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

Comments by xsjadolateralus

Go to: Search for truth leads to rejection of religion

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 16 by Alan4discussion :

Comment 15 by xsjadolateralus

Now, you're telling me that the people who did the opposite and road like kings in a chariot on my back and my work are worth more than me, intrinsically when you say that these people need these extra services that were never mentioned or available in my case.

I can sympathise with the your past need of support services, but would not deny them to others. These are provided in many of the more socially conscious European states.

No one payed for me to find another job, in fact, I lost money each time I had to switch jobs, got fired (for being an atheist no less), or when I injured myself and my boss fired me.

We often hear the baying of right-wing religinuts, against paying taxes to provide universal health-care and social safety nets - especially in the USA.

Where were these social programs you think clergy NEED in order to get on with their lives?

I think some help in changing jobs would be charitable for anyone, - and beneficial to society as a whole - but actual provision varies from state to state.

I have a spinal injury and tore my Spinae Majora. I have constant pain that reminds me of the incredibly hard work I had to do to survive.

My sympathies on your injury.

BTW: Back in the 1970s I spent some months in hospital and then had a spinal disk surgically removed, following a motor accident caused by a careless driver with no license or insurance. Fortunately the treatment was paid for by the UK National Health Service, - and with the operation a success, I was able to return to work.

You truly live in a blessed country. :)

I think we live in two vastly different places and social strata. I've scratched and clawed (continuing to do so) out of a life of extreme poverty. There are no people caring for people like me, no government assistance and no taxes go to my well being, or ever have.

The closest thing I've had to a break is being able to have health insurance for a year, before I turned 26, because of "obamacare". I was able to get in to see the doctor, without much success for healing my injury. I continue to do physical therapy on my own and can only sit on a yoga ball (currently atop). I haven't been able to work since, because of many reasons, but the most important being that all of my experience is in a labor atmosphere. I've since went back to developing my art and it's been great that I have a supportive person who loves me.

I'm not saying deny people of benefits they need, I'm saying they don't need them.

What they would LIKE is to transition away from lying for a living, into a similarly lax job, which will be able to give them the money they need to support the small army they have birthed.

No, there are FAR MORE who deserve that service first and will never get it.

And changing jobs is not always beneficial, nor possible. In other words, life isn't as simple as you've made it out to be and you have to work on these problems on a priority basis. No, these religious zealots, finally woke up when it's too late, do not have a priority over other more helpless people.

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:12:00 UTC | #947240

Go to: Church accused of 'scaremongering'

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by xsjadolateralus

Wasn't John "the one whom Jesus loved" ?

Didn't jesus love everyone? Why the specific naming of John, as the one whom Jesus loved?

MAYBE, the story was once that Jesus was gay. Ask the Romans...

Just sayin'

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:57:38 UTC | #947238

Go to: A Religious Military? Spiritual Fitness Test or Rationality Fitness Test?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by xsjadolateralus

They are getting desperate. Making people admit to being religious, or flunk out. Only a matter of time before they apply this to the school system. Oh, the future, we thought you would be so much brighter!?!

Why do they want the military to be entirely religious? Hmmmff...

MAYBE because they want to use the US military to strong arm non believers?

Why is the idea that they would preach their faith with a gun barrel so hard to imagine?

It's their tradition, after all. Never forget. :)

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:08:54 UTC | #947142

Go to: Should Depressed People Avoid Having Children?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 39 by xsjadolateralus

No one, that I'm aware of, has mentioned the possibility that the child she adopts (or anyone in her position) wouldn't be predisposed to be depressed, as well.

Her, "get a loner baby if you don't want to breed with your nasty genes" doesn't stand up to the test of analytic thought.

For one, the people giving their baby up for adoption might have far worse a disorder than simply depression.

Also, if we all adopted (pun intended) her philosophy, we would all be adopting the children of people who obviously cannot be responsible enough to take care of a child. Therefore, the child would still inherit some possible negative side effect, especially considering the lack of intelligence, care, ability of their parents. (no one just gives their child up for the fuck of it)

Remember, these people aren't just having a few too many kids and then give a few away for adoption. These children are coming from some of the worst case scenarios. You might end up with a child with even worse depression, in other words. So, her idea falls apart at the outset, not to mention the lack of her knowledge on biology, heredity, etc. makes her idea nothing but a brain fart from a not-so-funny comedian.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for adoption, but her fears are unsubstantiated, naive and probably even harmful.

