1.10 – Insane Star Trek Kitty Edition

This is …. illogical, Captain.

NOTE: The first upload of this episode had some absolutely horrid echo effects. This was due to my complete inexperience editing audio and accidentally bumping the tracks out of sync. I have since gone back through and (mostly) fixed these issue (and learnt my lesson). If you want to actually hear what’s going on, please re-download the episode.

References

Insane Star Trek Kitty - Enhanced [ 2:18:33 ] Play Now | Download

Insane Star Trek Kitty - MP3 [ 2:18:33 ] Play Now | Download

Pingback: Tweets that mention 1.10 – Insane Star Trek Kitty Edition « Godless Business -- Topsy.com
http://intensedebate.com/people/LuminousMonkey LuminousMonkey

Great podcast, just to add to that toddler story, I was reading a New Scientist article on how dogs have 50,000 years of evolution with humans, and how that has shaped their behaviours.

For example, if you have a (trained) dog, and tell it to raise it's paw, it will keep it's paw raised for quite awhile. However, if you have two dogs, tell them to raise their paws, and only reward one of them, the unrewarded dog will spend far less time with it's paw raised. Which implies that dogs do have a "sense" of justice, morality. There's a few more examples, and I am paraphrasing because I can't seem to find the article.

But I'm pretty sure it's possible that behaviours that early in an toddler's life could be an instinct.

Don't agree with the banning of the burqa, well, not as a state law. I know what Ollie was saying, the burqa is a tool of oppression, and if it is within our power we should be doing what we should to stop that oppression. One of the problems with that however, is, that it's part of their nutty religion. (I was going to post some YouTube clips of Hitchens on Q and A when some woman in the audience challenged him, saying women weren't oppressed, and another from the "Tropic of Cancer" BBC series where he asks if the woman see it as a tool of oppression)

This creates a problem, because even from our point of view, we're doing the right thing, they're going to see it as an attack, which it is, it's an attack on their stupid religion, and rightly so. This includes the women. I would argue a better alternative would be to allow banks, airports, businesses, etc to ban the burqa. That would move it away from being argued as a point of their religion, to being a practical matter of security.

I was also trying to think of if we were talking about something like female circumcision? I don't think anyone would argue about that being illegal, who cares if it was a religious thing but I think we could argue that on medical terms, as it causes harm.

I'll probably have to continue this later, it's taken me awhile to get this far, and some other things have come to mind.

http://twitter.com/askegg @askegg

Thanks for the comments, LuminousMonkey.

Damion

Love the picture, I think you managed to filter out alot of the star trek !

@askegg/Oli: Thanks for the opportunity to particapate in the podcast it was a great experience. Would love to get another chance when your down people.

But after listening to it I really do need to work on my public speaking skills :(

LuminousMonkey: thanks for the support regarding the burqa, Ollie really had his facist pants on that day :p

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

I also find the ban on burkas/niqabs as unproductive in liberal democracies. This is distinct from societies where there is an enforcement of the dress code.

Banning burkas and niqabs in public places would only serve to further marginalise a very small number of people who for cultural and/or religious reasons are pressured, or brain-washed if you prefer. In much the same way as Damion described with the ban on burkas on the soccer field would only result in those with the social power to do so will only further remove these women from public spheres.

A ban on burkas and niqabs would only provide a short term outcome for those who are vehemently opposed to the attire (for whatever reason) at the cost of long-term alienation from already marginalised and disenfranchised members of Australian society. The ban does nothing to address the root motivation for people in liberal societies choosing to conceal themselves with such attire.

Sam Harris's arguments regarding a scientific approach to achieving maximum practical outcomes relating to moral positions is about addressing the root issue, not superficial and arbitrary judgements which involve enforcing one view over the other. It could well turn out to be a peak in the valleys of moral outcomes could involve multicultural tolerance and acceptance of differing views regarding female attire as long as the attire is freely chosen by the wearers and a decision otherwise doesn't involve serious physical and mental health repercussions (I'm not claiming this with evidence, and neither is Harris necessarily).
http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Your welcome to come back anytime, Damion.

http://www.youtube.com/user/reanimeviewed Lex

The alien analogy is pretty much the history in the story of the TV show Stargate. Just thought I should mention it. Incidentally it was a show that made me start questioning what I believed in. I may make a video on the subject when my exams are over.

