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

Comments by Sketchy

Go to: Sins of Memory

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by Sketchy

Thanks, I’ll definitely get the book. I was going to, years ago, but I forgot.

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:17:50 UTC | #945762

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 116 by Sketchy

Comment 115 by Schrodinger's Cat

The best one can do, as Sam Harris has done, is argue that if one wants a specific outcome then one should follow a particular morality

No, that’s not what he’s doing; he’s arguing that some outcomes are more moral than others. You may disagree, but as far as I can tell your objection is about semantics; you’re basically saying morality is a term without content, or that it means the same as “whim”. That’s not a terribly interesting thing to talk about. The interesting discussion is how do you make things better, and Sam has some quite useful things to say about that.

Fri, 25 May 2012 12:40:44 UTC | #943467

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 114 by Sketchy

Comment 112 by ccw95005

Here's one analysis.

Wow, that was one ugly piece of slander, and a complete distortion of Sam Harris’ views. But at least the website had the decency to add a response from Sam, where he gets to explain that he does in fact not believe in psychic phenomena.

Fri, 25 May 2012 01:08:16 UTC | #943401

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 111 by Sketchy

Comment 108 by BloodywombatTSI

I haven't done any polls myself, but doesn't a scientific view of the world tend to inspire similar ideas about morality among people?

It sure looks that way. Better ideas. Why do Christians think homosexuality is immoral? It can only be because they think it will cause suffering, in the form of god’s wrath. They are wrong about this, so it follows they are wrong about morality. It’s not rocket science.

Thu, 24 May 2012 23:12:32 UTC | #943378

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 110 by Sketchy

Comment 107 by ccw95005

Personally I'm disappointed in Sam Harris for pursuing an illogical line of thinking in trying to make facts of morality scientifically verifiable.

He's not wrong. Morality has a Dictionary definition, it’s principles concerning the distinction between bad and good behavior. The concept of bad derives from humans’ ability to suffer, and the concept of good derives from humans’ ability to enjoy. Sam Harris merely recognizes this and builds from there, all in a perfectly logical fashion. You can try and refute him, but you’ll be forced to perversely twist the meaning of words, to the point where you’ll argue that “good” is just as appropriate as “bad” to describe the biblical version of Hell. We can safely disregard people who talk like that, just as we can ignore nutjobs that will argue that cancer is “healthy”.

I think he also believes in some kind of psychic phenomena.

Like what exactly? Care to elaborate?

Thu, 24 May 2012 23:07:41 UTC | #943377

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 97 by Sketchy

Comment 94 by logicophilosophicus

If you choose a life punctuated by occasional suffering, might not the zebra, too?

That’s your objection; the zebras might “choose” to be eaten alive? Silly notion. You need to provide evidence that zebras possess the mental faculties necessary to contemplate these options and then choose between them. Seems unlikely. For now, the evidence suggests being eaten alive gives them only fear and pain, with little benefit in return.

If avoiding suffering at any cost is an absolute good, then a sterile world is better than one in which any creature with an advanced central nervous system exists, because that is the only sure way to avoid suffering.

And maximizing well-being. There’s no pleasure in death. And I didn’t say “any cost”, that’s your words.

The God-botherers think He tells them how to behave. A conscienscious Darwinist logically must endorse the Malthusian/Darwinian/Dawkinsian Selfish-Gene struggle

Utter nonsense. The natural order of things has nothing to teach us about morality, as Darwin himself would tell you.

I'm wondering whether you have, deep down, a cute-kitten, fluffy-bunny attitude to animals. What do you think?

I think this is a poor excuse for an argument.

Tue, 22 May 2012 14:41:13 UTC | #942838

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by Sketchy

Comment 93 by ccw95005

So the mechanisms for empathy and that line between us and them evolved way back when, but where we draw that line has changed over the centuries as we've gotten more educated and knowledgeable

Yup, that was my point.

In my opinion, logic has very little to do with morality. It's mostly based on emotion, which is mostly based on empathy.

In practice this seems to be true, still, and that’s the problem. Do you not agree you make better moral judgments when you rely more on reason and less on emotion? The thing with empathy is it tends to get dulled down as the suffering piles up. Your reason tells you that mean something is wrong.