I've even illustrated creatives for ad campaigns to encourage people to adopt. DON'T GET ME WRONG! :)

This notion that you can forgo breeding altogether to make the world a better place is naive and again probably dangerous.

Yes, let's let the only people who FAILED the test of life to populate the future... GREAT IDEA!

Of course, I'm not a biological determinist, but you have to think that these adopted babies have just as many, if not more biological defects than babies not given up for adoption. Am I wrong to think so?

In addition, people would have more of a free ticket to give up their baby and let other people raise it. I don't want to see babies for adoption raise because of people's irrational fears that they will pass on their genes in some terrible way to their children. They easily forget the reasons why their life is worth living and why at least giving it a good college try might change their silly beliefs about biology they obviously don't understand.

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:49:47 UTC | #947141

Go to: Search for truth leads to rejection of religion

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 14 by xsjadolateralus :

Comment 12 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 11 by Alan4discussion

I'm not sure where this idea that of changing careers is a hop into a well paying job? Theology is not much of a qualification for most jobs, and retraining does not usually offer any guarantees!

It's not like anyone here has not had to re-invent themselves through circumstances unforeseen and beyond their control is it? Not always for an improved life either.

Exactly...

Why are these people privileged? Why can't they be bothered to work like the rest of us?

It's because of the class that the religious have enjoyed for so long. They are above us all and if some of them turn out to be not so religious, they are still held higher than the rest of us. It's disgusting, I'm sick of living as a lower class citizen simply for being more intelligent than the majority. It's beyond ironic and it needs to change asap. Stupidity is rewarded and intelligence is punished. I'm going to end up getting sick of it all and move to some remote part of the planet, say fuck you all.

I literally broke my back working hard labor since I was 13. I have a spinal injury and tore my Spinae Majora. I have constant pain that reminds me of the incredibly hard work I had to do to survive.

Now, you're telling me that the people who did the opposite and road like kings in a chariot on my back and my work are worth more than me, intrinsically when you say that these people need these extra services that were never mentioned or available in my case. No one payed for me to find another job, in fact, I lost money each time I had to switch jobs, got fired (for being an atheist no less), or when I injured myself and my boss fired me. Where were these social programs you think clergy NEED in order to get on with their lives?

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:36:41 UTC | #947132

Go to: Search for truth leads to rejection of religion

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by xsjadolateralus

Comment Removed by Author

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:27:58 UTC | #947130

Go to: Search for truth leads to rejection of religion

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 13 by xsjadolateralus

I was speaking about their supposed moral superiority, or innocence, as they like to portray themselves. Well, how about doing some good works, to attempt to reconcile all the wrong they've done?

Pay them to do this? Sorry, are we paying them to do this now? Am I payed to do this? Are you a bit naive?

Yes, the clergy project is talking about retraining and placement. That means that they would have a very good chance to get a well paying job, especially if they have a whole litter of kids, like usual.

The sub-prime mortgage salesman didn't act solely to create the financial crisis, whereas these people the very arbiters of morality and philosophy for millions/billions of people. The salesman didn't tell them to take anything on faith, no matter what you might imagine. The analogy is close, but not when examined.

Also, who says the sub-prime mortgage salespeople shouldn't be and aren't trying to help correct those mistakes?

Again, your first point is irrelevant. No one pays me to educate theists. No one needs to pay them. I'm a starving artist and I still break my back to make ends meet. Maybe they should just be going for the jobs that are available to EVERYONE.

What kind of jobs do you think they need this training they are proposing?

Training to work at Mcdonalds? No, they train you on the spot...

The kind of training they are talking about is for the professional field. If these people really wanted a job there are plenty of resources open to everyone, which I have done myself and continue to do. They don't want to lower themselves to work a labor job and to that I say "BOO FUCKING HOO"

Why are you so naive?

