Comments by steve99

51. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #98985 by steve99 on December 15, 2007 at 5:28 am

Downunder:

Life is simply a pattern of organisation that uses flows of energy to maintain itself and to reproduce.

It's a bit like fire. But we don't talk of 'what is the meaning of fire, what is its grand purpose'?

52. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98817 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 1:38 pm

A response to my post would have been appreciated, but all things considered, especially the highly offensive nature of recent posts, I can't complain.

53. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98813 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 12:53 pm

You're right, what was I thinking. I can see all of the 'love' and 'tolerance' just ooooozing out of this place towards me, even going so far as to want me banned over and over again, and calling me nasty little profane names constantly and so forth.

A simple question. Would you allow people here, if they wished, to post on your site? To continually challenge your views there? To provide evidence that reveals your understanding of science to be negligible? That, when given examples of evolution that you can go out and see for yourself anytime you wanted, you ignored these examples? Would you allow us to post that on your site?

Would you allow us to post on your site some of the things you have said here? Your views on rape, for example (something that I found deeply upsetting, as I have experienced that situation in my circle of friends)?

Well? Are you prepared to show us the tolerance we have shown you?

No need for bible verses, just yes or no as an answer.

If 'no', then you have publically condemned yourself as a fraud. If 'yes', then you lay yourself open to exposure in a way you have perhaps never experienced before. I hope you feel up to it.

54. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98796 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 10:57 am

Steve99, did you even watch the debate?

I do try to watch what I comment on.

If you mean the can of jihad remark, I would think that I was quite obviously joking.

Well good, but I think it was just a bit in bad taste, considering the subject; that's all.

generally....
I think labelling it Ash vs Ali was highly misleading, and leads to knee-jerk reactions about "who came out on top". It was a discussion, not a point-scoring contest. Well, that is my view.

55. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98778 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 9:20 am

All I could hear coming from his mouth the entire time was a begging, whimpering, cry of "Please..don't hurt me..."

How about some serious critique of what he said, not what you felt he said?

I actually find myself siding, somewhat, to a degree, with Bonzai about this. TGA has a different emphasis from AHA, but his statements about liberal values made it clear he is on-side. I tend towards Ali's views, but we need to listen to what others have to say, and not abuse them.

Are we really going to attack anyone who disagrees even moderately with our heroes (such as AHA) this way? Shouldn't we stand back and consider the details of the arguments? Why all the ad-hominems?

There is a real and important discussion to be had on the issues discussed in that debate.

56. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98775 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 9:02 am

I read what he said last year when he called her an enlightenment fundamentalist

Hey, give the guy a break. He basically apologised and said he was wrong about that.

57. The Pagan Christ

Comment #98743 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 7:21 am

Are you uncertain about life having started on this planet with no outside help?

Of course. But that does not mean I seriously entertain the idea that a supernatural supermind was involved. That would be explaining something complex (life) with something even more complex.

And how would we, the created ones, be able to determine if and when this happened?

Well, exactly. So you have a problem if you want to claim that, even if you knew the mind of God, that got was right about anything.

There is still this series of propositions you have to justify:

1. God exists
2. You know what God thinks.
3. God is right.

You haven't even begun to make any progress on the first step, as "well, we just don't know", or "God is a matter of faith" aren't any kind of justification, are they? I would say the only intellectually honest attitude is to general uncertainty and skepticism.

Does he? Maybe you're not really looking.

This does push my "Oh come off it!!" button. We aren't talking about timid fairies and elves here, we are talking about the all-powerful creator of the universe. What is he doing hiding? He used not to - he used to burn bushes, and part seas and all that.

58. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98731 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 6:55 am

A very sane and sensible post, ehudson.

59. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98727 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Yes, Pat is as subtle as a house brick, but does being an atheist need only appeal to the highly intelligent, superbly educated and sensitively aware amongst us?

No, but I think what matters here is the impression you want to make if you make videos and post them for the world to see.

Can it be that a good old belly laugh at some of religion's inanities is also appealing?

I happen to know that Condell is a comedian, but these things just don't come across as that funny. To me. And sometimes, just sometimes, I think he steps over the line that marks provocative and yobbishness. And I think that can be problematic.