Great show. Keep it up.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

We intend to, although Ollie decreed the end of season 1 without consulting anyone. No matter, season 2 is only a week or two away.
Anonymous Atheist

The later Ori storyline on Stargate SG1 was such a great analogy to religions like Christianity & Islam, on top of the earlier Goald ancient religion masquerade theme. I hope it helped get many people to question their beliefs, although it may have had a more subtle effect for most people whose compartmentalization defenses seem to have managed to avoid consciously being aware of the analogy.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

Regarding James Fong and his youtube video. I remember commenting on it on youtube with an amusing play on words. He stated God 'loves you' to a student and then also mentioned God 'loved himself to death' (obviously talking about sacrificing himself in the form of the son to himself in the form of the father).

Well keep that god away from me! I don't want anyone loving me to death!

(yeah it's an equivocation but I find it amusing nonetheless)

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

"I love you so much I am going to kill my son." That pretty much sums up Christianity.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

and then they tell you He loves you too!

Back away, wait until the last second to break eye contact and run as fast as you can!

ollieography

I just want to say thanks guys for the comments and for listening.

I have point out something here regarding the banning of burkas etc. The reason I say to ban them is for the reason they are worn is not because most moderate muslim women just love to wear them. Because of those women who have no choice but to wear them. Those that are subjugated because of the underlining religious bullshit that forces these women to have no choice.

Yes I agree that for security reasons they should be made to take them off. Simple as that. And that is where I stand on banning them in general terms. However I agree with you say Dave and in essence it is what Harris says as well. The underlining tyranny of religion needs to be stopped. We need to open our mouths and object to it's malicious attacks, not just on us in the west as so called infidels but also on women and their rights.

I fully understand that people are or should be able to wear what they want and do what they want within their own country or society even, however they do not have this choice. They are forced to wear them regardless of what their choice may be.

Banning the burka in a place like Belgium is just them saying they do no agree with the underlining reason for which it is worn in the first place. Take away the fear of being beaten because you take it off and give a person the right to choose to wear it or not wear it without such fears.

I can't see this happening unless there is such a massive swing against all religions.

I can't see this happening in our lifetime but I can see it happening. It is a really long slow process.

I also really think that people need to be educated on what is right and wrong. And none of this fucking "it's the way they do it over there" bullshit. If it is inherently wrong it is WRONG, no if or buts. It is fundamentally detrimental to your life, the way you live it, the way you experience it therefore it is wrong. Why people can't understand this I do not know.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

The issue with banning them is you remove the choice from those that may want to wear one (although I can not imagine for the life of me why anyone would want to).

http://luminousmonkey.org/ LuminousMonkey

And if you allow for choice, then it becomes impossible to police as well. So on one hand, you are trying to stop the oppression of women, while at the same time you are removing the freedom of the women to choose if they want to wear a burka.

Something that may be somewhat similar is smoking. I know smoking isn't a tool of oppression, but smoking does kill. So by the same rationale, lives could be saved by banning the sale of cigarettes?

This situation is basically a conflict between our aversion to women being oppressed in such a way vs our feelings of personal freedom. Although we certainly can't understand the mindset, there are some women who don't think wearing a burka is a tool of oppression.

I honestly don't know what is right, I would favour that burkas not to be banned. And what is going to happen if someone does wear a burka in public? They're going to be arrested? Seems counter-intuitive to arrest the woman since she's the one being oppressed?

Makes more sense to make it more difficult rather than an outright banning. Hard to do food shopping, or anything if a shopkeeper will deny you entry on the basis of a security risk.

This is really going to be a very long process, and I think to work, it unfortunately has to be.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

I am obviously against the oppression of women, but that can happen with or without a burka being involved.

Smoking is not a good analogy for there is NO safe level. Wearing clothing is perfectly harmless. It's what it represents and the removal of personal powers we all have a problem with.

I do not think the burka should be banned as people should be free to wear what they like. Under the same banner of freedom I will also reserve the right to call women in bee keeper suits mentally deranged. Maybe we should be making the burka simply so socially embarrassing that no one will want to wear the damn things?

http://www.facebook.com/GuinnessX David Ashton

I don't think the burka should be banned either. I won't go into that, but what SHOULD be protected is freedom of speech and expression in all forms short of inciting violence/physical harm.

