151. Comment #159764 by Wembleyman on April 13, 2008 at 4:15 am

"Imaginary Friends" a term used in the discussion, was the title of the the third novel of the delightful American novelist, Alison Lurie.

Other Comments by Wembleyman

152. Comment #159768 by Julius Morche on April 13, 2008 at 4:44 am

151. Comment #159755 by Corylus

Dear Corylus,

Thanks for your interest.
Actually the amount of money the churches collect at these occasions is rather negligible. These offerings are symbolic rather than real. I usually hope that the coins that I throw into the collection plate (if I have any on me, I wouldn't sacrifice a note) are going to be used for historic building conservation, sensible charitable activities and stuff like that, not for anything like exorcisms. Although I'm currently living in London, I pay my church contributions in Germany and I know that the expenses of the German Catholic Church are to an overwhelming extent sensible and supportable by any rational person.

I am far from claiming that all Catholics are Catholic in my sense, which is essentially Catholic Atheism. There are a lot of developments within the Catholic Church that trouble me, but the liturgy is surely not one of them. And since I only indulge in liturgy, not in exorcisms etc., it is not my job to worry about these things.

OK, not my idea of enjoyment. I would rather have a lay in on a Sunday morning. Going to church would involve waking up early, putting and on my best clothes, going to a big building, listening to man droning on etc... only to fall back asleep again! . Personally, I would rather just roll over, start snoring again and save myself the whole effort :)

Of course, if you want to appreciate a Catholic service on the cultural level, you need to look at it through the eyes of the historian (musicologist, cultural anthropologist etc.). In order to do that, you need to acquire some prior knowledge about the historical background of the rites, the prayers, ecclesiastical architecture, the whole order. Once you read up on that, you will find it exciting. I'm not saying you have to; but walking into a Church Service without prior knowledge will be as fruitful as attending an academic lecture on a topic which you have never studied.

Lastly, I have to warn you that not all Catholic services are as splendid as they should be. Many priests don't have a sense of the historical either and mess it up completely. That's why I rarely actually go to church, only if I know it will be worthwhile. Some churches are also extremely ugly. If you happen to be London-based, I can recommend the services in St. Philip Neri in South Kensington (ok, the Church architecture is a little fake, it's a nineteenth century attempt to imitate eighteenth century Italian style, but if you turn a blind eye on that, it won't bother you). Especially their Easter Vigil is pretty impressive (you just missed it, maybe next year?).

Other Comments by Julius Morche

153. Comment #159772 by esuther on April 13, 2008 at 5:09 am

To Julius,

Well, all religions have a certain amount of theater, don't they? It's always a thrill to be part of a pageant and the Catholic Church, because it is so rich, has probably the best pageants of all. But if it's the frisson of being part of a major spectacle that turns you on, you should consider making the pilgrimage to Mecca. Just imagine what goes through the mind of a man who is circling the Kabba stone shoulder to shoulder with ten thousand other believers. If he had the slightest shred of doubt before coming, he will lose it then.
My point is that the thrill of spectacle is a dangerous thing. It ramps up the emotions and crowds out the rational part of the brain. (In my personal case, when I hear the final measures of the Hallelujah Chorus, my atheism gets locked in a closet for a few moments.

Why don't you just go more often to the opera? I would suggest Tosca for starters.

Other Comments by esuther

154. Comment #159774 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 13, 2008 at 5:39 am

"He DOES? In that case he goes RIGHT down in my estimation. He is NOT a bright guy."

Come on, Richard. Are you REALLY gonna take Bill's word for it? ;) Best ask Dr. Collins if Bill was taking the piss. Even so, made my day. Thanks! :)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

155. Comment #159778 by phil rimmer on April 13, 2008 at 5:53 am

Come on, Richard. Are you REALLY gonna take Bill's word for it?

Doesn't matter.

IF he believes a snake talked THEN he is not a bright guy. Is the point.

There is no insult. Richard gave Francis a clean bill of health on the issue to start. If he has been lied to by Bill, the shame is on Bill. Richard has the virtue of being quite trusting.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

156. Comment #159782 by yussel123 on April 13, 2008 at 6:22 am

I like Dawkins, but that tie he's wearing is God-awful.