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:27:21 UTC | #947129

Go to: Why We Don't Believe in Science

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 63 by xsjadolateralus

So fucking sick of people misusing the word belief, especially when it comes to science.

YOU NEVER NEED TO BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, EVER.

YOU DON'T NEED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

You only need to have been educated on both. In other words, you don't need to 'believe' them, you need to understand them and that requires education.

So, the Gallup poll might as well been trying to find how many people are simply ignorant, or lack the scientific education to understand evolution. The title should have read "why we don't understand science"

Please, anyone press me on belief and it's irrelevance to science. PLEASE!

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:03:42 UTC | #947125

Go to: A Moment of Science

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 4 by DeepFritz :

I get a feeling that science won't become sexy unless there is big dollar careers to be made out of it.

Scientists should start holding the world to ransom and ensure that the purveyors of the dismal sciences (economics, accounting, law) experience horrible diseases until funding is restored to a level where everyone WANTS to do science...

^^^ This.

Why is science not lucrative? It's the most useful thing in the universe, yet the average scientist makes less than the average professional bowler, it's mind bogglingly stupid.

Ahhh, yes. Stupid religious people control everything.... Why again? How have scientists, being so smart, not usurped the reigns?

We're waiting...

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:58:25 UTC | #947123

Go to: Search for truth leads to rejection of religion

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by xsjadolateralus

Yes, I agree with others sentiments. There should definitely be a voice for conscience here, in this situation.

They, after all, did a great deal in lieu of lying and covering up facts. Therefore, the noble, or moral course of action is to work toward restitution and restoring the information they so readily lead others away from.

Yes, let's not make a get out of responsibility free card for ex clergy. We would only be making things worse if we simply made an easy fallback for clergy. Then there would be almost zero consequences for lying to children, etc.

You could effectively become a priest, disseminate evil preachment and then be onto another high paying job after you choose that the clergy occupation is no longer for you. We would create an atmosphere where there are zero consequences for those vile actions. Let's not forget about that.

To make things easier for them to simply go "OOPS" and then be on their way to a well paying job would be almost worse than preaching the vile nonsense ourselves. I think it would probably serve everyone involved better if we made it impossible for them to simply move on. They should have to explain, or preach the opposition to what they preached for so long. Undo the damage they caused, so to speak. Yes, we should help them do that, but we shouldn't just make an easy out (before you say, "OMG, none of these people have it easy", realize that they actually do have it much better than those who they neglect and even preach hatred against, sorry) and effectively contribute to their financial turn around.

I would think that giving that opportunity to people being used as indentured servants/farm equipment would be much more of a priority, but then again the squeaky wheel does get the most oil...

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:51:23 UTC | #947120

Go to: Church accused of 'scaremongering'

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by xsjadolateralus

This is a symptom of what happens when you let religion have reign over something like love.

How in the world did this happen? AHH, yes! Evolution via natural selection.

Religion poisons everything. Equality is the antidote. Why give religious people the power to say who you can love and who get's benefits from that love? I think it's another case of religion attaching itself to everything it can make use of. It has some sort of authority over love because it knows it can use it to it's benefit to create an inequality for those who they hate. Why do we give them this power? Why is marriage not completely 100% secular? How did this happen? Why aren't we changing it in spades?

Ahh, yes. Most of you atheists are married! You silly lemmings. You signed up for this, now you can't complain. You joined the club, now you're upset with it's rules. Well, don't join the fucking club, then. Make your own and make sure it's equal. Don't stop until that happens. Don't try to change the religious club, MAKE YOUR OWN WITH EQUALITY BUILT IN!

It's the same with the religious nations we find ourselves in. Let them have it. IF all non believers left the major countries and moved to say Africa, or Antarctica (anything starting with an 'A') we would be on our way to creating a truly equal future, where religious people can't ride our backs and benefit from our science. They don't want it, no problem. Atheists need to wake up and realize that their strategy so far has been majorly focused on conversion. We never thought of how many we may convert simply by creating a place for people to gather, live, thrive. Find our own place and make the rules is the takeaway here. Let's invade Canada and watch them convert nearly 100% in the matter of a couple years.