You're quite right about the bandwaggon feel, but is that necessarily a bad thing, Steve? I'm assuming you mean he's just another comedian making a living out of having a humourous stab at fundies.

Well, that is it. Some of what he says implies (or could be taken to imply) that even the mildest religious people should be attached with verbal vigour.

As for the "yobbishness", perhaps that is the image he wants to create, I don't know. Perhaps he wants to seem a bit like the atheist equivalent of Gordon Ramsay, if you see what I mean.

I don't mind rants against ideas at any level, but sometimes Condell seems to me to suggest being offensive directly to people, even people who may just be gently deluded and not doing much harm.

And the thing that gets me, is I am not sure how manipulative he is being. Is this really Condell, or it a sort of "Al Murray the Pub Landlord" figure (that should confuse any non-Brits)?

I'm mystified by Billy Connolly, f'rinstance.

I'm glad I am not the only one!

60. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98711 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 5:30 am

However, he does have a way with coining new ways of seeing and saying it.

Not my feeling, but there you go. I don't much like his approach. I think that to be that confrontational and effective you need the wit and wordplay of a Hitchens, otherwise it verges on just ranting for effect.

61. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98693 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 4:14 am

I don't know why everyone raves about this guy so much--or more pressingly why his YouTube videos get posted on RichardDawkins.net.

Pat Condell is a stand-up comedian and writer. I would not doubt there is an element of self-promotion in these videos. (Not that there is anything wrong with that if they are done well)

I find it hard to know what to think of him. I have grown to dislike his videos, as I can't see that much new or interesting about what he is saying. Personally, I think one short sketch by Marcus Brigstocke (availabile on this site) is more effective than all of Condell's.

I do sense a little 'jumping on the bandwagon' with these videos. Even if this is what he has always believed, it is telling that he started this only last year.

Anyway, that is just my cynical view.

62. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98662 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 2:13 am

I have got a question. How can you explain that something can exist by itself? Just tell me how? I am holding a glass and if you tell me that glass came into existence by chances, I would not believe it. Nobody would.

Why not?

63. Jumbo shrimp, creationist astronomy

Comment #98652 by steve99 on December 14, 2007 at 1:53 am

What's wrong with QT? We welcome feedback, let us know.

Like an increasing number of people, I use Ubuntu Linux as my desktop system much of the time. I can't use QT on that (at least, I don't think I can).

64. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98460 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 4:25 pm

What a smug bastard that guy was.

I am not sure that is a fair way to comment about someone who agrees with so much of with Ali says, and clearly has a lot of respect for her.

No matter what people say and do it will not change the texts

Religion is not the just texts, it is what people believe, and how they behave. One of ways we point out the inconsistencies of religion is the way that everyone seems to get to ignore or interpret texts their own way. If we are going to (justifiably) criticise the religious for not following the texts, then we are in no position to point at the texts and complain too much about what is in them. It does matter what people say and do, and the more we can make them say and do things that represent more liberal attitudes, and that are not in the texts, the better.

He seemed too high on his own sense of self-satisfaction to listen to a word she said. After all, the only reason people listen to her is because she isn't bad to look at, she is obviously a moron. Almost makes me want to open a can of jihad on his smug self-absorbed ass.

I really don't think you mean that, do you?

65. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98440 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:39 pm

out of one special case

It was not a special case. Bin Laden had tried to attack the same building, for the same reason, years earlier.

Obviously you are tired

Ahem! Don't mock those afflicted with middle-age. I can stay awake when I have to.

because you are not answering my questions and apparently have not read the whole post.

I read the whole post, but I believe that many of the points and questions where dealt with earlier (such as the science bit), and I did not want to repeat myself, or what others replied.

Cheers and no hard feelings.

Same here, of course!

66. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98435 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:29 pm

You are shifting back and forth, at one moment you talk in generality,

No, you appear to keep believing I am talking in generalities.

As a scientist you certainly know that this is not the meaning of religiosity being a poor predictor of terrorism.

Why do you keep insisting on not actually replying to what I post?

Look, I am sorry. We are not actually having a useful discussion here. I don't see the point in replying to what seems to me to be smoke and mirrors diversions from what I have posted and straw men!