Other Comments by yussel123

157. Comment #159790 by Julius Morche on April 13, 2008 at 6:53 am

155. Comment #159772 by esuther

But if it's the frisson of being part of a major spectacle that turns you on, you should consider making the pilgrimage to Mecca. Just imagine what goes through the mind of a man who is circling the Kabba stone shoulder to shoulder with ten thousand other believers. If he had the slightest shred of doubt before coming, he will lose it then.
My point is that the thrill of spectacle is a dangerous thing. It ramps up the emotions and crowds out the rational part of the brain. (In my personal case, when I hear the final measures of the Hallelujah Chorus, my atheism gets locked in a closet for a few moments.

Why don't you just go more often to the opera? I would suggest Tosca for starters.

For goodness' sake are you being serious? I go to Church because I am European living in Europe. If I were a Middle-Easterner living in the Middle East, yes, I would probably go to Mosque and every now and then even to Mecca. What the heck is your point? In any case, I would still be an Atheist, and my atheism never gets "locked in a closet for a few moments" regardless of what splendid cultural artefact I am allowed to experience. That's because I possess the intellectual honesty to distinguish between human emotions and supernatural fantasies. With all due respect, if Haendel's Messiah "crowds out the rational part" of your brain, you should seek professional help.

I see no reason to imagine "what goes through the mind of a man who is circling the Kabba stone shoulder to shoulder with ten thousand other believers" because I AM NOT A BELIEVER, and if I were to go to Mecca, it wouldn't be for any kind of belief, but for cultural interest.

And thanks, I actually enjoy going to the opera and have seen Tosca (not one of my favourites). I hope I don't need to point out to you that religious liturgy is ONE element of cultural heritage out of many. And I enjoy all of them: music, literature, drama & film, architecture, gastronomy - you name it.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

158. Comment #159800 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 7:16 am

Julius

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I am very glad to hear that you don't waste your notes.

I am also sure that the Kensington Church is very pretty. However, I don't think I will be going; I couldn't bring myself to even give symbolic coins, which I then hope will go to the more reasonable causes.

To my mind that would be like me, (an ethical vegetarian) paying for a ticket to go to a function organised by the Meat Marketing Board and desperately hoping that they only spend my money on the cucumber sandwiches.

I simply would not be able to square it with my conscience. So, I doubt that we will agree on this one. Ho Hum: happens :)

Anyway, one good thing, maybe our chat will show our visitors from Expelled that atheists do not avoid Churches because they are scared of them.

In fact, there is one that I visit often.

It has been converted into a library; I sit under the beautiful high ceiling reading my books and my little black atheist heart sings :P

Other Comments by Corylus

159. Comment #159801 by black wolf on April 13, 2008 at 7:18 am

...and I know that the expenses of the German Catholic Church are to an overwhelming extent sensible and supportable by any rational person.

I understand Julius' point well, but I disagree on this point. I have looked at the income/expense ratio of the German Churches (Catholic and Protestant), and found that they use about 10% of the money they get from donations, taxes and subsidies for charity. Sure, they need personnel to do that, but I think the ratio of 60-70% personnel costs to 10% charity is way beyond what any other charitable organization worthy of the label does. And yet they claim that charity work in public interest is their prime objective. It is not. The prime objective is self preservation and accumulation of assets, by pointing at 'cultural heritage' to conserve a semblance of meaningfulness in public discourse.
They do just what any profit-oriented company does: spend a small portion of their income on promotion and use the rest to consolidate market shares and expand.

Other Comments by black wolf

160. Comment #159802 by Noodly on April 13, 2008 at 7:19 am

I think the attitude you display here is - if you permit - exactly the kind of problematic ignorance that so worries me.

How can you accuse me of ignorance when I had stated that I was brought up a cultural Catholic? Why does it worry you? I'm not advocating the banning or repression of Catholicism (anagram = comical shit). I am firmly in favour of separation of church and state, which can only lead to more religious freedom.

Your comments are particularly disappointing for someone who was raised a Catholic. To me, a Catholic mass is a splendid synthesis of many branches of the arts, including architecture, drama, music, and literature. Anyone who has witnessed a Catholic rite in a building like St. Peter in Rome must be convinced of this [Yes I know, there are a lot of bad services in ugly church buildings - I don't go there, as I am a cultural Catholic, not a Christian believer]. The Catholic rite, with its Latin prayers, its robes, its historically grown order, is one of the few elements of (late) Ancient Roman culture that we still posses today IN LIVING FORM. To sum this up, the Catholic Church as an institution is as exciting for historians as the discovery of a living prehistoric animal would be for zoologists.