Free speech only matters when it is offensive and makes people uncomfortable. It's one of the costs of living in a free society. If something doesn't offend you every day, there's something wrong with you.

I understand that the burka is a tool of oppression. I think Muslim women should be forced to remove them at security checkpoints at airports and the like, but banning them in general is pointless, and I think wrong.

What does work is changing society's opinions not only on the burka, but also religion in general. I'm not sure how things are in Australia, but until a few decades ago in the US, drunk driving didn't have anywhere near the stigma it does now. This isn't a perfect analogy, like smoking, but what changed minds the most was not new laws. People speaking out and raising consciousness did. The same must be done to harm and oppression done in the name of religion.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LuminousMonkey LuminousMonkey

Just to add, we shouldn't be forgetting the "Arabian Idol" poet, I think it's through people like her that there's going to be a bigger change.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LuminousMonkey LuminousMonkey

Sorry, just mentioned smoking as it's something that is clearly not good for a population, but it's a choice matter for the individual.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

I thought smoking was a reasonably good analogy for the point you were making, especially when you consider what would happen should the government ban tobacco, an underground criminal element will arise to profit from those willing to break the law.

A ban on burkas and niqabs would also create a community of like minded individuals (some of them even women, call it stockholm syndrome or some form of battered spouse syndrome if you wish it doesn't matter). This community would seek to maintain their tradition regardless of the state, they will be further isolated from the community, making it even harder for people to reach out to them and chip away at the reasons for wearing such attire.

I don't think it is helpful, or accurate, to assume every woman in Australia who wears burkas and niqabs does so against their free will. While I suspect many don't, or think they do regardless of the dire consequences should they decide to step out in a head scarf instead (showing the face). A ban would not ultimately achieve the goal we all want.

I have no issue with private companies and institutions, such as banks, requiring everyone who enters to show their face for security purposes – that should be their choice, and ultimately their insurance company's. However I'm not exactly sure where anti-discrimination laws stand on the issue (probably different for every state).

I often find myself musing on what kind of conversation I'd be having on many issues if Australia had adopted a bill/charter/act of human rights. This is at the face of it a clash of rights, the right of the individual to freely choose (the base assumption until evidence is presented otherwise) to wear what they want and the right to security (or some such wording). As far as I'm concerned my rights end where yours began, hence I need to take of my motor cycle helmet when entering a bank.

http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

I also really think that people need to be educated on what is right and wrong. And none of this fucking "it's the way they do it over there" bullshit. If it is inherently wrong it is WRONG, no if or buts.

I agree. Moral relativism doesn't work, and no matter how much anyone tries to argue that morality is a purely social construct (inter-subjectivity) I don't know anyone who doesn't actually act as if there are things that are inherently right and wrong, no matter what another or another society thinks (no if or buts). And I also agree that while some things we know somewhat instinctively, some things need to be taught. And this does not mean that it is not objective – many things that are objectively true we are still taught (like mathematics).

But I don't agree that banning the burqa is the best course of action. While I may not understand why, there are presumably at least some women who do choose to wear it. We do have laws about clothing in public – we generally are not allowed choose to not wear any clothing, for example. But there is a difference between saying that you must wear something, and that a particular garment is not allowed to be worn. Most of all, though, I think that banning the burqa is a band-aid and doesn't actually deal with the real issue, only the visible symptom.

http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

"..I don't know anyone who doesn't actually act as if there are things that are inherently right and wrong, no matter what another or another society thinks…"

I suggest you read Sam Harris's new book "The Moral Landscape". Here he lays out an argument why objective morality does not need to be dictated by some divine entity. We *can*build an objective moral system without leaving materialistic and atheistic grounds.

We do agree on the burqa situation. Banning it solves nothing. What we should be targeting are the bizarre and irrational reasons people employ to promote such views.

http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

Yes, it's on my list… have heard mixed things about it. Not sure how something we build is objective, but I'll have to wait and see what he says.

Damion

The burqa topic seems to have really generated alot of comment :) Ill try to sum up my thoughts on the topic in as few words as possible.

Essentially i feel the burqa is a symptom to a problem not a problem in it self, yes the educated and open minded can see it as a symbol of repression but banning something like this will only further exacerbate the problem of fundermentalism in the world.

