This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by Mamba24

Go to: Before Wolves May Be Hunted, Science, Faith and Politics Clash

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Mamba24

"I have a question for you: Why do you think there's nothing wrong with hunting wolves?"

-For the same reason I don't think there's anything wrong with hunting Elk, Deer, antelope, or any other big game animal. Humans are animals. Animals hunt other animals. It's natural. WHY do you think there is something wrong with hunting??

"You mention "traditional, ethical hunting", which to me is an oxymoron,".......

-An oxymoron? Sorry I don't see the oxymoron you are referring too.....Do you know what an oxymoron is?

"but I nonetheless acknowledge the difference between drunken rednecks with shotguns and people who have a degree of respect for the animals they hunt, the environment, etc, whether that's because they are part of a hunter/gatherer culture or because they are simply intelligent."

-Yes because believe or not there are codes and regulations hunters have to abide by, like you can't be driving around drinking beers and shooting out of the vehicle. All hunters have to take and pass a hunter safety education course, where they teach proper hunting techniques and ethics. Make sure you take a good shot and put the animal down so they don't have to suffer more than necessary. If you take a bad shot and only wound it, and then it gets away, then it's suffering pain inflicted by you. That's considered unethical hunting. So yeah, it's not just a bunch of rednecks out there.

"I must first point out that, probably similar to others on this site, I find tradition a poor substitute for ethics, and tradition alone an insufficient justification for any practice that may cause harm- which hunting certainly can do."

-Well first off, it's not a "substitution" for ethics, ethics isn't being substituted. Cultures all over the world practice hunting, some egalitarian societies consider it an art-form. I'd like to know what "harm" you are referring to that hunting supposedly causes. So by your opinion, are some hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa, that rely almost entirely on hunting......causing harm?

"From this basis I must point out that wolves are a very intelligent, complex social species, quite different from the bears and mountain lions that you might also choose to kill, and it seems to me that any species with high levels of sociality and intelligence should be given a particularly strong leniency before we as humans feel justified to kill them."

-Yes they are intelligent creatures..........so that means that they can't be killed? So any species that has a certain degree of intelligence is therefore off-limits? Because by your logic it's "unjustifiable"? Hunting is a part of nature silverwolf, animals kill and eat each other, always have. There's a difference between ethical hunting and torture. And no, you can't kill mountain lions, and most people don't hunt bear.(out of the few kinds that you can hunt)

"However, this kind of wolf hunting can't at all be described as traditional or ethical either. How is killing such an animal, not out of self-defense and of course not out of hunger, traditional or ethical? Wolves are apex predators like us; their "natural" role is not that of prey any more than ours is."

-So according to your opinion, the only ethical and justifiable kind of hunting is either out of self-defense or hunger? Are you kidding me? Just for your information, lot's of hunters DO eat the animals they kill. What's your position on cattle farms then? Most of these animals are fed and raised only to be slaughtered. Where do you think the regular beef you buy at the store comes from? Or are cows not intelligent enough to be on the don't touch list? In my opinion, hunting in the wild is even more ethical than raising and slaughtering cattle. At least there is a fair pursuit, where the prey has a chance to escape and survive, kind of like how nature works. And now your saying that wolves can't be hunted because their natural role is that of a predator, as if there is some big natural law book you're quoting from. You're going to have to use an actual argument if you're going to convince me of your position. Making stuff doesn't cut it, and yes I know wolves are natural predators, and they still are.

"And whether you like it or not, ranching interests such as the Cattlemen's Beef Association and so-called hunter's rights organizations like the Anti-Wolf Foundation do take it upon themselves to demonize these animals at every turn, and stand to lose quite a bit if wolves are allowed to simply be left alone by humans until (and if) they begin to reclaim territory where humans actually live and not merely rural ranches populated by bloated cattle."

-And whether you like it or not, a lot of the wolves that are in these territories........aren't even native to those places....a lot the wolf populations were placed there from Canada. And yes I know there are extreme radical groups out there, and they need to checked. Fish and Game isn't going to allow the wolf population to be wiped out. There is reasonable people that manage these things, it's good to fight the radical groups and pay attention to them, but I wouldn't get all worked up over them.