I assume you must be from Bavaria or a similar Catholic dominated society where it's so endemic that it's difficult to stand back and look at the absurdity of it all. I'm not saying that members of such societies are stupid in any way - simply victims of a vicious meme.

One absolutely doesn't need to adhere to a belief in the supernatural in order to appreciate these extraordinary cultural traditions. To claim, however, as you do, that they aren't worth bothering about is beyond a reasonable appreciation of reality. Religions are secondary cultures, hence ALL the traditions they purport are usually "incorporated". No religion has invented music, yet there is a lot of awe-striking religious music. Christianity hasn't invented architecture, yet there are the cathedrals. Most of the religious rituals can be studied anthropologically and even the outdated religious BELIEF SYSTEMS often are acculturations of prior religious traditions.

Catholic rituals may have had some logical relevance many centuries ago, but in the context of today's scientific knowledge they are meaningless tripe. By all means study them historically, but why should the next generation be indoctrinated? You say in another post that you pay your German church taxes. That is your right of course, but I would say that you are contributing to an organization that is holding back the advancement of civilisation - that is my right of course, but in the past your church has done everthing in its power to stop me people like my saying it.

Other Comments by Noodly

161. Comment #159830 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:06 am

Common Toad,

The freedom fallacy of unrestrained capitalism. Please you actually believe this?

Yes, I do. Not even your well thought out and reasoned objection to my post can make me think otherwise.

Radesq,

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has played the board game Monopoly can think that government intervention isn't absolutely necessary for a stable market place. As for ExxonMobil, it is the biggest player in today's Oiligopoly -- they might as well change their name to Standard Oil. But until the government breaks them up or Teratornis gets a sidecar for his bicycle that he can cart me around in...I guess I'll have to put up with the invisible hand of the market lifting all the money out of my wallet every time I roll into the filling station.

GLX answered this post very well. You admit yourself that the oil industry is an Oligopoly and not a Monopoly. Therefore the government has no right to break them up. Is there not competition in the market-place?

GLX I buy gasoline so that I can drive to work. (don't you dare give me a bunch of BS suggestions on how I should solve that dilemma) There is not enough competition in the gasoline production industry and that is a problem. It leads to collusion and artificial supply line problems to inflate prices. I don't want government price fixing I want oversight. I want the oligopoly broken up to increase competition (the barriers to entry in that business are too high). I want the government to require additional refining capacity to be built so there isn't a supply/demand problem with every change of the seasons or when there is a fire or flood at one facility. The market is not the masses speaking if it was the price of gas would not have dropped dramatically prior to Bush's last reelection bid.

So now oligopolies are illegal? Since when did that become law? Technically, Linux, Mac and Microsoft have an oligopoly on computer processing units - are we going to break them up too?

How do you artificially create prices and/or competitors? You would tie one hand behind the oil companies backs and then demand that they create more oil at lower prices. Do you realize the insanity of your position? You want the free market to work a certain way but that isn't what makes it free.

Not to mention that you would take what ExxonMobile has taken years to create and destroy it with the signing of a pen for no other reason than to make the masses happy. Hard work means nothing to you - just give me cheap gas. Never mind the ethical implications of taking a product that is the result of years of hard work and dedication and give it to people (e.g. Exxon's successors) who have done NOTHING but earned government favor, which will inevitably be handing out the spoils to its friends.

As for oil refiners - you can blame Eco-Nazis for that one. They refuse to allow the construction of new oil refineries (at least in America), not to mention new nuclear power plants. I agree completely that new oil refineries need to be constructed but you can tell that to Greenpeace.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

162. Comment #159840 by Julius Morche on April 13, 2008 at 8:24 am

161. Comment #159801 by black wolf

black wolf,

That wasn't exactly my point. Your figures may be right, but the German Catholic Church is not a charity and I didn't claim it was. I said its expenses are overwhelmingly supportable by rational people. I wouldn't want my Church contribution to be used for anything vicious, such as school lessons where children get taught about hell. And you will have a hard time finding such a thing in Germany and possibly Europe as a whole if you focus on the Catholic Church and not on crazy evangelical movements. Having said that, there may be a few items on the German Catholic Church's balance sheet that I would object to. That's why I said "overwhelmingly supportable", not "generally supportable."


