Scared Naked Monkey - Latest Comments

Re: How to debate theists

askegg — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:20:36 -0000

Fair comments. I have been meaning to put together a critical thinking course but I simply cannot find the time at the moment.

Re: Manderisms

askegg — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:19:11 -0000

That is a major concern given he’s likely to be in a position of power now.

Re: How to debate theists

DanDare2050 — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:52:10 -0000

Excellent article Mr Monkey. One small problem. Often its not the reality of some deity that is at issue but the consequences of their proposal. E.g. They want to stop or subvert the teaching of science. The difficulty comes because the witnesses to such exchanges do not see the failure to demonstrate god as a failure of the argument being presented (even though logically it should be).

I think your technique is the correct one to pursue but it needs some kind of rider or follow up to dismantle any additional assertions that have been presented in the eyes of the audience. It may be as simple as "without evidence of god the rest does not follow and must be argued separately"

Re: Manderisms

DanDare2050 — Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:41:39 -0000

I have had some public clashes with Timbo via Online Opinion. He doesn't think secularism is a good idea, except when he is playing pussy foot with the government rules. For those his aim seems to be subversion by any means.

Re: The Contingency Argument

askegg — Fri, 16 May 2014 08:03:59 -0000

Hi Findo,

It’s been a very long time since I saw you here. Glad you dropped in to comment.

I think I was operating under a different definition of “necessary”. I meant “must exist” rather than “is caused by, or is a combination of, something else”. Still, I am not convinced the universe is necessary or contingent - weird things happen when we consider “a universe from nothing”.

I agree with your assessment of the syllogism. Seems many people simply assert the universe is contingent and the label the cause “god” without too much thought. You’re obviously not that was inclined.

Re: The Contingency Argument

Findo — Thu, 15 May 2014 12:28:15 -0000

For the universe to be necessary means it couldn't have failed to exist. There seems to be no evidence that it couldn't have failed to exist, and good reason to think that at many points it might well have failed to exist, which is why it is generally regarded that the universe is a contingent entity. You're right though, that P2 begs the question. The most this syllogism can posit (invoking occam's razor to eliminate an infinite regress) is a prior necessary cause. The nature of that cause is outside the scope of the syllogism.

Re: How to debate theists

Original_BluePrint — Sun, 11 May 2014 11:56:40 -0000

No disagreement here. Only difference in approach:
2a. I try to point out logical fallacies when possible. Not by naming and stating "that's a logical fallacy", but by repeating it back "stripped" of names and titles, so the theist would understand how silly it sounds to me.
3b. I jump at moral arguments. Just hear or read "immoral" or "wrong", and its 'six degrees of Euthyphro's dilemma'.

5 I think is a complete miss.
Christians don't fear persecution, they actively search for reasons to claim persecution. Being persecuted is the best validation they have for their belief, because to be a persecuted Christian, is scripture.

Re: How to debate theists

David Rodriguez Jr. — Sat, 10 May 2014 21:54:34 -0000

Very well said Askegg

Re: How to debate theists

askegg — Fri, 09 May 2014 05:02:36 -0000

It certainly does, but that’s when I take a break and poor a scotch.

Re: How to debate theists

Andrew Hobson — Fri, 09 May 2014 01:35:04 -0000

And refuting the same argument over and over and over and over ad infinitum does become tedious eventually

Re: How to debate theists

Godless Mom — Thu, 08 May 2014 23:29:35 -0000

Excellent list! Sometimes it is so hard to be polite though...

Re: The blood bath of living by God’s word

askegg — Sun, 16 Mar 2014 01:15:44 -0000

So you’re defending the Biblical rules that rape victims should marry their rapists, or adulterers should be stoned to death? Do you wonder why we fight theocratic rules?

Re: The blood bath of living by God’s word

God's Soldier — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:35:53 -0000

Thanks sherry for defending our God, and to who made this, instead of trying to disprove it and hurt the people who do believe, try to find something to believe in and leave God out of it there is no point to this but to try and deture people from wanting to believe. yes most of these rules are in effect in Gods eyes but dont you think the world would be much better without incest, rape, and murderers, our jails would be empty. If you don't believe thats fine but at least use what little common sense you have to understand that if we did fallow these rules the world would be a much better place.

Re: Is incest wrong?

Adam — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 07:41:55 -0000

I adore thought experiments... although that's not to say I'm any good at them! But in this case I have to agree it's a topic well worth a free and open discussion from any and all angles - one free from intense and emotional responses. I won't start going in to them here, but in essence with most things like theft, robbery or murder it is very easy for one to say "This is wrong, and here is why" without resorting to emotional reasoning or socially driven opinion along the lines of "Because wrong is wrong". If contraception is used, then why exactly is it wrong to sleep with close family? Whilst I don't fancy the idea myself (nor do I have a sister), I don't see why people should be punished for something that doesn't actually hurt anyone. I would propose incest became something we evolved to disgust for obvious genetic reasons, very early in our evolution.
It's a fascinating topic and I would love to see Krauss going in to this in more detail - no pun intended.