I really haven't the energy to continue :)

Just answer me one question - do you have inside personal knowledge that allows you to say what the motivation of those who flew the planes into the twin towers was, other that what they said and wrote?

All the best. I really love debating, but I think I am worn out here. I do understand what you are trying to say, but I just think you are wrong. However, the ability to accept civilised disagreement is what makes us rational!

Steve

67. World History

Comment #98428 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:20 pm

So what has the Holy Father told me to think about you Steve? You seem to think there's a problem with me not having a problem with your sexuality. Reminds me of a certain Little Britain character.

I am astonished! You are supposed to be so knowledgeable.

Let me remind you of current teaching. The Catholic church considers homosexual sex is immoral. Homosexuals cannot be allowed into the priesthood. Same sex relationships of any form should not be socially acceptable, and same-sex marriage is out of the question.

This is why I really appreciate your rebellion against such bigotry.

68. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98420 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Damn, this is going to take me forever to work out, Steve! ;-)

No, you don't carry the 2. You add it to the second digit of the C value, and then you can cross-multiply by the averaged weighting of the belief, B. Multiply by the integral of the population quotient, and divide by the fanatacism.

Well, even Hari Seldon had to start somewhere...

69. World History

Comment #98413 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:03 pm

[Steve - so sorry to talk about you in the abstract here, but I am interested in the answer to this one]

Go ahead! This is intruiging!

A supposed full-on Catholic said, whatever the context (Celibacy/Castity being synonymous with abstinence) that it does not bother him.

I believe we have achieved a breakthrough. He endorses, or at least tolerates, gay sex, in direct contradiction of the Holy Father.

What is next? Condoms approved? Married Priests? Actually giving away the wealth of the Vatican to help the poor? One can only wonder.

70. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98403 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Once again, this is a problem that you have created by changing what was written, adding in extra, putting something to an (illogical) extreme, and then trying to argue it.

I know the feeling.

71. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98400 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:48 pm

but then you go on arguing as if you haven't made those points.

Oh for goodness sake. I can only answer for what I post, not for how you want to spin what I post. I am getting the feeling that if I post "It'is a bit chilly outside tonight", some people on this thread will argue against me claiming that the world is due for an ice age. Sorry, but I am fed up with what seems to me to be either sloppy or deliberate misinterpretation.

Well, Atran did the analysis and found that in the middle east, religion is a poor predictor for terrorism (listen to Beyond belief 2007).

That is not the point being argued. It really isn't.

It does not matter if 99,999 out of 100,000 people in a religion are mild and gentle, if that religion can be used by that 1 person to justify flying planes into buildings.

All that matters is the answer to a simple question: Was the attack on the twin towers fueled by religion in a way that meant that if religion was not involved, the attack would probably not have happened.

Yes.

Why do I say this?

Because the people involved explained their motives. You may have some special inside knowledge, but I just go by the evidence.

Was it the only factor?

No.

But was religion something that made the difference.

Almost certainly, yes.

We don't just know pretty much for sure that it was, and we know why it was. It was the disconnect from reason combined with the promise of reward.

I find your (and Atran's) attempts to deny this bizarre, to be honest.

72. World History

Comment #98378 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:34 pm

I take it you mean chaste, and if so, I'm not bothered what you do.

I am glad to hear it. That means you are ignoring the proclamations of the Holy Father. Good for you.

So, if you are prepared to ignore his wishes over this, what is so special about condoms?

73. World History

Comment #98358 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:05 pm

The Holy Father knows it, and so would you if you conducted an honest appraisal of the evidence.

Honest is to respond to points honestly put to you. Phillip can deal eloquently with the points he raised. I want to know if you believe that gay people like me should live lives of celibacy.

74. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98347 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm

However, the problem stems from you changing the words I've actually used, to something else.

Indeed, and it is even more appropriate, and applicable to other discussions here, if you change 'words' to meaning'. I have found it a tiresome exercise in repeatedly refuting points never made.

75. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98331 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

You trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is logical in a very complex argument.

This statement illustrates that has been a problem in this discussion. Instead of dealing with issues, there has been awful lot of claiming what other people think, what other people say. Too may claims of "if you disagree with me, then you must think..."

Let's calm down and get back to the issue. The issue is not interpretations of what others have posted. It is the poster, and what we think of it.

76. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98290 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 12:38 pm

HEY!!! B-(

No offense intended to your good self; a valued contributor in my view. But consider how the Dianelos-types have been allowed to post again, and again, without censorship or moderation.

I don't understand how anyone can complain about this site in the way that we are discussing here. when it allow, and posters are so patient with, even the most fundamental of theists.

77. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98281 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 12:17 pm

gr8hands:

Having been an internet user from the earliest days, I have to say that Dawkins was probably somewhat naive about the way this all works. Open a site up to everyone in the world, with minimal moderation, and you aren't going to always get the highest possible standard of contribution. However, perhaps he was not so naive after all. I can say that standards here are pretty high. Being an internet user with so much experience, I have to say that this is the most respectable and well-mannered open forum I have ever seen (at least since the old usenet days of the very early 90s). There is a real attempt here to engage with those wiith other views, to politely discuss, that is rare.

78. Voyager 2 probe reaches solar system boundary

Comment #98267 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 11:50 am

Robot explorers always were the way to go; all those billions to send fly boy test pilots to go take a piss on the moon.

Shame on you, you cynic! If we don't actually go into space, what, in the long term, is the point?

Anyway, those missions were great! I remember watching the first moon landings live on TV. I shall never forget that experience. A vague shape moved around in a fuzzy picture of something grey, and that was apparently someone stepping on the moon. You just had to be there, I guess.

79. Voyager 2 probe reaches solar system boundary

Comment #98253 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 11:25 am

Hey, how come an electronic gadget made in 1977 is still going without any maintenance and in an extremely harsh enviroment, yet the 8 month old hard drive in my laptop has bad sectors, and cell phones only last about a year or so?

Poor design in 1977. They did not know enough about materials technology, and over-engineered. Do you realise the harm all those still-working products are doing to the economy?

80. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98228 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 10:02 am

Welcome to the Internet.

Well, indeed. This is a pretty open forum, so there will be a range of views and approaches.

81. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #98218 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 9:29 am

Religious traditions have some benefit to societies, otherwise we would not have them.

That is not necessarily true. Religious traditions only have to have some benefit for themselves to survive. They don't have to have benefits for the "human host". There are examples of religions that survived even though they were clearly reproductively harmful for the people who believed them. Look up the "Shakers".

82. World History

Comment #98179 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 8:12 am

It seems that if more followed His Holiness' advise, less would suffer.

Oh I don't think so. I mean think of all the gay people who would have to be celibate. That sure sounds like suffering to me.

83. World History

Comment #98161 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 6:54 am

Is it really so difficult to see the link between Stalin's athiesm and his despotism

Yes.

84. The Pagan Christ

Comment #98156 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 6:45 am

I'll concede that faith will always be involved when it comes to belief in God. But I think you exercise a different kind of faith in not believing in God. Everything that you accept as truth is not empirically, scientifically verifiable so wouldn't that leave you having 'faith'?

Well, it assumes I accept things as "true". I don't. I am basically uncertain. However, I take things as being correct for now, because it is useful. No faith involved, just what seems to work. I don't kneel down and believe very hard in electrons...

I'll have to admit that the idea of having to show that God is right has never crossed my mind.

That is the advantage of discussions like these - new ideas :)

If he exists and he creates the rules, how could he ever be wrong?

Because once you are talking about a "being" who has freedom do things like "create" based on decisions, then this being has the ability to be incorrect. You can't simply throw the label "right about everything" at such a being and hope it sticks.

You could try and reduce God to some kind of "inert creative essence", but then you have to give up the "personality who listens to prayers and forgives us" stuff.

85. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98139 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 6:13 am

I think the feedback here might be getting to him, it is a new and terrifying sensation

Perhaps it is not such a bad thing then?

86. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98136 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 6:10 am

So we agree that this is a very fringe belief even within Islam how does the poster in any way "provoke thought" about religion in general?

I don't know if it is a fringe belief. But let's assume it is.

The poster provokes thought because such fringe beliefs are what you get when you allow people to cut themselves free of reason and the need for objective evidence. If you are going to allow people to consult their inner feelings as a source of truth, then you are going to have to deal with what happens when those inner feelings allow people to justify very bad things.

87. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98103 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 4:37 am

Once there is AAI there must be some sence of unity.

Why are you trying to impose unity on us? Is it so we all form a convenient target?

I acnowledge that you may not be members of that organisation or other similar, but it is, I believe, wrong to make statements as a group but then just claim that we are all just free thinkers, and cannot answer for anyone else.

Well, I am afraid that is just your problem, and something you have to get over if you want to debate. You don't have to read much of this site to see we are anything but unified in anything but atheism. We have had intense debates about many matters unrelated to atheism.

I think the issue is that what you are often dealing with on this site, by its nature, are people who are atheist and who also have some considerable interest in science, and who have read TDG. Therefore you will get much the same approach.

But there are plenty of atheists who aren't scientific. Indeed, there are members of certain Buddhist schools of thought who are certainly atheist, but believe in supernatural phenomena, and would have little in common with many Western scientists.

You aren't going to get very far in a discussion with people if you start by trying to impose your own terms on the discussion, by declaring that others have certain views.

And I do wonder what you are after? Do you want me to say I despise what Stalin and Mao did? Of course I will.

88. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98093 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 4:23 am

Shouldn't those who are in AAI, for example, have the grace to accept that they are a corporate identity, and have a responcibility to each other?

Why? I happen to be a fan of prog rock band Yes (OK people, you can stop groaning now). There is probably an organisation of Yes fans. Should they have the grace to accept that they are a corporate identity? Or just a group of people who want to get together?

Why are you looking for some kind of 'corporate atheism'?

But this is the official Richard Dawkins site and he tries to prove the non existance of god, through reason. That is why I keep making that point, surely on this site that is fair enough.

You are simply going to have to stop making that point if you want to be taken seriously. It is wrong. Dawkins is not trying to prove the non-existence of God. What he is trying to show is that, in his view, there probably is no God. He does that by showing very clearly (based on centuries of work of other scientists) that God is not needed. That in almost every situation when the religious have said "you need God for this", they were wrong. The reasonable approach when your hypothesis has been rejected in just about all areas where you have insisted it applies is to abandon it. This is not to prove the hypothesis wrong, just not very useful, and probably unlikely.

89. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98064 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:20 am

We are not saying it isn't possible, just probably the most unlikely thing to imagine and we don't believe it, deciding instead to concentrate on what can be understood and leads us to what is workable, understandable, testable and earthly.

Absolutely. It does not mean that we are dogmatically against the idea that God exists, just that we really want some decent evidence. Words in an old book aren't decent evidence, not when we can't tell which old book to choose from. Mass belief in a God is not decent evidence, not when which God you believe in is mostly a matter of culture. And so on....

90. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98058 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:12 am

Im sorry, but isnt Atheist Allianc International a body of like minded people, all with something in common?

Firstly, I would hardly call them 'like minded' - just check the reception Sam Harris got at the last meeting, secondly you don't automatically get an 'Atheist Alliance' membership card just because you stop believing in God! They are not some kind of democratically elected body, voted in by the world atheist population.

Like Sam Harris, I find the term 'atheist' problematic, as it leads to this kind of misunderstanding.

I could say prove there is no god by using impirical evidence or admit that you are a liar. You cannot do it. Prof Dawkins is trying to do that, and found that is not so easy.

This has probably already been answered, but I am too lazy to read back. Dawkins is NOT trying to prove there is no God. What he is attempting (and very successfully in my view) is that in terms of explanations of the natural world there is no need for God, and that God isn't even the kind of thing that even works as an explanation.

91. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98052 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 3:03 am

By the way I dont accept that atheism is a lack of belief, that is a cop out surely.

Absolutely not. You don't get to redefine words :)

Atheism is a lack of religous faith.

No, it is a lack of belief in a God or Gods. Quite a different thing. Someone could have a 'religious faith' in UFOs, but they would still be atheist.

You do have beliefs very strong one.

You aren't in a position to judge anyone else's strength of belief.

My point is that once you challenge people from within an organised body, you need to accept that you have a corporate identity, you are seen as a group.

That assumes a certain set of circumstances leading to atheism. It did not apply to me. I was not out to challenge anybody, I just could not believe any more. No-one I knew felt that odd, or was threatened by it. To label that has having some kind of 'corporate identity' is wildly inaccurate.