The free thinkers world will never come to be unless the educated learn not to drive an "idea" wedge between the haves and have nots. Conflict resolution is about finding both parties similarities not driving each other further apart.

The educated and athiest community need to stop judging peoples choices and more understand why people make them. People are not stupid or illogical when they are born but circumstance pushes people to do extreme things, the disillusioned and disenfranchised are our problem not the idea itself.

If you can be inclusive and generous in your actions to minimise this segment of society then education and logic will follow and the backward and illogical meme's of religion and otherwise will fall to the process of evolution and logic.

:)

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Excellent summary.

I admit to being rather intolerant at time, but in my defense it's born of frustration. I should learn to calm down and have a nice cup of tea, but where's the fun in that?

Damion

yeah i think the being athiest is great but sometimes i really feel we arnt doing ourselves any favours with talking logically to the illogical.

Step back and examine how and why people come to or get pressed into such conclusions
http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

This might change my position on the burka ->http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-cult…
http://intensedebate.com/profiles/ollieography ollieography

It is funny, my stance on a whole is still that it should be banned.

I am trying not to swing back and forth on it, taking in ideas and peoples views. But that story more or less said exactly how I see the burqa and it clearly shows that just because we think moderate Muslim women wear it here because they want to, it is still a form of female subjugation and total inequality with regards to womens rights.

I think it is also a little naive on our part to assume that just because women wear it due to some kind of reserved choice, that it is ok to wear it. And I was under the suspicion that there was not mention of it in the Koran as I have heard on several occasions and even read that there is no evidence to support such supressant acts upon women in their holy book. So why are we as so called free westerners, liberal thinkers suddenly saying it is ok?

I do agree to a point that the underlining reasons for women being treated this way, need to be fixed, but that fixing alone is a case of ridding the world of all the extremists. That would include by the way, the nut job crackhead anti-abortionist, doctor killing idiots that christianity has as well.

In the end it is countries like those in Europe and now it would seem Canada and hopefully us soon, that turn around and say no. No this is wrong, it demotes women to a lesser class in society, it segregates them, it is oppressive and demoralising and makes women out to be less than equal to the men of the world. We might live in a society that advocates choice and the rights of the individual, but surely we do not condone nor support the rights of an individual or group over another individual or group, so why are we not saying ban the burqa and yelling it in the streets?

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

I still don't see how banning attire like the burka and niqab will achieve what you, and all of us commenting here, want which is equality and respect for women. I didn't find anything in the article Andrew linked which disagreed with Damion or I, headline aside. The language was strong sure but ultimately it didn't make a strong case for banning burkas and niqabs. It merely outlined that they were a problem and it was not mandated by their religious beliefs.

Again, no one is assuming everyone who wears them in Australia does so of their own free will, some you might think are brainwashed and some are coerced by force or social consequences in their communities. Banning the burkas and niqabs will only result in their further isolation. It won't empower women, it will only further isolate them and enrage the small minded men who lord themselves over them.

I prefer actions similar to virtually anything Christianity tries to foist on everyone, open criticism and mocking should the mood strike you. We need to exercise our freedoms in Australia to show them they have the same freedom. We need to have a debate about the role of burkas and niqabs in muslim culture in Australia, with muslims. I've struggled to find Australian media actually looking to muslims for their thougths and opinions (not just for this now that I think about it on virtually any issue they are involved with). Perhaps the most impact could be from the moderate muslims who say the hijab is enough. It is a start at least and it opens the door for more discussion.

David http://thinkingdoesnthurt.blogspot.com/

Damion

David, ive been arguing that exact point with Oliver since the podcast, nicely put. Like you said pity the media is more intrested in catering to the lowest common denominator over actually reporting constructively

We have to see the underlying problems of oppression as a seperate issue that needs to be addressed over focusing on the symptoms it creates. Engaging the moderate muslim community around the world on topics like this is always going to be the most successful way to move forward as they have the most insight into it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

I am convinced. Women can "choose" to wear the burka, but we should ridicule their reasons for doing so until they see the insanity of it and volunteer to give them up.
FactoryGirl

I just posted this by accidentally on the 1.7 podcast blog under my other two comments. Sorry, released right after I pressed send. SORRY! If you could delete it from there that would be great!

Hey there!

