Comments by Bonzai

51. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #292393 by Bonzai on November 27, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Poetry is not the tea for my cup,
when I open my mouth I quack like Donald duck,
all I can say is WTF.

52. £35,000 of taxpayers' cash given to 'atheist bus' group

Comment #292347 by Bonzai on November 27, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Is Mr. DArcy the same poster as DArcy?

53. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #292275 by Bonzai on November 27, 2008 at 10:13 am

Dianelos

absurd implications...that to torture a child for fun is not intrinsically wrong

If by "intrinsic" you mean according to some "objective" morality "out there" in the fabric of the universe why are children being tortured by horrible diseases and die agonizing death in natural disasters?

Atheists think this is just the way it is because morality is a human construction and the universe is indifferent to our suffering.

But in your way of thinking the only conclusion is that God tortures little children for fun. So if there is objective morality and it is a manisfestation of a perfect God then indeed torturing children would be very moral.

So that answers your question about "naturalism" not being able to address "intrinsic morality". As in all questions, theism gives nonsnesnical answers.

Please stop pushing the reset button on this ever again. It is answered.

54. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #292252 by Bonzai on November 27, 2008 at 9:25 am

Kudos to steve and phatbat to keep reading and responding to Dianelos' verbose nonsense. It takes lot of patience. I got sick and tired of it long time ago. I hate having to keep going around in circle.

55. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291776 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Traditional same sex marriage in the non Christian world.

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2004&x=ssmarriage

56. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #291736 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 5:16 pm

jgirolamo

Basically God of the gap argument again (can you people be more imaginative?). To summarize it for you: since we don't know why X Y Z(actually we do something in some cases), therefore God exists.

How does postulating a God help answering X Y Z? It is no better than saying thunder was God yelling at you when people didn't know anything about the natural reasons behind it.

Moreover, how do you know the "first cause" God is the same God of the Bible? If there is a master of the universe I don't think he would care whether you worship him or who you sleep with.

The God of the Bible is a petty and parochial deity, the kind primitive people invented to explain thunder and lightning and why your wife cannot concieve. It becomes more and more grand only because we have pushed our boundary of ignorance further and further out. But simulateneously this grander God is also more powerless in intervening because there are a lot fewer gaps in our knowledge where you can insert him into.

So with growth of knowledge God is simultaneously much bigger and also a lot more impotent. Instead of performing miracles and talking to people on a daily basis like in the Bible, now God "resides outside of spacetime" and it can only do mischiefs when wave functions collapse.

57. £35,000 of taxpayers' cash given to 'atheist bus' group

Comment #291692 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 3:48 pm

"There is the question of whether this is what Government money should be going for, particularly in a time of recession.

Revoking the tax exemption status for churches and stop funding faith schools would certainly bring in quite a bit of revenue. Wonder why the Rev. didn't mention that.

58. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291673 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 3:23 pm

decius,

Yeah, just saw that on the news. Some Islamist outfit has claimed responsibility. So next the Hindu extremists will be going on rampage beating the crap out of any Muslim they come across. Nice fucking job.

Religion is a mental disease.

EDIT: This leads to a natural question, why is religion getting so much respect by default while gays have so little?

59. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291653 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm

To speak well in public you need to have a sense of timing and drama. Some people just don't have it while other grapse that instinctively. Feynman was very natural and spontaneous, probably didn't take any coaching. On the other hand, Dawkins seems like he has put quite a bit of work into it.

60. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291649 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Cartomancer

I am never an alpha, it's not my preferred role if you get my drift. ;)

Now there would be no justice if I don't get sent to the corner for this one.

61. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291632 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 2:52 pm

I never get sent to the corner even though I am very naughty. That is because I am a sweet guy. I always get away with things. :)

62. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291611 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Baron

I think it is an error. Happened to others before.

63. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291602 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Ok, I have just flagged myself three times, let's wait and see.

64. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291597 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Steve

Sometimes posts go the the alternative thread mysteriously, maybe someone hits the troll button by mistake and it happens automatically.

I am going to troll myself and see if it works.

65. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291337 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 9:36 am

Brian

G: a proclaimed how much they disliked it.
Vx(Fx -> Gx)

But this is obviously false, because I am a curmudgeon and I have not expressed a view on this topic.