162. Comment #159802 by Noodly

You haven't understood the concept of Catholic Atheism at all. My point is precisely that there SHOULDN'T be any indoctrination. If you want to fight indoctrination, I am your brother in arms. The point of Catholic Atheism is to preserve the cultural elements of religion WITHOUT ANY DOGMAS and irrational claims. If the Church held "back the advancement of civilisation" in the past, that was down to dogmatism, certainly not to processions, singing, organ playing and the wearing of robes. These things are just artefacts and thus part of the very essence of civilisation (please don't get back to me, like a previous poster did, by saying that these things will "crowds out the rational part of the brain" or simply re-enforce the belief system- no they won't, if one is rational and intellectually honest).

I assume you must be from Bavaria or a similar Catholic dominated society where it's so endemic that it's difficult to stand back and look at the absurdity of it all. I'm not saying that members of such societies are stupid in any way - simply victims of a vicious meme.

Thanks for you worries, but I'm actually just fine and not from Bavaria. I'm simply an open-minded guy with a lot of historical and cultural interest, whereas you seem to have embraced some weird kind of dogmatism yourself, one that prevents you from looking at history and cultural artefacts with impartiality, and I evidently lack the persuasion skills to convince you of that.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

163. Comment #159841 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:26 am

And here we depart. Please don't take any of these comments personally as I've enjoyed your contributions over many threads here recently but you exhibit the typical American views on free markets so I'll use you as an opponent if you don't mind :)

I didn't know I had any fans on here :-)

I won't take them personally, but keep in mind that my views are not shared by nearly half of America. Republicans and Libertarians are largely in favor of free trade, open markets, etc. while Democrats have reverted to the Protectionism of the 1920s and early 30s. Just listen to Obama/Clinton rail against FTAs.

Corporations exist as part of society not apart from it. Their existence is formed by a grant from whatever organisation is empowered to govern society. As such, even after they have been created, they remain within the reach of those powers. This point has been lost by many, typically free market, supporters.

Corporate charters exist for no other reason than for government to reach its greedy paws into areas that it doesn't belong. What right does the government have to be involved in the private practices of corporations? It's only there to ensure its interests, e.g. taxes. Corporate charters are an old relic of the initial Joint Stock Companies and have no place in our current economy.

I will never agree to a company ever having a societal responsibility. Like I said earlier, it has one purpose only - provide a product in demand by consumers and make money. Should the masses object to the manner in which the company provides the product, then they have every right to stop buying it. What the consumer doesn't have the right to is objecting to the price of a product and demanding that the corporation be regulated, produce more of the product and at a lower price. That idea is complete lunacy. It only exists in fairy-land economic theories that have no practical application.

To be even clearer; the corporations' objectives (even though they may be changed from time to time and embody purposes other than to make profits) remain subservient to societies wishes and corporations can be amended, closed or reformed in any manner the government chooses should they produce results in any form which that society deems to be unwelcome.

The prices, quantity of output, etc. of a given corporation are set by invisible forces. It's a trial-and-error method of supply vs. demand that is constantly changing and fluctuating. A corporation doesn't just arbitrarily set prices, it chooses the price based on supply and demand. Legislation that makes oil sell for $1.00 a gallon (for example) won't magically make-up for the extreme gap between what oil companies pay for oil and then what they sell it for. You can legislate all you want but when companies start to go out of business because they can't operate at the artificial levels that you demand them to work at, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

To make any market approach these conditions requires regulation in a wide variety of forms. Taxation, regulatory bodies, legislative actions etc all attempt to move actual real world conditions towards those in which economic models and their theories would apply. And this is done because market capitalism is the best, most productive model that humanity has developed so far to increase the welfare of society as a whole. You see, I believe in market theory :) the difference between us is one of purpose and pragmatism.

Personally, I would argue that government intervention in the market place has never helped - only hindered - economic growth. The government bailout of BearStearns is a perfect example. Certain companies are going to need to collapse in this period of market adjustment. Instead, the government spends billions of dollars to artificially keep companies alive that should have gone under. The market will continue to suffer as its readjusts and the government will try desperately to throw all of our hard-earned tax payer dollars at failed companies. Had the government just let those companies go under, we'd be able to recover more quickly. Instead, we will be faced with a long and drawn out process as companies use government-provided money to cover some of their losses yet still go under. What a complete waste.