Again, you joined the club, now you complain about the rules that were set forth before you joined. Silly you. Stop joining bigoted clubs.

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:32:12 UTC | #947091

Go to: Search for truth leads to rejection of religion

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by xsjadolateralus

Good for them. I hope they can work toward the other end, like Dan Barker.

For them, the clarity of understanding just how believers minds work and what helped them become educated is undeniable. Especially the evangelicals. They are intimate in conversion.

I could make an obvious prediction that the more evangelicals that we sway, the greater momentum our cause will gain. One way or another they're orators and converters. Let's get them converting for actual goodness' sake.

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:12:23 UTC | #946919

Go to: Should Depressed People Avoid Having Children?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by xsjadolateralus

Tell that to the people having 16 kids, first off.

Of course her fear is irrational and if she understood a little more about heredity she would have a more optimistic outlook. Then again, it's probably her depression that doesn't allow her to see it in that way. I have to think it's a problem with information, rather than nature.

Maybe she could have an optimistic outlook if she felt she was breeding with someone who was dominantly optimistic?

She should think it over a bit more. I'm sure it's a stretchy bit in her routine that she is forced to defend.

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:26:02 UTC | #945985

Go to: Mysterious radiation burst recorded in tree rings

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by xsjadolateralus

Radiation burst...Energy... Sounds like it will be found to have been the sun (?).

Probably not much of a mystery, more of a miss story.

You would think the wooers would get rather used to this sort of thing. If they only understood the implications of science they would realize how let down they should feel.

Then again, it seems that they float around, waiting for the right wave. A story about mysterious energy, sounds like the right wave. Quick jump on it before it dies! Ride it out until the mystery is solved! Like Wiley coyote, they suspend. Until science discounts the existence of their wave and down they go. Back to floating...waiting for the next wave...

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:04:08 UTC | #945530

Go to: [Update] How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by xsjadolateralus

How is it not glaringly obvious that the Nazis were Xtians, just doing the god's good work, ridding the world of those evil jews, who after all killed Jesus...

This is how they are making the Nazi v.2.0

Feed them Fox news and other propaganda and soon they will be ripe for the next genocide. Guess who is to blame this time? The atheists! Of course they are the source of the world's problems.

People think we are out of the woods when it comes to witch trials and genocide. I don't think we're so lucky. Hopefully we can stop this from ever happening again, but like one of the survivors of the Oslo attack said "It will happen again, because we don't take it serious enough".

It will happen again because we don't take it serious enough. Just echoing his words.

Thu, 31 May 2012 00:17:56 UTC | #944671

Go to: Welcome to the Multiverse

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 49 by xsjadolateralus

I'm sad to come back and see that no one took my experiment proposal on. :(

I want to see the multiverse!!!

Yes, I am aware of the current experiments underway. The scars on the background radiation, basically. If I'm not mistaken (not a physicist, as you pointed out).

I'm wondering if a more physical route cannot be taken. IE, my silly 'rockets to the outside of our galaxy' to lens the universe and thus the multiverse (?) through gravitational lensing (?).

I really want to know what makes this a truly silly idea, in other words. Let alone all of the problems getting such an expensive, complicated mission accepted, funded, accomplished. Tell me why it won't theoretically work, so I can leave the idea to rest.

Thanks

Wed, 30 May 2012 20:53:57 UTC | #944614

Go to: Update - Podcast June 5 Interview with Peter Boghossian - "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know"

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 6 by QuestioningKat :

Faith is...Pretending to know things you don't know. In turn, religions create their own belief system and rules so that a person can study and learn their "knowledge" and in turn feel as if they have gained some sort of awareness that others do not know or have not yet "reached." it's an illusionary system of mastery and knowledge. It enables people to feel as if they are experts in a field that others do not share, but they feel everyone should share and accept. It requires little study or no proof of competency as in other legitimate fields of study. The more you know or understand their views and beliefs, the more you are "entitled" to pretend that you know things that you don't know.

Favorite cat on RD.net. If only all cats made such wonderful sense!

