Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I guess it really is more than just porn and cat pictures.
Sometimes, Andre, you can find them both on one page.
BTW, this is ok to view at work.
-
Superb, Gareth.
Do you think you could get the Pythons to do it as a huge musical number?
-
There's a great piece on moral relativism by Simon Blackburn on the Butterflies and Wheels website.
Here's an extract from it:
It concerns a friend of mine, who was present at a high-powered ethics institute which had put on a forum in which representatives of the great religions held a panel. First the Buddhist talked of the ways to calm, the mastery of desire, the path of enlightenment, and the panellists all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. Then the Hindu talked of the cycles of suffering and birth and rebirth, the teachings of Krishna and the way to release, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And so on, until the Catholic priest talked of the message of Jesus Christ, the promise of salvation and the way to life eternal, and they all said ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’. And he thumped the table and shouted: ‘No! It’s not a question of it if works for me! It’s the true word of the living God, and if you don’t believe it you’re all damned to Hell!’
And they all said: ‘Wow, terrific, if that works for you that’s great’.
If you are a believer, then you really must believe. It's not a matter of picking something pretty, and saying, "That willd o for me."
As it turns out, most religions makes claims about their beleif being the right one. So you can't just shrug your shoulders, and say, "Each to their own", or "Doesn't everyone have their own set of beliefs and we should respect that."
Dawkins is doing this from the atheist position i.e. he is thorough going about his atheism, and pushing the obvious conclusion that atheism necessarily entails that other people are wrong.
No wonder people get upset by him. He's a very uncomfortable thinker, especially for those who woudl rathter not acknoweldge that being a Christain / Muslim / Jew / Buddhist / Hindu / whatever necessarily entails the belief that other religions are wrong.
-
Disproving anything scientifically is very difficult and even if you believe the chance of some kind of 'god' to be small and that therefor the existence of the bearded omniscient 7 day creator to be very very small, surely by saying those people are deluded you are falling into the same trap as those that say athiests are going to burn in hell? Supposing that somehow, you know the answer and those that believe otherwise are idiots.
Religion may ... provide a framework to hang things on. We all have our frameworks...?
This is a weasel argument. It consists of throwing up your hands, and saying that no one really knows, so we better all just agree to disagree, and moreover, all the positions on which we disagree have equal standing (intellectual, moral, whatever).
We can do better than that. We can demand that those who assert something need to prove it. Those who believe there is some giant teapot floating between Jupiter and Saturn need to provide evidence (tested according to scientific standards, which means testable hypotheses, wth results that can be replicated, consistently). Those who want to asset some kind of god need to provide evidence (testable hypotheses, with results that can be replicated, consistently).
As it turns out, in the absence of evidence (testable, replicatable, available to all) of the existence of god, it is surely delusional to persist in the belief, and immoral to demand that others follow it.
If you continue to believe in god because it's comforting, you end up believing in something because it's pretty, and it's nice to believe in it. Well, it's nice to believe in Santa Claus too.
As for frameworks - well, maybe we do, but some are demonstrably better than others. For example, a paedophile's framework might consist in the belief that children want to have sex, and that it doesn't hurt them, and that he or she is entitled to whatever kind of sexual gratification he or she wants. Defend that framework! A framework that depends on delustional beliefs must be very, very fragile.
If Christianity provides a moral framework, then given the murder and mayhem that seems to follow in its wake, it's a damn poor framework.
-
The whole religion thing has never excited me personally, but if others feel it helps them be a better person, in ways generally agreed upon by me of course, then all power to them.
I'm not so comfortable about playing along with other people's little delusions. I have been thinking about this discussion off and on all day. Russell, I suspect you were feeling a bit bored with stadiums (BTW - that's a deliberate English plural) etc, and thought you might just have a bit of fun and see what trouble you could stir up.
So, a number of thoughts:
I would be utterly bemused if someone spent a great deal of time trying to say that fairies or unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster were the creator of the universe, and that I owed those entities respect. I would be thoroughly pissed off if that person demanded that I should show respect for their beliefs. Why then, should we be polite about what seem to be delusional beliefs in god (Jesus, Mohammed, Tane, whatever)? Perhaps this explains Richard Dawkins' impatience with theists.
Wht kind of people are so scared of science that they retreat to belief in some kind of supernatural secret friend? Frankly, if you want to hide under your blanket because that will keep you safe in the dark instead of facing the mysteries of the universe standing on your feet, then you have no right whatsoever to demand that I live up to your moral standards. You, dear cowards, have none.
On whether Bertrand Russell was nicer, and better to read than Dawkins - don't forget that Russell was writing in a very different rhetorical environment.
And while I'm at it, I'm no happier about attending powhiri with religious prayers (to whatever god) than I am about attending events that reference the god of the Christians.
Morality doesn't depend on some supernatural entity telling us what to do. Morality is hideously complicated, as any basic course in Ethics, taught at a reputable university, will tell you.
Euthyphro dilemma, anyone? Is something good because god says it is good, or does god say it is good because it is good. If you choose the former, then you may just have endorsed child sacrifice, or rape, or war (Crusades, anyone?). If you choose the latter, then you admit that morality does not come from god.
Cheers!
-
However, I do insist on proper nouns being capitalised.
Well... I don't capitalise 'fairy' or 'unicorn' either, and I didn't think we were talking about any god in particular, just the concept of god in general.
-
Thanks, Nick.
So anti-theists could either believe or not believe in god, but if they did believe in god, they would also think that god is a bad thing.
I like the Bakunin analysis.
-
I'm firmly in the camp of anti-theist rather than atheist
anti-theist_
I'm not familiar with the term, and how it is different from "atheist". Could you explain it for me?
Ta.
-
That's because we love Macs. I love my MacMini, and its beautiful mini-skirt, which has only two functions: (1 saving the computer from coffee and wine spillage, and (2) looking good, just as a Mac should.
More seriously....
In other long-running-saga news, Sideswipe may be coming out from behind the herald's "premium content" paywall, but APN management seems determined to keep the rest of the paper's voice locked up inside a misguided subscription service that virtually no one buys and anyone with half a clue can get around.
That's not the only problem. Ever since we got the Xtra Go Large package (unlimited downlands, fast as can be done) I haven't been able to access the Herald quickly. It can take up to a minute to load.... which of course gives me plenty of time to pop over to Public Address. Problem with Xtra, or with the Herald? Or (shush - don't say it too loud) with our Mac? Any advice?
-
Another vote for Space 1999, although I suspect that means that both Heather and I are of a certain age.
The Muppet Show anyone? I still remember the episode starring Joan Sutherland, with Kermit rushing backstage because he was short one skit, and asking her, with desperation, "Can you tap dance?". And the dame did. Superb.