Tue, 22 May 2012 14:31:51 UTC | #942834

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by Sketchy

Comment 89 by logicophilosophicus

I'm still thinking about those zebras. Why shoot the zebras when you could shoot the lions?

I didn’t shoot the zebras for the lions’ sake. We need to shot them anyway, or else they’ll starve to death because of overpopulation with no predators, and that’s worse. Might be a better way. This need some more work.

But then, all animals are going to suffer pain at some time. Why not humanely gas the lot of them? In fact, since all human beings are going to suffer pain at some time...

Now you’re talking nonsense. You go kill yourself next time you have a headache; leave the rest of us to build a better world.

Tue, 22 May 2012 01:54:40 UTC | #942734

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 91 by Sketchy

Comment 86 by godzillatemple

Empathy is what lets us feel that the suffering of other people (or animals) is a bad thing, since we wouldn't want to suffer in the same way. And, therefore, whatever action causes that suffering innately feels "immoral" to us, from a purely evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution takes tens of thousands of years. If a concern for strangers came purely from evolution, you’d expect people from the Middle Ages to have basically the same sense of morality that we do. They didn’t. Most of them we’d consider vicious monsters. Human and animal suffering was not considered wrong, it was considered among the most popular forms of entertainment. How would their “innately” moral genes let them enjoy cat burning or breaking on the wheel so much? Morality takes reasoning.

Tue, 22 May 2012 01:46:49 UTC | #942730

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 90 by Sketchy

Comment 84 by ccw95005

Sure. But is all suffering morally bad? How about the stabbing of a man who's trying to hurt your children? Is that morally wrong? How about murdering Hitler? Would that have been wrong? How about shooting a dog that's getting ready to attack you?

Clearly there are degrees of badness. The point is, once the premise that we all can agree on is established, it’s not possible to rationally defend a course of action that causes more suffering than another. Morality is tricky because oftentimes it’s hard to predict outcomes, not because there aren’t any right answers. The answers exist and can be discovered.

Once again, there are people who do believe that animals have the same rights as humans - that killing a deer is just as bad as killing a human. How do you prove logically that they are wrong and you are right?

If some types of animal have capacity for suffering and well-being that are comparable to humans, neuroscience can give evidence for that.

(You disagree with their position, yet you think it’s as valid as your own position. That I find a bit strange. If you believe there’s no true answer; that means no evidence can make any difference to you, and that means your position is arbitrary.)

Tue, 22 May 2012 01:30:21 UTC | #942728

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 83 by Sketchy

Comment 80 by ccw95005

Who's to say, logically, that the moral beliefs of a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer aren't just as valid as yours or mine?

We could find out. Try it. Let’s all do what he did, see what happens.

Almost all of us in the West have somewhat similar ideas of right and wrong, but majority vote isn't a very good way of judging morality.

That’s right. Majority vote has no bearing on the facts.

In some Muslim countries, many people believe that killing innocent infidels is a moral act.

Only because they’re mistaken about the facts. There’s no gods so there's really no grounds for doing this.

The majority in Salem, Massachussetts probably believed that burning witches was a moral act.

Only because they were mistaken about the facts. There’s no such thing as witches, so logically it can’t be moral to kill them.

As much as I'd like to believe that my moral principles are 100% valid and universal, I can't. Plenty of individuals with views we'd consider abhorrent believe just as strongly as we do that they are right.

I hold no such conviction about my moral principles either. In fact, I’m sure they could be a lot better, but unfortunately I’m not bright or knowledgeable or empathic enough to see how, exactly. I hope I will be some day. However, I can clearly see how my moral principles could be worse, with near 100% certainty.

Certainly there's great difference of opinion in developed countries about whether animals have the same rights as humans. You apparently believe they do.

No, of course I don’t. Clearly, I wouldn’t suggest controlling human population by shooting humans.

The only way you can successfully argue logically that a particular moral principle is best is if you start with certain assumptions that everybody in the discussion agrees with, and build from there.

Yes, that’s a good approach. Start with the assumptions that suffering is bad and well-being is good. Everyone in the world will agree. That is, if they’re being rational and honest.

I found your idea of shooting zebras to feed the lions interesting.