1)On this show you were talking about the Moral Life of Babies and is Morality in general something that's taught (though religion or other means) or something that is instinctive within us from birth (due to Evolution etc) after the experiment that was done with the puppets. I almost wrote study but it was only done on one baby so….

I'm not the smartest person out there, so I can just see someone replying to this and pointing out everything I've said that was less than intelligent but I'll give it a go anyways. Hope this makes sense.

I think this a really good point to ask about how much knowledge about Right vs Wrong a baby has, especially when it comes to God. According to Christians God has a plan for everyone. We might not understand what it is but God knows what his is doing. All the bad stuff is part of some bigger plan. In Gods "wonderful" plan, some people are taken from us when they are young (13 years old) and others are taken when they are older (80 years old +). Christians make up for this by saying they're gone to a better place, ie Heaven or Hell so don't be sad about it.

What has always troubled me when a God takes a child or a baby especially, How can he decide if they get to go to Hell or Heaven when they are that young?

For example: Someone who dies when they are 85 years old is going to have more life experience then a child, alot more. Alot more sins, Alot more good things, Alot more knowledge of the world around them and how things work, Alot more experience with forming relationships etc etc. A child on the other hand, especially a baby, is growing and exploring still, they are more naive and rely on adults to take care on them.

Now if I understand the Bible correctly, the whole reason we live this life is to find out were we will be placed in our next life (or eternal life) through our choices we make on earth (our freewill)….correct?

So then if god takes a child, how can he decide what their eternity will be, when they haven't had a real chance to grow here on Earth? They haven't had enough time or years to be good or bad? Not enough time to learn about stuff and go to school ? to learn about morals? These children don't have the capacity to understand their actions fully, so how can they ask for forgiveness? Most would agree a baby is merely a blob (I think one of you actually said that on the show) and there are probably animals, like Dolphins, pigs, apes etc that are more intelligent as adults than babies are at three, so how can God know what do with a Blob?

Like If God put a little 1 year old baby in Heaven, how does he know they wouldn't have turned into a serial killer if they hadn't died so young? If we have True freewill here on Earth, he can't know that wouldn't have happened. If God already knows this then again why does he need as to live here on earth? If he already is able to place us somewhere right now…or even place as soon as were born (even though we enter as sinners) why have us live here and test us? Why not divide us straight away?

- on a side note: When we die, and go to Heaven (or Hell) do we stay the age we are when we die or do we contuine to age like we do on Earth? Or do we get to choose our age, so if we die at 50 we can choose our 21 year old body, just with the brain and knowledge that we have now we're 50 ? If a child dies can they be a age they haven't been down on earth in Heaven? If they died when they were 5 is it impossible for them to choose to be 27 in Heaven because they never reached that age on Earth?

I've always wanted to asked a christian these things, but never had the chance, maybe you guys could answer me, you probably no more about Christianity than they do anyways.

http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

I will remove the accidental post and will respond to your points shortly.
http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

Christians (and other faiths) do not really think their beliefs through. You're right, it makes no sense that a baby should die and find themselves before a judgemental god. On what basis could a god decide what kind of life this infant has lived if they have not had one?

Catholic worked their way around this by inventing purgatory – a place where all the unbaptised babies wind up until the time of retribution when Jesus would return to destroy the world and cast judgment on the living and dead.

I think the entire story is an invention to make people feel a little less scared about dying. There is no reason to suspect any of it is true.

http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

Christians … do not really think their beliefs through

Rubbish.

http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

If I may…

Now if I understand the Bible correctly, the whole reason we live this life is to find out were we will be placed in our next life (or eternal life) through our choices we make on earth (our freewill)….correct?

I don't think so. The purpose of life, according to the bible is to be in right relationship with, and bring glory to God.

So then if god takes a child, how can he decide what their eternity will be, when they haven't had a real chance to grow here on Earth? They haven't had enough time or years to be good or bad?

Well, no one can be 'good' enough to get into God's kingdom (see Tom Wright on heaven). Now, as far as I understand, within Protestantism there's two prominent views: one (more popular amongst Baptists) holds that there's a point where children become aware enough to make responsible decisions for themselves – the age of accountability. The other view (a more reformed / calvinistic view) is that while we aren't given an answer to the question in scripture there are a couple of things we are told: a) that God will do what is good and right and b) that God elects those who he will bring to salvation, not based on anything within us.