"Similarly, elk and deer hunters must adjust their behavior and limits to return to the original, wolf-included equilibrium, and not the relatively new artifice of humans replacing wolves as apex predators of deer and elk, and often weakening the gene pool by targeting stronger and healthier prey rather than sick or older animals."

-You don't think wildlife agencies know this stuff? Are you really so worried about the gene pool weakening from killing all the stronger and game trophies? LOL Wow. It's the healthy and strong that have the best chance of passing on their genes buddy.....

"I'm not saying there's not good argument that could be made for a "hunt" (though I haven't heard one yet), only that careful consideration must be taken before making such decisions, and that the interests of hunters and ranchers should not necessarily be taken for granted."

-How about that it's a natural part of life? Animals hunt and kill other animals......I haven't heard any reasonable arguments against hunting from you yet....

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 07:25:40 UTC | #926843

Go to: Before Wolves May Be Hunted, Science, Faith and Politics Clash

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Mamba24

Are any of you guys who are posting here even hunters? Do you have any knowledge of wildlife policies? 800 wolves in ONE state is not a small number. Even one wolf can cause havoc on other wildlife forms, now consider that they travel in packs......No one is saying that we should wipe out the wolves, they do play a role in keeping Elk and Deer populations down, as well as other ecological benefits. But you shouldn't put so much doubt in Fish and Game or other Wildlife agencies. They will only put out a limited number of wolf tags. I live in Montana, we had a wolf hunting season and It was very successful, I don't even think all the tags were filled and they considered extending the season another couple weeks before they decided against it. There's nothing wrong with hunting wolves as long as we make sure we don't over-hunt them and manage the wolf population. I think my state has done a great job at managing our wolf population and keeping it at a healthy population level. As for you guys saying that people just want to hunt wolves for "financial" purposes, I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about. Most people don't hunt for "financial" purposes, it's not about money, it's about their love for the outdoors and traditional ethical hunting. Hunters aren't just mindless barbarians who just want to wipe everything out. Hunting is apart of our nature, we've been doing it for million of years, going back to Homo Erectus possibly. "Ukvillafan" says that humans don't even need to eat meat........Really? So we should all become vegetarians because killing other animals(which is completely natural) is bad? I assure you that it's not as simple as "people just wanting to kill wolves just so we can kill more of our domesticated stocks". It's true for some people, mainly farmers, and there's nothing wrong with their opinion, but most hunters don't own farms or livestock. We can manage wolf populations at a healthy level that works for everyone. I think the fact that this Native American group had to resort to religion, just shows a lack of real argument on their part.

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:49:05 UTC | #926829

Go to: Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by Mamba24

I can't stand Dinesh D'souza.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:30:35 UTC | #892125

Go to: Why 9/11 was good for religion

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by Mamba24

@ Robert Howard

-Oh your previous post about me demolishing your faulty argument? LOL Yeah I got the sarcasm there. But I don't really care about that post, I'm more interested in your original post about how science is just as fundamental, if not more than religion. So either you have a counter-argument to my post, or you just have more sarcastic responses to which I'm not really interested in hearing. Once again, the mamba.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:03:05 UTC | #869477

Go to: Why 9/11 was good for religion

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by Mamba24

@ Robert Howard

-Really? Didn't look at all sarcastic to me...lol So either your terrible at making your real intentions known, or you're just making excuses. But if you were truly just being sarcastic, I will take your word for it. All in all, it makes for a good example for people to read who think that both science and religion are on equal grounds, and that neither are very good at explaining the natural world and universe. (for which they would be very wrong)

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:57:17 UTC | #869473

Go to: Why 9/11 was good for religion

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 60 by Mamba24

@ Robert Howard

-Just taking the opportunity to educate you my friend. I see someone using faulty reasoning, I will call them out on it. It's not a problem for me, I rather enjoyed typing that post. So a thanks is all that is necessary.

Yours truly, the mamba.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:20:05 UTC | #869460

Go to: Why 9/11 was good for religion

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by Mamba24

Robert Howard said "I don't think you scrutinised the link you provided thoroughly enough, Tyler. The third definition of fundamentalism was: strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.....This sounds an awful lot like the scientific method to me."