Cool! Maybe it’ll catch on!

Comment 82 by logicophilosophicus:

More to the point, just because people disagree about the morality of an action doesn't mean there is no right answer: the variety of modern cosmologies doesn't prove or even suggest that there's no right answer.

Exactly.

Mon, 21 May 2012 12:28:37 UTC | #942601

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 79 by Sketchy

Comment 77 by ccw95005

The reason you believe that suffering is a moral issue, Sketchy, is that evolution gave us empathetic feelings toward humans and those animals that we identify with.

That’s only partly true. Evolution gave us empathetic feeling toward close kin, friends and babies, but that’s about it. Couple of hundred years ago, torture was good, clean family entertainment for almost everyone, and empathy toward animals was completely unheard of. Evolution didn’t really take us very far in terms of morality. The rest came from the Enlightenment, rational discourse and hard won understanding that other peoples suffering is as real as our own and matter as much. It’s not just about feelings, it’s a line of reasoning, and it was never inevitable.

A person could be extremely kind and compassionate toward his family and at the same time have no appreciable empathy for animals. For him, cruelty toward animals would not be a moral issue.

Yes, but hopefully, no-one would actually object to steps being made to alleviate animal suffering for trivial cost. The only possible motivation for that would be sadism.

Many Buddhists believe that hurting insects is evil. For them, cruelty toward mosquitos would be a moral issue. So it's fine to have a definite idea of what you consider right and wrong in terms of cruelty, but don't delude yourself into thinking that it's anything more than one person's point of view.

But not all points of view are equal. You mean to say someone who, say, enjoys cruelty and wants lots of it, has an equally valid view on morality? That leaves the concept with no discernible meaning at all, so what are we even talking about? I don’t have the stamina for an “is-suffering-really-bad” kind of argument. If you’ll agree with me that suffering is bad, you’ll agree that people who don’t care about animal suffering have at least one moral blind spot, and so it follows that they’re somewhat less moral than they could be. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

And of course the idea of stopping animals killing animals is silly and impractical in the extreme. The only way to do that would be to remove them from their natural environments and put them into zoos, which I think would be cruel.

I conceded it was impractical. It’s not silly, though. “The only way?” Here you only show your lack of imagination. Separate them, in reservations the size of countries, control the zebra population by sniper rifle, feed the lions their meat. Not perfect, but I only thought about it for ten seconds. We have unlimited time to think of something, and you know a lot of things that were “impractical in the extreme” in the past are trivially easy today. Most things, in fact.

Mon, 21 May 2012 01:54:51 UTC | #942541

Go to: So what's the goal with theism?

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 101 by Sketchy

Comment 97 by Nordic11

Last, concerning the "indoctrination" of children, I unapologetically teach my children Christianity, it is the truth afterall

If it is the truth after all, you shouldn’t just be able to convince innocent, undeveloped minds which trust you completely; you should easily be able to convince most reasonable adults with fully developed faculties of critical thinking, no problem. Some day what you are doing to your children will be considered by the law as the mental child abuse that it is.

Sun, 20 May 2012 18:19:29 UTC | #942463

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by Sketchy

Comment 71 by logicophilosophicus

So it is far from obvious that the proverbially red tooth and claw of Nature are moral issues, and if they are, what should we be doing to address them?

All matters of suffering are moral issues.

It’s not unthinkable that our morality will evolve to the point where it becomes public policy to protect wildlife from its predators. The logistics of it would be stupendously hard, but morally it’s a no-brainer. A world where creatures with advanced central nervous systems are not being eaten alive is better than a world where creatures with advanced central nervous systems are being eaten alive. I don’t see how anyone can doubt this. Enough with the carnage, let’s give the zebras a friggin’ break already! If at some point in the future we are able to do that and yet choose not to, we’re no better than the hypothetical evil god that designed the bloody thing in the first place.

Sun, 20 May 2012 17:31:26 UTC | #942460

Go to: God and logic: help with theist conversations

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 129 by Sketchy

Comment 124 by Quine

Yes, Sketchy, it is going to be tough going, as it was even for humans, back before minority races were given recognition as fully "ensouled."

Indeed. And if science-fiction has taught us anything, we really don’t want machines to bear a grudge.