B: a is Brian (a curmdudgeon)
Ex(Bx -> ~Gx)

Actually it should go like this :

b = brian ("brian" is a constant)

"b is a curmudgeon" translated to Fb

"b does not proclaims his dislike for the tape" trasnlated to ~Gb

so

Fb & ~Gb

so

~(Fb --> Gb)

so

Ex(~(Fx --> Gx)), this is equivalent to

~Vx(Fx --> Gx)

:)

66. Why we believe in gods

Comment #291329 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 9:27 am

Titania

See the update.

67. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #291312 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 9:13 am

Dianelos is full of shit.

68. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291106 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 6:10 am

PBUM

Lovers of BDSM fantasise about harming others

Actually no. It is more of a play acting thing according to the aficionados. I watched a documentary about such fantasies (straight and gay), people who truly intend to harm their partners are in general considered psychopaths.

69. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291070 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 5:32 am

Berstein

You told us you are not against homosexuals, you just don't think it is necessary for atheists to advocate for gay right.

What do you think of Serdan's posts? I find them actively offensive. So why don't you denounce him? You don't need to be a gay activist to do that, being a member of this forum would be sufficient.

70. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #291047 by Bonzai on November 26, 2008 at 5:19 am

So is Serdan a paedophile?

71. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #290820 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 10:09 pm

So what is the current status of the ESA? Was a revision published last Friday?

72. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290817 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Dianelos,

As I said before, ontological questions are a waste of time. They are meaningless psychobables pretending to be knowledge.

Philosophy is much harder than science..

This is an interesting argument. It boils down to "philosophy is hard" because it has no honest tools that one can master but has to rely on the ingenuity of pure bs. Maybe it is "harder" if you look at it from such a strange angle, but what does that accomplish?

No, you are correct that I haven't studied any philosophy seriously. But if your contributions are anything to go by I don't think my characterization of philosophy as "making up stories as you go along" is very far off the mark. There may be other approaches, but they are quite irrevelant in addressing your arguments.

73. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290811 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I never like the term "bisexual", it sounds too medical. Maybe bisexual people should call themselves "mavericks". No one talk about mavericks anymore after the U.S. election.

74. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290806 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 9:14 pm

MaxD

I heard that female bisexuals don't have a very good reputations among some lesbians.

I was told by a friend from New York that in certain circles of artsy fartsy people and pesudo-intellectuals it is not cool to be straight, so if someone tells you he/she is bi, that means he/she is straight.

75. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290801 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Mitchell

I have never even had any gay dreams, and apparently that is common. Have you ever had a straight dream, Carto

Actually I have had neither gay nor straight dream until very recently and it was very disturbing because it was with someone I know (a guy)and find utterly unattractive.

76. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290799 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Carto

Also, why has none of them felt that picking "bisexual" is a good idea, when bisexuality of any shade is not stigmatised in either group?

That is not true. The "straight society" has problems with bisexuals as do many gays and Lesbians.

I find the idea that there are no true homosexuals or heterosexuals, that we're all a little bit bisexual, rather difficult to swallow to be honest, given that I have encountered nothing but solely heterosexual and solely homosexual people before.

I did not say there is no "true" heterosexuals or homosexuals, I said I think "most" people are a little bi. I believe sexuality is a spectrum, there are exclusive people at both ends, but most are somewhere in between. I think there is pressure for one to pick a camp and stay with it, so that many people label themselves either way and internalize it (actually, of course most people would identify themselves as striaght, this is kind of the default)

I cannot question your experience, but I would only say that I know quite a few gay men who had been with women before, discovered that it was not their cup of tea and then "come out", but they weren't repulsed by women, just didn't get very excited.

Oscar Wilde is often used as a gay icon today, but he had good sex life with his wife, it just happened that he also liked a guy.

77. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290768 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Bernstein

Are you saying that "not actively supporting gay rights" = homophobia?

Not by itself, but your insinuations of "gay agendas", "Steve's agenda" and "his kind" give it away, along with the fact that you are arguing so passionately for the "atheist movement" to decoupled with gay right.

There is no formal alliance since there is no formal "atheist movement", so why are you worked up about "the gay agenda" if you don't have a problem with homosexuals?

78. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290761 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 6:50 pm

MaxD

Are bisexuals treated differently by both both groups? I mean many of these discussions about sexuality seem to focus on the hetero/homo divide and bisexuality is left out of the discussion.

I think there is bi-phobia among both striaght and gays. For the gays the idea maybe that bi are able to pass themselves off as straight if things go rough therefore cannot be trusted. Some think that bi are just gays who are unable to fully accept their sexuality.

I don't like the idea of forcing people to pick a camp and stick with it just out of some kind of group loyalty. You have to be true to your feelings.

Like I said before, my theory is that most people are a little bi (joking about masturbation aside), sexuality is not a binary thing. I know some gay men who claim that they are physically repulsed by the idea of having sex with women, but others are not even though they are more attracted to men.. I think in a way I am actually somewhat flexible, I do find some women attractive. To some degree my preference may be conditioned by who I am with and how I percieve myself.

79. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290717 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Mitchell

This is probably more to your taste?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeHIspyAtGs

80. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290706 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Steve

I think recent research into the human voice has revealed that high-range female vocalisations in opera is some kind of hybrid between yelling and screaming.

I was told that's why opera connoisseurs in the old days preferred the castratos. Wonder what is decius' thought on castratos. :)

81. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290703 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:56 pm

How can anyone not like Sarah Slean? She is also very beautiful in a classy way.

82. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290702 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm

decius

Mozart was pop music in his time, at least according to the movie Amadeus. :)

83. Why we believe in gods

Comment #290699 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:50 pm

I am an amazing public speaker because I am alway kind of an exhibitionist. Figuratively speaking of course. But I am shy one on one.:)

84. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290694 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm

Mitchell

I'm serious. I like her quirky voice.

85. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290689 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Steve

Never heard of Duffy before. Sounds a bit too popsy for my taste. I like the sound of the torture chamber, Tom Waits is my all time favourite :)

86. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290687 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:23 pm

I like Sarah Slean. She's from Toronto and is really good IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIAZALSOp9I

87. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290681 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Steve

I have never understood the criticisms of Celine Dion. She can sing, and sing well.

Well we have had disagreements and those are not irreconcilable. But this is the deal breaker. Are you serious? I need to put on ear plugs when she sings. I hate cheesy love songs too. As a Canadian I am not proud, I am telling you.

88. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290520 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 10:51 am

Steve

There is no need to justify naturalism on the basis that it might fill gaps in knowledge in the future. Gaps in knowledge are precisely what we would expect because we have naturally evolved brains within an undesigned universe.

Good point. I always feel a bit uneasy when some atheists answer all God of the gap arguments with the canned reply "science has not figured out it YET". I think to be so confident that we will eventually always find the answers to all there is to know is appeaing to faith. There is not a shred of evidence for that optimism.

I don't want to make any promise, but we don't have to because religion has no right to ask for any. We can only try our best, we may eventually figure out phenomenon X or we may not. But either way it doesn't vindicate religion, which not only hasn't answered a single question, but it doesn't even try. Worse, it encourages us to stop questioning and be satisfied with false or meaningless answers. We don't owe religion any promise.

89. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290404 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 5:26 am

Merely knowing that a person believes in "God" in some vague ways tells us next to nothing about his or her stance on real issues that actually affect people's lives. "Converting" people to "bare" atheism is never my priority. It is a fun and interesting past time to debate religious people, but this is just a pure intellectual execrise.

I would rather hang out with religious people who are otherwise sane with progressive social values rather than atheist bigots.

90. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290374 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 4:23 am

Since we are on Dianelos this are some even wilder stuffs. Talking about high level insanity

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Christianity-Frank-J-Tipler/dp/0385514247

Some highlights

He believes that there are genes that carry the original sin and they were absent in Mary and Jesus.

On resurrection (I quote this from a review)

I am proposing that the Son and Father Singularities guided the worlds of the multiverse to concentrate the energy of the particles constituting Jesus in our universe into the Jesus of our universe. In effect, Jesus’ dead body, lying in the tomb, would have been enveloped in a sphaleron field. This field would have dematerialized Jesus’ body into neutrinos and antineutrinos in a fraction of a second, after which the energy transferred to this world would have been transferred back to the other worlds from whence it came. Reversing this process (by having neutrinos and antineutrinos—almost certainly not the original neutrinos and antineutrinos dematerialized from Jesus’ body—materialize into another body) would generate Jesus’ Resurrection body.