-Yeah except the scientific method relies on testable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence and experimentation based on empirical observation and fact. Which makes it a reasonable, reliable and justifiable method. Religion doesn't operate this way, and therefore it's pathetic to try and equate the two as being the same. Other than this I don't see what your point is. One method works(scientific method), and one doesn't. (religious fundamentalism, or religion in general)

" One might argue that scientists are more fundamental in their work than religious fundamentalists are in their beliefs, because religious fundies pick and choose which bits of their holy books they agree with and which bits they don't."

-Once again, the scientists' methods actually work, and it's crucial for them to adhere to the scientific method in order to get accurate and reliable facts and information. They aren't just being "fundamental" in the way they do things for no reason, they have to in order for the science to work......religious fundamentalists are being fundamental for no good reason at all, it's just because they really want to believe that their ideologies are true. Scientists are justified in being anal in their processes, because they want accurate and reliable information......you can't say the same thing for religion, and that's where the difference is. Again, your criticism here bears no merit.

"Whereas, if they're to be taken seriously in their field, scientists can't deviate at all from the scientific method."

-Yes, because science is only reliable and accurate when done correctly. If every scientist just operated on their own methods, we would have no way of accurately cross-checking/peer reviewing other scientists work and verifying it. It would thus make science useless.

"Fundamentalist scientist, therefore, isn't an oxymoron; if anything, it's a tautology."

-You obviously have no knowledge of how science operates, or why it operates the way it does. You seem to want to place science in the same realm with religion, and your failing horribly. One operates on evidence and verifiable empirical observation, the other operates on ignorance and faith. I don't criticize religious people for merely being fundamental, I criticize them because there beliefs aren't justified and have no evidence, and their fundamentalism only makes it worse. It's not necessarily their unwavering belief I'm criticizing, it's their lack of justifiable reason for those beliefs that I'm criticizing, and that's where the difference between science and religion lies.

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:50:12 UTC | #869446

Go to: It’s Time to Scrutinize Fox

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 42 by Mamba24

One thing I hear from Christians is "Oh the Norway killing was just one Christian, there have been thousands of Muslim terrorists, not exactly even if you ask me......"

Sun, 31 Jul 2011 22:44:01 UTC | #856378

Go to: It’s Time to Scrutinize Fox

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by Mamba24

When Muslims commit crimes in the name of their religion, it means that Islam is an evil and sick religion! But when Christians commit crimes in the name of their religion, other Christians just come forward and proclaim that he isn't a "true Christian", no Christian would ever do something like that!. Funny out that works huh? LOL

Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:19:05 UTC | #855942

Go to: 50 Famous Academics & Scientists Talk About God

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Mamba24

I love the guy who simply responded "absolutely not".......

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:03:26 UTC | #854508

Go to: 10 Predictions for Evolution Over the Next Million Years

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by Mamba24

This article is is retarded. The theory of Creationism?? Really? We got a newb author here.

Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:12:11 UTC | #853557

Go to: America’s top scientist again peddles woo in public

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by Mamba24

This Collins guy is starting to get on my nerves.

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 17:43:18 UTC | #845760

Go to: Female Australopiths Left Home Once Mature, Males Didn't

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by Mamba24

Interesting.....lol

Thu, 02 Jun 2011 03:44:57 UTC | #633104

Go to: Human Evolution and Why It Matters: A Conversation with Leakey and Johanson

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by Mamba24

A very informative and interesting discussion.

Sun, 29 May 2011 02:28:41 UTC | #631941

Go to: Why Dawkins disappoints

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by Mamba24

Always frustrating to read articles like these, no substance or merit.

Wed, 25 May 2011 01:45:17 UTC | #630548

Go to: Wrong, root and branch; wrong at every cell and molecule; wrong to the core

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by Mamba24

@ peter white..