Tue, 22 May 2012 21:14:52 UTC | #942962

Go to: Update - Podcast June 5 Interview with Peter Boghossian - "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know"

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 36 by xsjadolateralus

And I CRINGE when I hear "I totally believe in evolution" or anything like it.

You NEVER have to believe in science, that's the beauty of it and HOW it works so effectively.

People don't educate themselves on science and thus come up with this false dichotomy between science and religion, because they are mistaken that both require faith and belief at some final level. No, sorry, science does not require faith, or belief. It only requires education and knowledge. You know the theory of evolution or you don't. There is no arrogance in saying you know what is conclusively verified by a process of eliminating falsehoods. The arrogance comes when you believe everything you think.

I would love to argue this until I'm old and grey. Come at me bro.

Tue, 22 May 2012 21:05:31 UTC | #942961

Go to: Update - Podcast June 5 Interview with Peter Boghossian - "Faith: Pretending to know things you don't know"

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 1 by mordacious1 :

I get this a lot from christians. Even as an atheist, you have faith: faith in your doctor, faith in science, faith that your wife isn't cheating on you.

Baloney!

I have trust in my doctor based on evidence. I trust the university that she attended and I've questioned her on her knowledge and she has given me informed, rational answers. I wouldn't trust my wife's doctor. She's a quack who believes in homeopathic remedies. So, through experience I don't trust her. I trust science because it's testable and if they get it wrong they try to fix it. I trust my wife because we've been together for 27 years and through experience I've learned to trust her.

Trust, not faith. Never faith, ever.

YES!

Finally people are coming around to this.

If atheists have faith in any sense they are doing it wrong. You have trust and confidence based on EVIDENCE AND REASON.

If you're wife came home with another man and was wearing his underwear, you wouldn't simply have faith. You would demand reasoned answers and extreme evidence. The fact that this doesn't happen gives you confidence that you can trust your spouse.

I really wish I could reach atheists on the term 'belief', as well. Again, we aren't believing things, unless we're doing it wrong. We certainly think things, don't we? We think them, but unless we have good reason, we don't think our thoughts are true. If we think our thoughts are true without a good reason, we believe. Also, if we think something is true we call it knowledge, "I know this" and if we thought something was true that wasn't, we call it being 'wrong'. We admit it and thus are BACK on the side of knowledge, because we know we were wrong, unless we're wrong again and will, of course, admit it and move on once again. This is science. No belief.

Often I hear "You have to believe the sun will come up tomorrow". Rubbish! There is plenty of evidence that it has a high probability and if you hadn't noticed Baye's theorem dismantles belief. That's why Richard Carrior touts it's efficacy.

We do not require faith, belief, just like we don't require gods and superstition. They are all one of the same. It's simply Woo. You can thank the amazing James Randi.

Tue, 22 May 2012 21:01:06 UTC | #942959

Go to: Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by xsjadolateralus

I think the emphasis needs to be made on the incredibly huge time span we're operating on. History goes back farther than 2k years and explaining this to them is crucial. How are you ever going to explain how we developed morality if the theist has no clue the millions, billions of years it took to produce it.

They really think in simplistic terms, like a child. You have to actually explain to them that we didn't simply POP into existence and time did not start 6k, 2k, years ago, or yesterday, for that matter. Morality developed because it was useful, like ears and teeth, bipedalism, reasoning, sex, etc. It's no different from the rest and has the same answer, evolution.

The reason we're still arguing this is because after hundreds of years they are still too dense to accept the fact of evolution.

Tue, 22 May 2012 20:52:23 UTC | #942958

Go to: Welcome to the Multiverse

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by xsjadolateralus

For example even all the computers that have ever existed in the world working together still can't solve NP complete problems for non-trivial data sets. The idea that we will one day have simulations so detailed that the participants in the simulation will be conscious and won't realize they are in a simulation is a big assumption not at all proven to my satisfaction.not at all proven to my satisfaction.

So, because it hasn't happened, it can't? Not a very good argument, ask naysayers of the past about technology and it's possibilities. I would think with the nearly infinite abundance of materials and energy in the universe alone, we could easily deduce that the materials and energy are at least there. Then you are simply relying on human incompetence to eliminate it as a possibility. In other words, you say it can't be done because A. computers are limited, B. human ability to manipulate computers is limited, and C. it hasn't been proven. That's relying on some pretty flimsy ground.