Fri, 18 May 2012 12:25:37 UTC | #942166

Go to: God and logic: help with theist conversations

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 116 by Sketchy

Comment 115 by Less Entropy

The Turing machine would respond as if it were human, as if it we 'being' - but it would not 'be', it would be cogs and gears.

This kind of “thinking” from theists is very unsettling. This probably won’t stay academic forever. Sooner or later we will create entities with artificial consciousness, but the theists will remain unimpressed, they’ll gladly kill (yes, kill) them without second thought, and basic rights for machine life is going to be a tough sell indeed. Their asinine assertion that consciousness is made of magic has the potential to cause some very real suffering.

Thu, 17 May 2012 23:31:17 UTC | #942111

Go to: Intelligent Design and the cruelty of nature

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Sketchy

It is interesting that not one theist in the whole world will say, “Yes I believe there’s a god and he’s an evil prick“. It’s like it’s not in the human psyche to think like that, but it wasn’t always like this, was it? There was a time when people looked around and thought, “What kind of god would make a world like this then” and the answer was, “A sadistic, cruel god of course!” So they sacrificed people in the thousands to try and meet gods daily requirement for carnage, before he could get to them. The early Israelites sacrificed children all the time to their bloodthirsty god. The Christians never did, I don’t think, but then their bloodthirsty god had already received the ultimate human sacrifice. By believing that the torture-killing of Jesus was necessary, they do in a way acknowledge that if there is a god it is necessarily a god with a certain sadistic streak. Not that they will admit that.

Thu, 17 May 2012 16:52:27 UTC | #942059

Go to: Queen 'should remain Defender of the Faith' - BBC poll

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by Sketchy

Meanwhile, some very happy news from where I live! Extremely pleased about this:

All parties stand united when the Norwegian constitution is changed, so that the state will no longer be a part of the Norwegian church. The amendment is to be presented Tuesday.

The amendment which will be passed later in May, historically changes the state's relationship with the church. Parliament will no longer appoint deans and bishops, and Norway will no longer have one offical state religion.

Tue, 15 May 2012 12:23:21 UTC | #941574

Go to: Religion as "comfort" to people in distress: fact or myth?

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 48 by Sketchy

Comment 44 by VrijVlinder

There can't be immortality like in vampire movies. We are the product of faulty design by evolution itself. (…) We have an expiration date stamped by our genetics. (…) Can't beat biology.

You’re being fatalistic. It’s not like there’s any fundamental natural law in the universe that forbids science from changing human biology, or rejuvenating it, or even replacing it. Can’t beat biology? That’s what medicine is about. Aging is extremely complex is all. Work hard at it a for a few centuries, there’s no reason to think we can’t conquer it. There’s a very real chance you and I belong to a small minority of humans that will wither and die. Once people wake up and realize that, hopefully they’ll stop being so depressingly accepting about it, and then we can get to work and solve this thing.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:51:41 UTC | #937381

Go to: Religion as "comfort" to people in distress: fact or myth?

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 41 by Sketchy

Comment 14 by VrijVlinder

Even as adults the concept of death and dying is a difficult one to accept. Acceptance is all there is to be done because it is a fact it will happen.

Probably, but I wish the relatively few people that realize we’re actually mortal wouldn’t be so fast to accept it. I don’t like this fatalistic attitude toward death. Most of our descendants probably will get a good chunk of eternity, or at least they won’t die of something as banal as old age. Take a look at the advances of technology and medicine the last hundred years, then extrapolate another hundred, then another thousand. Humanity will beat this eventually. It’s just a shame it will be too late for us, and probably our children as well, because as long as most people already think we’re immortal, and the rest of us just shrug it off and accept death, nothing is going to get done about it.

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:11:38 UTC | #937298

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by Sketchy

Comment 56 by Layla

I have to admit I'm starting to come round to your way of thinking.

Really? Cool! That’s not something you hear very often in discussions. I appreciate you saying it.