Probably too wild even for the Templeton.

91. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #290355 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 3:57 am

Berstein

But this is what you're putting all your faith in, isn't it? By hoping to battle every single injustice that you come across, you hope it will lead to a "broader" rationality. What's really happening is that you're wasting precious time and resources (and losing sight of your own objectives, if you had any as an atheist to begin with). And if I recall correctly, you were in some kind of rush to make a difference in the world.

So how do you pick your battles? What are your criteria? Do share with us.

92. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #290336 by Bonzai on November 25, 2008 at 2:59 am

Dianelos,

All assertions without arguments. "Naturalism" is a paradigm that has proven to be very fruitful for us to gain real knowledge about how nature works.

It is true that science cannot rule out the existence of all Gods, but the onus would be on you to describe the properties of these Gods and how they work in order "theism" to be even a proper hypothesis. Otherwise it is just a useless, clumsy ontological baggage like aether. We can't rule out the existence of aether, you can always come up with some clever arguments to "explain" why it is not observable, but then it explains absolutely nothing and why do we need it?

You apparently have a problem in understanding what it means by "expalining" something. If "naturalism" fails to explain phenomenon X (none of your examples qualifies, I am just making a hypothetical), it doesn't follow that postulating a God with undetermined (or self contradicting) characteristics which works through unknown, undetectable mechanisms is an "explanation". It is just inventing a name for our ignorance.

As I said before, the fact that science doesn't have all the answers is a proof of its strength, not its weakness. It is easy to make up "answers". Theologians and philosophers can make up stories as they go along so they always have answers, but they are all worthless except maybe as fictions. Scientific answers, on the other hand are difficult to come by because they have to meet very high standard.

93. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #289993 by Bonzai on November 24, 2008 at 1:24 pm

The question is whether religion makes you nice. Not whether God exists.

Even if there is a God "residing" somewhere "outside" spacetime it doesn't follow that believing in such a being would make you a better person.

If this God is the personality traditionally depicted in the Abrahamic religions then he is an absolute psychopath, something of a cosmic Stalin except infinitely more nasty and evil.

Following his instructions faithfully,--instead of spinning and "reinterpreting" the books based on secular morality,--would only turn one into a very disagreeable person if not a full blown psychopath. This is proven beyond a doubt by history as well as the twisted, distorted "morality" displayed by theistic posters such as Shrommer here.

94. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #289978 by Bonzai on November 24, 2008 at 12:59 pm

If you're born again you're probably a sucker who was born yesterday.

95. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289540 by Bonzai on November 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm

I thought pussies mean cats. Well English is not my first language.

96. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289516 by Bonzai on November 23, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Carto

Admittedly, the homophobia of classical societies was generally of the "they're effeminate, unmanly and unworthy type", rather than the "they're an abomination and should be disposed of for the good of society" type.

I should point out that this kind of attitude against "effiminate, unmanly and unworthy types" exists within the gay community as well.

Rigid gender role expectations can exist even within a context where homosexuality perse (man having sex with man) is not a taboo, as in ancient Greece,--as you point out,-- and among some gay people, for example the ultra macho leather crowd.

Though not the same thing, it seems that society's views on sexual orientation are bound up with gender role expectations, especially for men. So I think homophobia probably stems from a percieved threat of one's identity when gender roles is seen to be subverted,--rightly or wrongly.

The disapproval of homosexuality among cultures seem to correlate with the rigidity of gender roles.

97. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289448 by Bonzai on November 23, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Berstein,

"Bare" atheism is just a philosophical position. Honestly I don't see the reason to get worked up over it. Believe in whatever you want as long as it is safely removed from the public sphere. So, yes, atheism is only worth supporting when it comes with the whole package of rationalism. That would include all the other "baggages" you speak about.

98. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289379 by Bonzai on November 23, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Laurie

What do you think of my (brief)description of John Ralston Saul's Voltair's Bastard in
241. Comment #289256 by Bonzai?

99. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289298 by Bonzai on November 23, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Ok Steve, I haven't read all of them.

100. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289293 by Bonzai on November 23, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I don't think Berstein is a plant. I can understand why some people might have different opinions even though I don't agree with them.