In this case a group that shares a world view point. ie. the world is best understood through reason and impirical evidence.

That is not true either. You are confusing a belief in rational and scientific investigation with atheism. The two need not be linked at all.

It is interesting to me that somany of you on this site feel that religous people despise you, some may, but those that I have discussed this with have a lot of respect for atheists.

I am sure that a many people on this site have experienced an unpleasant attitude from some religious people. I have experienced that attitude, but not because I am atheist, but because I am gay.

It is those who cant be bothered to think that are worrying, I wont call them agnostics, because that implies, a process of discovery.

Again, you are trying to conveniently label people. It does not work.

There is no single route to atheism. There is no 'corporate identity'. I realise it may be politically convenient for some religious to try and make out there is.

92. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98045 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:54 am

The fact that other sites are worse is not an excuse, surely you should be settig an example in "clear thinking.

You seem to want everyone on this site to conform to a certain pattern of behaviour. Well, we all differ.

93. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98033 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:30 am

As it is I will be recomending that our sixth formers look at this site to disabuse them of the idea that all atheists are rational

How could you possibly have come up with that idea?

I would welcome that your sixth formers look at this site and pick up the message that atheists can't have such simplistic labels applied to them. Atheism is only a lack of belief, nothing more.

I have a problem with tis site, I want a rational debate with you but, many of you seem unwilling to enter into this, prefering sneering and insults.

Well, of course! This what "the internet" is like, especially when you have open forums where anyone can join. There is no entrance exam. Trust me, there are far worse places than this!

94. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98023 by steve99 on December 13, 2007 at 2:05 am

Wait until he finds out what a waste of a life his has been.

Hmm....

Dawkins has become one the world's most respected scientists, is a best-selling writer, is married to a beautiful and talented actress, is a Professor at Oxford University.

What precisely have you achieved, other than making yourself look at idiot by ranting on forums like this?

Go on... do tell.

95. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97862 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Is this Ruht for real?

I suspect real, but very, very young.

96. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97853 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Dalai Lama says no? As it is, I read there's heaps of suicide bombings in China - mostly disgruntled farmers and the like...

Not the point, is it. This is about the motivation for suicide bombings of civilians in other country.

97. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97851 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Only "survival of the fittest," "the strongest make the rules," "might makes right," etc.

You know, darwinism.

"Fittest" only means "can raise most offspring". Darwnism is not about the "strongest", or "might makes right". In some species you get the most offspring by helping each other. Animals will look after brothers or sisters, or nephews and nieces, if these become orphaned.

98. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97839 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:38 pm

It is you who insists that only religion is the biggest item because the bombers themselves say so, as if they lived in the vacuum.

It seems it is you who try to deny the complexity in what actually goes on in the minds of the plotters by saying that it is religion and that is it.

No, no, no, no, no, no....

I really don't understand how you could have read that into what I posted. I have been saying the exact opposite of that at every stage. OF COURSE it is complicated! I have been saying that all along. All I am trying to say is that religion is a key factor, a major factor, in my view the one that makes the difference. I am not saying only religion matters!

So we are talking about human psychology here, not some immutable belief "out there " that you can just get rid of.

But that clearly is the case, as where are the Tibetan suicide bombers attacking China?

Have I really been posting so unclearly that anyone could think I was saying that "it is religion and that is it?" I am mystified as to how anyone could think I was arguing anything so simple.

99. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97823 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Present one.

What did they used to say in the old "MAD" comics?

"Do this or we kill the puppy"

100. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97817 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 5:12 pm

So there is a rational justification for suicide attack, namely, it is more effective. So people can rationally decide to carry out suicide attacks because of logistical considerations.

You just contradict your own point that it takes irrational belief to carry out such attacks.

No. Yet again you set up straw men.

Firstly, who says that it is the suicide bombers arranging things? It could well be (and almost certainly is) higher up people in an organisation who make the plans, and use religion to corrupt and manipulate others to follow those plans.

Secondly, we know full well that people can compartmentalise. There are many examples of madmen who have rationally planned crimes fuelled by their madness. I was only claiming that irrational beliefs can form part of the motivation for such attacks.