I don't think the idea is airtight, by any means, but given the vast age and scope of reality, it's nearly impossible to say computing has this limit that you have put on it. I'm sure people once thought computers will only ever be humans, never will you teach a dumb machine to think!

Just my two cents.

Also, I would love to hear of some experiments beyond the LHC that could be done to find evidence of the multiverse. Maybe we send a bunch of probes fitted with telescopes to the outer reaches of our galaxy and maybe we can use gravitational lensing to see distant universes? Is it like driving out of the city to catch a view of the stars when we send probes out of our galaxy (if possible) to see the multiverse?

I don't see how we were expecting anything other than more universes. We thought we were the only galaxy, then we found we are one in billions. How is it a stretch, at all, to say we are one universe among billions? We keep thinking we're static, not a part of this whole big moving thing that makes up everything we see. No, we are important, not simply lost in the ocean of eternity!

We are less than a pale blue dot, but who's looking?

Tue, 22 May 2012 20:42:02 UTC | #942957

Go to: Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by xsjadolateralus

Interesting. I'm just wondering why that last sentence was removed, because it did not violate the COC.

It actually has me pretty boggled. I said that theists are clever time wasters, or people who prey on people on chatrooms... a T----.

I'm confused, can I not describe theists as Tr--ls? As in, a person who wants to instigate inane arguments for the sheer joy of it and to waste everyone's time.

JW for future reference, I don't see a line drawn if I can't refer to an obvious troll, can I not say a theist is a bigot? A charlatan? A liar? I don't see how these are any different from 'troll'.

Tue, 22 May 2012 20:02:49 UTC | #942945

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 34 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 31 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Comment 25 by T. stillson

If anyone is looking for absolute, no doubt about it whatsoever, proof then I would have to ask; just how do you imagine that proof would be provided ? It seems that the requirements being placed for proof are requirements that, I suspect, you guys either know or suspect, have not survived from the time in question until now, at least in written form.

What an absurd argument.

So you are arguing that because the standards of evidence were less 2000 years ago....that we should accept the standards of 2000 years ago and not weigh in with the far more rigorous standards of today.

Erm....the point here is surely that you're not on a forum operating under bronze age criteria for evidence. Welcome to science !

And why don't they use that method across the board? Why do they go and drive a car, use state of the art technology, health care, airplanes, etc.

In other words, why isn't the bronze age good enough for them all the time? Ala carte if you will, they choose the bits of the bronze age and the bits of the present and stir it all together with a touch of Harry Potter and Viola!

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:53:01 UTC | #942939

Go to: The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 33 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 15 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Comment 6 by Roedy

To an atheist, murder is unspeakably wrong.

Hmm. Nobody seems to have told Stalin and Mao about that. On a site dedicated to critical thinking, surely it's confirmation bias that's unspeakably wrong.

Why don't you just point out someone in the far distant past? Oh, wait... You did!

I'm sure the reference was to the so called "new atheists".

Also, you missed a great polemicist and intellectual in Christopher Hitchens. Check em' out...

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:49:27 UTC | #942936

Go to: Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by xsjadolateralus

It's funny how the religious argument always inhabits this strange, obscure plain, where some estranged concept of a logical equivalent is more conclusive evidence than say 90%+ of all prison population being religious, as well as tons of other evidence that religious people have far more of a tendency to behave badly. Then we can go straight to their holy texts and the behavior it prescribes.

This was a huge waste of everyone's time, gave us nothing and only slowed progress altogether. [Last sentence removed by moderator]

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:41:44 UTC | #942933

Go to: Debate: Can Atheists and Believers work together for the common good?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 56 by xsjadolateralus :

Can racists and non racists work together for a common good? Or..........Do we just need to educate racist people, instead?

You see...

We're in a problem more complex than just "let's all just work together, jeez".

We're in a real pickle and it takes intelligent people to navigate this pickle. Not just everyone who says "koombiyah will do"

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:19:30 UTC | #942914

Go to: Debate: Can Atheists and Believers work together for the common good?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 56 by xsjadolateralus

Can racists and non racists work together for a common good? Or..........Do we just need to educate racist people, instead?