Yes, they are. When people's absurd beliefs cause them to drain their life savings and everything else they got, then nothing happens......they are delusional, demented, fuckwits. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's the truth. And the people who laugh at them, but then quote Jesus as saying we don't know when the rapture will happen, are just as delusional and dimwitted. Our beliefs inform our actions, and when things like this happen, they deserve to be criticized harshly.

Tue, 24 May 2011 18:37:00 UTC | #630379

Go to: U.N. Forecasts 10.1 Billion People by Century’s End

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by Mamba24

What are people's opinions on mandating a one or two child per couple rule, like China has? I mean technology and science can only take us so far, eventually we are going to have to make tough decisions, or else face devastating consequences that involve mass starvation and suffering due to lack of resources and food. Any thoughts? I'm interested to hear what people think.

Thu, 05 May 2011 04:45:12 UTC | #623215

Go to: Interview with A.C. Grayling

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by Mamba24

I still want to know why Ballardian is defending religion. He still hasn't given any reason for why anyone should give religion unwarranted respect. For all the killing and hatred done in the world in the name of religion, I want to know why anyone should give it a free pass.

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:03:45 UTC | #619042

Go to: Interview with A.C. Grayling

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Mamba24

"You seem to really want me to believe in God."

-No that's just the general impression I got from this argument even though now you are claiming to be an agnostic. I'm an agnostic too. I'm also an atheist. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive, you can be an agnostic atheist, as well as an agnostic theist. You can also be a gnostic atheist, as well as a gnostic theist. So it's pretty simple to determine whether or not you're an atheist or theist......Do you believe the claim that a god of any kind exists? If you answer yes, you're a theist. Any other answer, and you're an atheist.

"I am a non-believer who doesn't hate religion."

-So you're an atheist who isn't also an anti-theist. Okay, that's your position to hold. Obviously it's not hard to understand why you hold this position since you are anti-science and anti-reason. Then you use the absurd philosophy term of "scientism" as if science is just some other form of ideology. Sorry buddy, it's not just another belief system, it's an unbiased and objective method that attempts to discover knowledge of the universe by means of facts and evidence. It's not just some other religion or belief system. And if you keep insisting on using this definition, then "scientism".....is still the only rational and consistent method to use because it operates on evidence and observed facts/phenomena. It's clear that you hold philosophy as your gateway to truth since you seem to think that if one isn't well read in philosophy, that they lack some greater form of knowledge. I've encountered quite a few people such as yourself and have gotten the same kind of fuzzy logic and reasoning. To let you in on a little secret.....just because you have read a lot of philosophy.......doesn't mean you know jack Sh**t. Philosophy isn't necessarily a pathway to truth and objective knowledge. The only method that has shown to do this.....is science.....not philosophy. Science can make testable predictions about the world and test them. You say you are "suspicious" of science and rationality, yet you don't explain what other method you use to discover objective knowledge and truth. "Oh I'm well immersed in philosophy".......Sorry philosophy isn't a pathway to objective knowledge and truth.

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:08:15 UTC | #618966

Go to: Interview with A.C. Grayling

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Mamba24

I would say it's the other way around: atheism follows logically from rationalism and science.

Quote

-Yes I agree.

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:20:58 UTC | #618944

Go to: Interview with A.C. Grayling

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Mamba24

"You made an incorrect assumption, and I corrected it. I do not belong to a religion. You can attack my beliefs if you want, just don't get them wrong."

-Yes, you claimed you weren't religious. That doesn't mean you're not a theist. One can be a theist, and yet not follow any religion. So yes I got your point, and my original reply still stands. Get your beliefs wrong? Well apparently I can't get them right or wrong since you seem to be dancing around and giving fuzzy descriptions of your beliefs, that way when anyone criticizes what you say, you just come back and accuse us for misrepresenting you. That's why I am interested in learning what exactly your beliefs are and why you believe them. Instead I get wish-washy answers that are completely irrelevant and/or unjustified. Even if you aren't religious, you still seem to be advocating that we don't criticize religion and give it unwarranted respect. Sorry not going to happen, I only give things respect when they deserve it. Not just because they have been around for a couple thousand years.

"He doesn't necessarily have to be okay with it, but if he truly believes atheism is just like being a non-stamp collector then he should accept that there's no reason to be a pro-science rationalist over anything else."