Thank you for giving me a nice opportunity to organize my feelings about this into words and make some more sense of them. I felt very uncomfortable in the last christening I attended, and I really don’t want to go to another one, but that may take some resolve and some tough arguments.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:40:39 UTC | #931382

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 54 by Sketchy

Comment 53 by Layla

I think if we were talking about a ceremony where adults frightened a child old enough to know what was going on by telling them they were full of sin and needed to be cleansed or something like that then, yes, this would be a cause of concern (...)

To be clear, that is what I was talking about, the children who are present at the ceremony, who are old enough to understand what is going on.

And that is what’s being said, at least at the christenings I’ve been to. It isn’t exactly spelled out in so many details, but it’s still in there; babies inherit sin, people bear responsibility for the misdeeds of their ancestors. That is the moral system of very sick minds. You say the words are innocuous, but they’re clearly not! I think maybe you’re too used to the idea. If you learned of this mindset, that people really used to think like this, for the first time today, you would probably be properly aghast. It’s not unreasonable to think there’s quite a few bright children who will be frightened and confused hearing this poisonous shit.

At the very least grown ups should prepare the children, telling them “listen, you will hear the priest say some very vile things, you see, there used to be some very bad men who used to think this is how the world works, but don’t worry, no-one thinks like this anymore, we’re just going to listen to the words because, well, it’s traditional and all.” But they’re not likely to do that, are they, that would break the spell.

Either way, christenings are places where a lot of children learn about how evil grown ups can be. There’s nothing nice about that. Yes, there’s worse things going on in the world, but between the choice of having a christening and not having one, you can’t really justify the former morally. Have a nice secular welcome-to-the-world ceremony, nothing wrong with that.

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:08:10 UTC | #931269

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Sketchy

Comment 48 by Layla

I don't think it is quite as sinister as you portray it as with an evil priest condemning babies to hell and anxious parents quickly handing over their babies to be cleansed.

Fine, the priests aren't evil, but some of the words coming out of their mouths are, and the men that came up with the notion that babies are born with inherited “sin” certainly were very evil indeed. Sinful babies! It seems odd that perpetuating their nauseating ideology in any way is anyone’s idea of a nice family event, but I guess that's their business, except there’s usually children present, and then you don’t have that luxury. There may be a time and a place for children to learn about how some of mankind’s sickest minds perverted morality, but it should never happen like this, with a room full of adults seemingly condoning the idea. That needs to be handled with a lot more care. The concept of original sin is not something you just mention in passing. It needs to be omitted entirely if baptism can be said to be anything less than sinister. (Maybe the Church of England is doing that, I can’t be sure.)

I don't think the Church of England is particularly immoral. I think its beliefs make no sense whatsoever but I think it's mainly populated by well-meaning, harmless people and I don't see it as a force for evil in the world.

Right, there’s the disagreement then. I believe they’re all extremely immoral, because they’re all in the business of indoctrinating children, crippling their ability for rational thought even before they can properly begin to develop it. That is mental child abuse. And also, because they all advocate the idea of vicarious redemption, the idea that you can be absolved of your responsibilities through the torture and murder of an innocent person. It’s so obviously evil and depraved, it’s hard to understand how anyone who’s not already indoctrinated can’t see it and won’t make an effort not to be associated with any sort of church in any way.

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:40:03 UTC | #931090

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 45 by Sketchy

Comment 44 by Layla

If you don't believe the ritual actually has any effect why would it even matter? It's not as if the child has really been made into a christian by going through the baptism.

Somebody says your baby is born sinful, the decent thing to do is tell him to go fuck himself. You don’t proceed to put the baby in his arms, that would be obscene! That’s a failure on you as a parent, and you don’t know how your child will feel about that later on.

You don’t volunteer your children as a means for an immoral institution to conduct its twisted rituals and further its influence in society unless you approve of the institution, its rituals and its influence in society. It’s called integrity.

Comment 39 by Slippy

I have made it extremely clear that should children come into the picture that they will not be baptized, I know this will be a big thing and pressure will be applied to do this but I swear I'll be divorced before any children of mine are baptized before they are old enough and wise enough to decide themselves if they want to be.

That is admirable!

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:27:29 UTC | #930821

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by Sketchy

Comment 27 by Mark Ribbands

Thanks for that Sketchy, I picked your quote as a shining example from the many thoughtful responses

Wow, that’s a very nice compliment. Okay then, I’ll have a go at your challenge.