You see...

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:13:53 UTC | #942908

Go to: Debate: Can Atheists and Believers work together for the common good?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 55 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 51 by Steven Mading :

There are several issues theists and atheists can work together on, but "what to do about fundamentalism?" isn't one of them. This is because the real goal of the moderate theists is to disassociate religion from fundamentalism and claim the fundamentalists are not being properly religious, thus absolving religion of blame for fundamentalists, while the real goal of the atheists is to point out that fundamentalism is caused by religion and is the reason religion is dangerous, and that religion needs to be blamed for it if anything is to ever be done about fundamentalism. These are opposed goals. Even if both groups want Fundamentalism to end, they can't work together on it because they can't combine their arguments which are directly opposed to each other.

Imagine two groups who both want to make sure a mass genocide like the holocaust never happens again.

One group takes the strategy of wanting to teach about the truth of the horrible history of how it happened as a warning to people to never let events go in that direction again. The other group takes the strategy of wanting to pretend it never happened and whitewash it from history to keep people from getting the idea of emulating it.

These are NOT groups that could work together toward their goal. This is exactly the position that the moderate theists and the atheists find themselves in with regards to fundamentalists.

Precisely.

Not that hard to understand.

Tue, 22 May 2012 19:06:36 UTC | #942904

Go to: Debate: Can Atheists and Believers work together for the common good?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 53 by xsjadolateralus

Comment 33 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Can Atheists and Believers work together for the common good?

Of course. Make it so.

I'm all for eradicating the most destructive and hineous aspects of religion, and indeed entire religions if that's the only way to remove the dangers, but if it ever gets to the point where unbelievers are hunting down the last magic mushroom induced shaman in the wilds of some rain forest.....purely for the intellectual pique of converting the world to atheism.....then I'd be there with spear and war paint alongside the shaman.

Same here.

No one I'm aware of is advocating that, though. It's the religious side who simply want to banish, burn, or bar someone. Being more enlightened, we could think of a million more genuinely enlightened courses of action than simply "hunting them down". I never worry about such an unlikely future, it's silly.

At the very least we would keep the dangerous away from the general population. This is something we already do in the case of the criminally insane, or simply insane. I think we could at least get some laws in place protecting human rights and holding them higher than religious "values", or faith. That would be a great start.

If a person says that harming blacks, jews, gays, atheists, even christians is a good idea, they should be held accountable in the same way we hold people accountable who even joke about harming the president.

Of course, the president draws more value to the government, but that doesn't mean we should accept that he is endowed with human rights that we are not. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, theocracy. Obama isn't a god. We're all "endowed by our creator" (my parents, their parents before) with unalienable rights of equality. Nowhere does it state except the president, who is obviously better than all other humans.

When some religious moron says to punch gay kids, he should be fined hugely, pay restitution, even do time. When a guy writes a book about how to beat children, we lock him up. There has to be a legal response, a secular response to this bigoted violence preached by the religiously privileged. Advocating violence is not different just because the violence advocated is targeting someone of little worth to you. That's not how civilization works.

Tue, 22 May 2012 18:43:41 UTC | #942897

Go to: Debate: Can Atheists and Believers work together for the common good?

xsjadolateralus's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by xsjadolateralus

Just deal with comment 28, if you can.

We don't respect psychos because they are harmful, obviously. I don't respect religious people because of what they endorse, fund, indoctrinate, etc. is obviously harmful. Even if a religious person doesn't commit any acts of physical harm personally, they are still contributing to it by A. Accepting christianity and it's harmful claims and B. by endorsing religious people who do obvious harm.

If you think that a man dying on a crucifix for you to be free of responsibility firstly WORKED and secondly makes sense, you are believing something false and harmful. This gives power to those who use it to do obvious harm and even has harmful psychological implications.

That's why your arguments don't even have a chance.

If they did, I could go on about the obvious harm that religious people, specifically religious people have done throughout history.

Mon, 21 May 2012 22:36:44 UTC | #942699