-And this is a completely ridiculous thing to say. The whole point of being an atheist is because the theists haven't met their burden of proof. The entire reason that atheists tend to accept and follow scientific findings......... is because science operates on evidence and proof. So no, Grayling doesn't have to accept that there is no reason to be a "pro-science rationalist" over anything else. Because being rational and accepting scientific discoveries based on evidence and proof is the most logical and objective stance to take in a position. Other than this, your whole point is non-nonsensical. So if atheism is like being a Aunicornist, we should accept that there's no reason to be pro-science/EVIDENCE over something not based on evidence and reason? Are you serious? lol This is your best argument?......good luck buddy.

"I get the impression he believes that rationalism and science follow quite logically from atheism."

-If you are an atheist for the right reasons, like being skeptical of claims that haven't met their burden of proof, then yes, naturally advocating scientific facts supported by evidence would logically follow. If not, then I'm not quite sure why someone would be an atheist if they don't believe in the claim that a god exists by lack of evidence, but yet deny other claims and facts that DO have evidence to support them. This would be a contradicting way of thought, and would show that they don't believe or accept things based off reason and evidence, but instead use some other form of truth seeking. If that's the case, I'm extremely interested in hearing what it is they use to determine whether or not a claim is true or false. Logically atheism is a subset of skepticism, just like aunicorism is a subset of skepticism. You're trying to point out some flaw in Graylings logic by attacking one analogy he used, and I'm not very impressed with what you have come up with so far.

"Well I don't believe God exists, so it would be a rather boring definition. An intelligence which created the universe is what I think of when I think of God in the general sense. But I can't speak for anyone else."

-Okay this is starting to clear up now, you're an intelligent designer who believes that some higher power created the universe. This would be a general definition of a god buddy. Thanks for proving my point earlier in this post that you are dancing around and giving wish washy definitions and answers in order to try and separate yourself from other believers. Thanks for the contradicting statement. "I don't believe in a god, but I do believe in an intelligent designer...." LOL So maybe your a deist who believes that a god doesn't exist in the sense that he would interfere with human affairs, just that he created the universe that is now largely irrelevant? Okay whatever, the point is that now you have given your belief, (even though you are tap dancing around some pretty fuzzy definitions and beliefs).............why do you hold these beliefs? What evidence do you have that an intelligent being created the universe? I notice that you capitalized "God".....is this so you can say you don't believe in the god portrayed by the Abrahamic religions? Are you just purposefully not using the word "god" in your definition in order to avoid being associated with most believers? And using "An Intelligence" instead? This is why it's crucial to get the definitions right so that the believer can't tap dance around the argument as you are doing so right now. Obviously you can't speak for anyone else, you have created your own little bubble definition to try and make yourself seem more unique and justified.

"When confronted with an atheist who doesn't hate religion, and isn't wild about rationalism and the scientific method as the answer to everything, you get confused, when really you should be expecting someone like me as much as you'd expect someone like Grayling, or Dawkins, or anyone of that type."

-Obviously you aren't an atheist if you are advocating an "Intelligent designer" to the universe. So no I'm not confused, not anymore anyway, I think I have you pretty much figured out. And your beliefs are no more justified than any other theist or whatever definition you want to use to describe a particular belief system. Maybe I would expect someone like you, doesn't mean that I think your position is justified or likely to be true. Anyone who is anti-science and anti-evidence is unjustified and irrational.

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 20:09:59 UTC | #618942

Go to: Interview with A.C. Grayling

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Mamba24

"First of all, I'm not religious. Never have been. Though it's interesting that it's assumed I am religious, simply because I disagree with a prominent atheist."

-Yeah and now we hear the inevitable "I'm not religious but...." card. Just so you know, it doesn't matter what you label yourself as, it's what beliefs you hold and why you hold them that I'm interested in. I couldn't care less whether you label yourself as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic, or even an atheist. If you say stupid things, you are going to be criticized and questioned. So just because you claim to not be religious, isn't going to change how we criticize your beliefs.