Re: The Standard Model

askegg — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 06:04:20 -0000

Kicking the can down the street? Who gave this “god” a brain? Besides, you have yet to demonstrate this “god” exists, which should be done before you can say it did anything.

Re: The Standard Model

Logan — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 03:22:36 -0000

Looks like God gave someone a brain to figure this out...

Re: Stoned to death for being raped

McGee — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:27:32 -0000

The plague of Islam doing what they do best; murder.

Re: Trolling Theists

vjack — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 08:54:19 -0000

Excellent post. I think you identified the key issue in your last paragraph when you said, "I wouldn't say he's really 'quitting atheist activism', but adding a healthy dose of positivism to a wide range of issues..." For me, the most puzzling thing about his post was that it seemed to equate "trolling theists" with atheist activism. I guess I've never thought of trolling as a form of activism. In any case, I agree with you that our community is big enough for both approaches.

Re: How to save the Salvos

askegg — Sat, 07 Dec 2013 03:22:18 -0000

"The SA's mission is to help the poor...period”

Nope. Read their position statements.

Re: How to save the Salvos

Landomando — Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:02:22 -0000

Being Christian, refers to following the tenants of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never mentioned the sexual orientation of anyone when giving his commandments to love thy neighbor as you love yourself or when speaking about doing unto the least of these, its is the same as doing unto him. Not following confused doctrine which would have us stoning our neighbors if they work on the sabbath is only common sense. The SA's mission is to help the poor...period. They deliver services regardless of race, religion, color, creed, national origin or sexual identity to those who need help in the capacity that they are able to help.

Re: Why am I such a skeptic?

Hannah — Sat, 30 Nov 2013 23:14:04 -0000

Great post. If more people cared then religious fundamentalism would not be do casually tolerated on the name if "religious freedom". Bigotry would be challenged for what it is

Re: Atheist’s in Uganda

Peter B. — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:24:38 -0000

During the mid 1990s I lived and worked in Uganda for several years, and have maintained strong links to, and a personal interest in the country ever since.

That was a time of great optimism and progress towards reconstruction after many years of destructive conflict arising out of deep civil and political turmoil. The one great blot on Uganda's future manifestly obvious to me at the time, was the blind and absolute subservience to religion inculcated into the vast majority of the Ugandan people. There were many ways I could see this maniacal devotion to religion robbing the country of vitality and resources. It was quite plain to see religion seriously inhibiting the potential for what Uganda might become if the people were to collaborate in a shared vision of greatness for their country instead of merely squabbling over whose church should take precedence. Sadly, the effect of this folly nearly two decades later is just another corrupt African country in serious decline, with foreign investment reduced to a trickle, and with religion being used as the principal tool of division and persecution. Left unchecked, the issue of religion in Uganda will certainly result in the country evolving into its own version of the Dark Ages.

Thank you for article. It is only through continued highlighting of this festering carbuncle of religion that will ultimately result in the problems it causes by being adequately addressed anywhere, and this is particularly true in such badly affected countries as Uganda.

Minor criticism - The word "Atheists" in the title has NO apostrophe in it. It is simply a pluralisation, not a possesive.

Re: Did Jesus really say you have to sell everything you own?

Antarctican — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 04:06:43 -0000

Thanks, I like your thinking

Re: Julia Gillard on gay rights

askegg — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 08:30:23 -0000

1) The fact "marriage is against HER views" is irrelevant. I don't like asparagus - does that mean I should let other people eat it?
2) I did not "hint she was a lesbian" or accuse all hairdressers of "being homosexual".
3) I should have mentioned compulsory voting and preferences, but I was simply following the discussion.

Re: Julia Gillard on gay rights

Mark — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 00:30:20 -0000

I just listened to the the dogma debate with the PM Julie Gillard discussed. I think we are being very unfair to Julia, she has a minority government, even if she tries to put through the change to the marriage act it will fail with the numbers. She was in her term compared to Kevin Rudd who had suspended parliament and was in election mode. She is a feminist and marriage goes against her view. She changed laws to allow the same rights and you did not give her credit for it at all. You did not mention that Abbott stopped the liberals from having a conscience vote but she did. The hint that she was a lesbian was insulting, the assumption that male hair dressers are all homosexuals was very sexist. The USA were making huge assumptions and making statements as though it were like their political system. Should have mentioned the compulsory vote and the extra parties in the Australian system such as the greens and independents.