The fact that a man is ignoring the beliefs and practices of a lifetime, exhibiting deep hypocrisy, and lying through his teeth, is neither here nor there

Yes, that is what he’s doing, isn’t, and she knows it, or have they just met? You and I can arguably respect that anything goes to get the girl, but are we certain that she does? What exactly is it about deep hypocrisy and lying and willy-nilly abandonment of lifelong convictions in fear of the wrath of mother-in-laws that’s likely to inspire love an admiration in this gorgeous, intelligent woman? Is it at all possible that she’ll actually be relieved if he takes a stand here (as is his nature, usually, which is something she likes about him, hopefully), when she isn’t able to? At the very least she’s bound to know she’s making an unreasonable request. “I know our wedding is supposed to be our special day, but it’ll mean a lot to my parents if it is to be arranged by that organization that you despise so much, do you mind?” She’s not feeling just a litle bit guilty about this? And there won’t be a just little bit resentment on his part, being asked to make a solemn promise by a man who makes a living from lies, in front of a roomfull of puzzled friends who may or may not judge him for the poser and hypocrite that he is? He is losing something because of this whether he realizes it or not. Is there even any doubt that his arguments will carry a little less weight next time he decides to criticise religion? It’s perfectly logical to want to avoid all this unpleasantness. Much better to have a magnificent secular ceremony that’ll be sure to impress everyone, and the in-laws will change their mind halfway through, or just have to deal, because their world view is stupid and immoral, and it’s not their day, dammit.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:10:37 UTC | #930405

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Sketchy

Comment 23 by 6thsense

Perhaps, but what's indignity compared with a life spent with a chosen partner. Why let a small matter of religion get in the way?

Is she likely to leave him for being consistent in his principles? If so, she’s not a very good choice.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:10:33 UTC | #930307

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by Sketchy

Comment 2 Paulmcuk

Here's a question: Would you expect you friend to refuse to go to a religious funeral? Ok, not quite the same because it wouldn't be his funeral, but I think most of us are happy to go through the motions of a religious funeral if invited to one. We just tune out the god bits.

I was in a funeral for an atheist, and sat quietly listening to the priest telling us how accepting Jesus is the way to get eternal life. A bit late for the guy in the coffin. I don’t want to hear this hateful shit anymore, and I don’t think it’s okay to tune it out either. Words matter.

Sun, 25 Mar 2012 00:20:59 UTC | #930285

Go to: Atheists in church: the course of true love may now run smooth

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by Sketchy

Atheists having religious weddings is undignified. A promise before god is a poor joke when there’s no god. He’s turning something that should be a meaningful and memorable ceremony into a farce, a room full of people listening respectfully as a grown man drones on about his invisible friend. In the weddings I’ve been to, Yahweh was anything but peripheral. He has no time for their silliness in his daily life, but this day of all days he’s going to sit there and not call them out on their bullshit? I agree with Woodworm, try to take marriage a little more seriously.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:56:30 UTC | #930283

Go to: Free Will

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by Sketchy

Comment 68 by danconquer

Personally I find it extremely useful to have a phrase that differentiates between the former type of 'decisions' and the latter.

Volition and nonvolition works well enough, I think.

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:04:57 UTC | #923776

Go to: Can theists be convinced by reason?

Sketchy's Avatar Jump to comment 429 by Sketchy

Comment 421 by suddha:

So here's a clear question: why do people try and convince others that god does not exist?

For one, there’s all the suffering.

Here’s one more: When you believe something is true merely because it’s comforting or easy, and not because it’s actually true, you train your mind to think like that, in other areas as well. It’s clear by now there’s no such thing as gods, but the religious can’t see that because to them that’s too scary to even contemplate. It’s the same thing with people refusing to accept global warming or other extinction-level approaching threats. It’s a cognitive dissonance due to fear. This sort of mindset must be fought if we are to survive the next few centuries. The problem isn’t so much that people believe in gods, it’s why they believe in gods, which is for no reason at all, in face of the evidence. Disregard for evidence must stop or we’re dead, so religion must go too. But that’s just a side-effect, really, of evidence-based thinking, which is the real goal.

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:10:01 UTC | #900952