"I think Grayling is a hypocrite because he claims atheism is a kind of blank slate, using the stamp analogy, but then it's clearly not what he believes in practice.

-How is holding a position on a single claim(god/gods exist) being a hypocrite? Especially since that claim has no evidence to back it up whatsoever? Atheism is a blank slate, if you're an atheist you don't hold the belief that there are gods/god. You lack it. You're in the blank position, which is also the default position and the most rational/reasonable position to hold given the complete lack of evidence for said claim. So I don't understand your accusation of him being a hypocrite..... it's because of an analogy he used? So if I'm a non-unicornist/Aunicornist(don't believe in unicorns), I'm a hypocrite for not believing a claim for which there is no evidence for? And if I write a book criticizing unicornists for holding such irrational and unjustified beliefs because they have been responsible for death the last two thousand years.....I'm a hypocrite? If I write a ethics book that lacks any of the unicornist ideology and doctrines....that makes me a hypocrite? You aren't helping yourself here man by spewing out bold and unjustified accusations.

"His is a very particular branch of atheism. For one thing he always uses science as religion's opposition, and implies that those who drift from religion will fall into science, and vice versa."

-That's because science and religion are by nature opposed to each other. Science is the most reliable, consistent method of obtaining knowledge of the physical/natural world and universe that we have. In fact I'm not aware of any other process or method that comes close to challenging it. Science finds the answers using evidence, religion just makes answers up. The reason why it's such an important issue to discuss, especially if you're an atheist, is because religious fundamentalism teaches people to be willfully ignorant of science, such as deny the fact of evolution. Grayling isn't the only atheist who talks about this, in fact most atheists I know or communicate with talk about it. You're correct, atheism and science are mutually exclusive, but given that it's the nature of most atheists to be rational and skeptical, and not believe claims without sufficient evidence, it's not surprising to find that most atheists accept scientific findings and facts, because hey what do you know? They have evidence to support them! Yeah you can get stupid and irrational atheists here and there, but I have never seen or heard from an athiest who is anti-science or anti-rational/skeptical.

"In fact it's perfectly acceptable to be suspicious of rationalism as a direct consequence of being an atheist. Grayling should be okay with that if he truly believes in his non-stamp collecting analogy, but in reality he would hate it."

-Grayling should be okay with people being suspicious of rationalism?? Are you serious? Why? What other method would one use to pursue truth and knowledge......other than by means of rationality, based on evidence? No Ballardian, it's not hypocrisy, because rationalism is shown to be the most important characteristic one can have when determining whether or not their beliefs are likely to be true. Being an atheist or skeptic in nature.....doesn't mean that you should be skeptical or suspicious of scientific facts supported by evidence. So no, one isn't a hypocrite for accepting facts based off evidence. It's the reason why one is a atheist in the first place, rationality and skepticism.

"Really Grayling's war is against those who don't love rationalism and science. He should just say that outright. If Grayling converted everyone who read his books to atheism, but instead of rationalists they became Nietzche-worshippers who were suspicious of everything AC Grayling believed in, I imagine he wouldn't be very pleased."

-Yeah which would include most religious people or theists. I believe most atheists are against people who are anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-rational thinking. So it's not just grayling. Dawkins, Hitchens, pretty much every atheist I have ever encountered also fit this description, including myself. And what does Grayling believe in exactly? You realize that atheism isn't a doctrine or set of beliefs? It's simply a single position in regards to a claim. So yeah, just because you are an atheist, doesn't mean that you will believe in everything Grayling does concerning everything else there is to believe in. So I would imagine that he wouldn't be very pleased if a large group of atheists sprung up who were anti-science/ anti-evolution, things that are based on fact and evidence.

"My "invisible policeman" comment was not supposed to sound patronising to people who hadn't read any philosophy. It just seems strange that Grayling, who is clearly well read in these matters, still has such a childish conception of God. Far from reasonable, it just makes him sound angry. There are no religious thinkers who consider their god to be an "invisible policeman"."

