudge your arguments on this topic.

Oh, and you say "I'd be interested where you think my logic is wrong - rather than just throwing out a few pathetic schoolboy insults", as per ignoring the fact that my comments do address your logical lapses - the insults are just a free bonus.

Ben, 30.01.2006, 10:28pm #

Ima,
can you think outside the box? I've been to talk origins website and am going through some of the topics. I would bet a million you and Ben would never read christian literature. You and Ben should be embarassed now. A fundie like me is more open minded than both of you.
The fact is you are not open minded. Ima, please be original and come up with something interesting. You don't need to worship Ben.

RHF, 31.01.2006, 1:17pm #

Dearest RHF---

Now you accuse me of worshiping Ben? To be very honest with you--I admire Ben's viewpoint and the debate between Field and Ben---which at times almost brings me to a sexual orgasm. Ben and Field--NOW these are real men with deep conviction and intellect--!!
I don't bash all people who believe in the Bible--It's only people such as yourself who bash others over the head with it that upsets me.
In regards to your Bible belief--DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ? As Ben and Field have gone to print with their debate posts--should you not consider their thoughts as valid as the bible? It is in print!!!
RHF--your posts always seem so shouty and demanding. You present yourself in a fearful manner--like perhaps your beliefs are in question by yourself. You seem to always be in a desperate panic state.

Ima

Ima Hog, 31.01.2006, 5:20pm #

maybe i should also have specified in my earlier post: my "faith" is that we will continue to find answers to problems and the questions we have as we evolve.

Shaggy, 01.02.2006, 5:06am #

Ben -

Will we never find out if you think an atheist is "someone who does not accept the truth of the existence of God"?

field, 06.02.2006, 1:17pm #

Ima -

I agree that there are plenty of activities that humanity should concern itself with although I wouldn't take the uncritical view of science that you appear to.

I've no wish to impose debates about the possible existence of God on anyone else. I think most people like to lead their lives without concentrating on that sort of thing.

But I think the world would be improved if everyone was educated in critical thinking - basic philosophy.
It is precisely the sort of uncritical meme transfer that Dawkins talks about which is dangerous, as we see with these fanatics who want to stamp out free speech.

BUY DANISH!

field, 08.02.2006, 8:28am #

mmm...danish...

Shaggy, 09.02.2006, 5:06am #

Aengus -

It would be nice to think so but I think we have too many examples of scientists who have been against critical thinking - leave aside Dawkins' touching tales of old profs happily having their theories thrown in the waste paper bin. Of course you will tell me these are not the true followers of science I am referring to - just religious people are always telling us that so and so is not a true follower of their religion.

field, 10.02.2006, 9:19pm #