Like If God put a little 1 year old baby in Heaven, how does he know they wouldn't have turned into a serial killer if they hadn't died so young? If we have True freewill here on Earth, he can't know that wouldn't have happened.

That would be a position that is known as Open Theism – that God doesn't have divine foreknowledge.. and it's what happens when the idea of human freewill is taken to the extreme. Personally, I'm a compatiblist.

FactoryGirl

2) Also you were talking about Christians and the afterlife belief being unhealthy.You were asking if this practice is detrimental to society on a whole, this "who cares about this life, when I will have an eternal life in Heaven" attitude. The whole option that some Christians really are selfish, and because they want to get into heaven. That this is only reason they do good and pray, not because they actually care about people so much or what is right. Its just being good because "God tells me so" or because they're afraid of Hell not because they want to improve society. And some Christians will not only do good to get into Heaven but do really Evil things because they think God will see it as a good act and let them in too as long as its in his name.Well your right in saying that. Then you were talking about the domino effect of doing good and karma. I would say there's a domino effect for believing in the afterlife too.

There are many Christians who are like the above paragraph, who also believe the end is near and Armageddon is coming in the next few years. It is mainly because of this and the belief when the end of the world comes they will be saved, they don't care about the environment and what there actions now will have on generations to come. They don't care if Global warming and the greenhouse effect is real unless they are using it to prove the end of the world is coming. They don't care about changing there car to an electric one or using solar power over coal because they world is ending, it doesn't matter what we do to it. When the reality is the end of the world is not coming. And while there right it they wont be here so it wont matter what happens to earth in 100 or more years time, future generations will care and their abuse of the planet won't help them. There less likely to care about long term things in society or whateva because in there view Gods going to end the world so short term goals only matter

3)Expanding the topic of Morality, I was listening to a radio program the other night that was talking about superheros in comics. They were basically debating the question of "Should Superheros kill? and If they do kill a villain, does that turn them from a super hero into a anti-hero?

Someone asked this question about a Hitler baby.
The Question was If someone said they knew 100% without a doubt that this baby that was going to grow up and become Hitler and do all these horrible things, would you kill it, knowing its a innocent baby but in turn stopping it from turning into a monster and saving countless lives. Or would you wait to see what happens and then kill him as a man once you know his evil and have proof of his crimes?

They were saying one superhero like The Punisher would kill it straight away, no questions asked because he sees the world in black and white. He would rather be wrong and risk killing an innocent baby than risk it becoming a murder. While someone like superman wouldn't probably kill him as a man, let alone as a baby and would take the chance the baby would grow up to be normal. And if he was wrong and did do bad things, would catch him only then and hand him to the cops.

Later on they were asking what they would do (not being a superhero and all) and that eventually come around to another question that they asked themselves, which was:

If you could be 100% granteed you would get caught or go to jail, would you kill your worst enemy? or even without the threat of punishment from an outside source would your own morals etc prevent you from doing something so horrible even to someone you hate?

The reason why I bringing this up is maybe one of you would like to answer those questions yourselves.

Cheers!

http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

"who cares about this life, when I will have an eternal life in Heaven"

This is a predominantly American view – generally linked to a pre-trib pre-mil dispensational eschatology, which is not so common outside of the States (though it can be found amongst some Aussie pentecostals). It's also relatively new, from the late C19th.
In any case, I don't think it's healthy or biblical, and many evangelicals (like N.T. Wright) rightly argue against such a dualistic view. (see http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,171… )

Also, the idea that we can get into heaven by doing good is completely anathema to the Christian gospel. (see http://theresurgence.com/2011/01/01/moralisms-cru… )
http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

I think we might save your questions for the next episode :)

http://thingsfindothinks.com AndrewFinden

I would offer to join in on that, but I get the feeling that the podcast is more about making fun of stuff than seriously engaging with it…?

Subscribe to the Podcast

44 – An Atheist Temple

BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

Standard Podcast [ 1:44:50 ] Play Now | Download

1.10 – Insane Star Trek Kitty Edition

References

44 – An Atheist Temple

Further Reading

Dog Heads

Matt’s Human Morality

Aunt Matilda’s Cake

The perfect God

Atheism 2.0

The Bizarre Bible