-And of of course the inevitable "Oh that's such a childish conception of God". Yeah that because the concept of god........is childish by nature. That's why the analogy is dead on accurate. You sitting there shaking your head doesn't change that fact. Also the fact that you have pointed this out for the second time now, and have yet to offer a counter-argument to it, just tells me you really have no good reason for opposing it, other than that it makes you feel uncomfortable and that it challenges your belief system. Yes, obviously most "religious thinkers" don't consider their god to be an "invisible policeman".......so what? Pointing to other people who agree with you doesn't change the fact that the description is basically an accurate representation of the invisible sky daddy. And if you still don't agree, why don't you explain what your idea/definition of god is like?

"Atheists get annoyed about being misrepresented all the time, but in general they are far worse at understanding the religious side of things."

-An interesting accusation, why don't you go ahead and enlighten us? Because in my opinion, it doesn't matter how you are represented, the only thing I care about is whether or not your beliefs are true and justified. And why your beliefs shouldn't be criticized for being directly responsible for a lot of killing in the world.

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:00:54 UTC | #618874

Go to: Interview with A.C. Grayling

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Mamba24

"If Grayling's brand of atheism is just like being a non-stamp collector, then doesn't that make The Good Book a non-stamp collector's guide to not collecting stamps?"

-No, it's simply an ethics book without the religious dogma and threats of hell. So it's actually a non-stamp collector's guide to living a good and ethical life.

"It must be great to be in a complete blank slate position, existing in a negative and protected realm of non-belief, while still being able to take shots at those who believe in God (who must after all carry the burden of thousands of years of religious action and be held directly responsible for anything done or said in the name of their religion)."

-Yeah it's about as great as being in a blank slate position, existing in a negative and protected realm of non-belief, in regards to unicorns, leprechauns, and fairies.......So yeah, it's a lot better than believing in something that along with having no evidence to support it, also is directly responsible for mass amounts of death over the last 2500 years of human civilization, if not longer. It's not our fault you associate yourself with such irrational and delusional beliefs that do more harm than good.

"I've heard teenagers with no experience in reading philosophy (or anything else for that matter) using the same kind of arguments and phrases regarding religion."

-And if these so called unread kids you speak about use good and reasoned arguments like the ones Dawkins, Hitchens, and Grayling use, then obviously they are either smart and somewhat intelligent/rational thinking people... or they are well read in philosophy, and you aren't informed/intelligent enough to tell the difference. Anyways, most atheists I've communicated with and/or read, have been thoroughly well informed and have read the bible and many other religious texts. I would say that more atheists have actually critically/carefully read the bible than most christians.

"God is an "invisible policeman"? Really? It's such a naive way of comprehending religion that I almost feel like a bully for pointing it out."

-..........Yeah.....except it's not. It's actually a perfect description of what religion preaches in terms of moral behavior. "Be good or you won't get to go to heaven when you die!".... Sorry buddy, just because you get offended when your religious beliefs get criticized, doesn't make your position justified. Your beliefs are irrational, unsound, unjustified, and dangerous. You have zero evidence to support your belief in a god. Instead of just claiming that it's naive to label religion like this(which it isn't, it's the truth), how about you actually present some counter-arguments and at least try to sound like you have a good reason for your beliefs?(which you most likely don't) So if you feel like a bully pointing this out, then I'm deeply confused, because I wouldn't feel like someone is bullying me for defending their beliefs that Santa fills bad boy's and girl's stockings with coal for being naughty. It's like me saying that Santa is an invisible police men, then you being the Santa believer saying, "This is such a naive way of comprehending Santa Claus, I feel like a bully pointing this out." I would just laugh at you and call you a delusional moron.

"At least the major monotheisms have some grit in them, for crying out loud."

-And what's having grit........have anything to do with whether or not the claims and beliefs monotheistic religions preach... are actually true? Little kids have a lot of grit when it comes to defending their beliefs in santa claus. Does that make their beliefs true or justified? At least no one is killed in the name of santa.

Sun, 24 Apr 2011 04:03:02 UTC | #618703

Go to: New Species of Dinosaur Bridges Gap in Dinosaur Family Tree

Mamba24's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by Mamba24

Another transitional fossil for the creationists to deny

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 05:02:16 UTC | #615293