I could go on, of course, how the entire housing crisis was made by the government to begin with but I won't. Every example I've seen of government intervention in the market-place has been a complete failure. Even the rise of the "robber baron" railroad tycoons is due to the government handing out vast tracks of land to its personal friends. The simple fact is that monopolies can never rise in a truly free market. There will always be a company out there to offer a product at a lower price or in an alternative manner. Furthermore, should the consumer be willing to pay high prices for a product (e.g. oil/gas) then what business does the government have to interfere? The company is simply offering what the public wants. Why is it the fault of the company that the public is willing to pay such a high price for it? Not to mention the extremely high operating costs that an oil company must face?

I'll try giving those links a read a bit later.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

164. Comment #159845 by Layla Nasreddin on April 13, 2008 at 8:34 am

esuther wrote:

But if it's the frisson of being part of a major spectacle that turns you on, you should consider making the pilgrimage to Mecca. Just imagine what goes through the mind of a man who is circling the Kabba stone shoulder to shoulder with ten thousand other believers. If he had the slightest shred of doubt before coming, he will lose it then.

This reminds me of an account by a Muslim who was on the Hajj and seeing all the millions of people garbed in white, pouring out their hearts to Allah, it suddenly ocurred to her that there was no deity listening to their heartfelt prayers. So you never know!

Julius Morche wrote:

I see no reason to imagine "what goes through the mind of a man who is circling the Kabba stone shoulder to shoulder with ten thousand other believers" because I AM NOT A BELIEVER, and if I were to go to Mecca, it wouldn't be for any kind of belief, but for cultural interest.

Heck, I'd go, just to be part of the experience (though most Hajj packages offered in this country start in the neighborhood of $5000 a head, so it would be an expensive field trip)!

I do have to agree with Julius Morche here, about the cultural and historical value of religious traditions and the artifacts they inspired, even if one does not believe in them. Surely one can appreciate the artistry of the Taj Mahal, or the Shah Mosque in Isfahan, Iran, or the Suleymaniye Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, without subscribing to the tenets of Islam. Yes, one might prefer that these be simply relics of a past age, one where humanity still believed in fantastic notions of deities and life after death, but the fact remains that religion has been so much a part of human life throughout history that of course people's noblest aspirations would be reflected in religious buildings, rituals, and writings. Doubtless it would be better if this had not been the case, but surely one can see at least a little value in the efforts made by one's ancestors to transcend the mundane and quotidian, instead of just dismissing them out of hand as the products of delusion and thus not worthy of any appreciation?

Right...end of sermon!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

165. Comment #159846 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 8:37 am

FightingFalcon I shall give you another well thought out objection. Global Warming. There are issues that are too big, too important to allow Ayn Randian self interest to rule.
You only have to open your eyes to see the destruction and devastation that chasing profits has caused throughout the world, throughout history.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

166. Comment #159847 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 8:41 am

Layla

Heck, I'd go, just to be part of the experience (though most Hajj packages offered in this country start in the neighborhood of $5000 a head, so it would be an expensive field trip)!

Yes, I've always suspected that the hotels in Mecca put their prices up during that time of the year ;-)

Other Comments by Corylus

167. Comment #159854 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 9:02 am

FightingFalcon I shall give you another well thought out objection. Global Warming. There are issues that are too big, too important to allow Ayn Randian self interest to rule.
You only have to open your eyes to see the destruction and devastation that chasing profits has caused throughout the world, throughout history.

You know what the #1 polluter in the world is? Personal vehicle emissions. So how about you get off your high horse and tell me what you're doing to personally lower your own emissions.

Corporations don't force people to pollute, nor do they have any responsibility to curb people of their destructive habits. America being addicted to oil has what to do with Exxon? I love this passing on of the responsibility from the user (e.g. you) to another company that is simply providing you with your addiction.

Just check out your Human Footprint and see how much you are destroying the environment. Global warming will be ended when people make individual choices to minimize their footprint. Government legislation against corporations will stop absolutely nothing. Destroy ExxonMobile and tomorrow a new oil company will come to take its place, so long as the people demand it.

If corporate destruction of the world is so self-evident, you would have no problem coming up with other examples, would you?

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

168. Comment #159856 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 9:04 am

FYI to anyone considering going to Mecca or on the Hajj - you do realize that Mecca is off limits to all non-Muslims, right?

I suspect that everyone was being sarcastic, or at least I hope they were. Non-Muslims are forbidden from entering the city.

Of course, I'd love to see the reaction if Vatican City closed itself off to just Catholics. The double standard is incredible.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

169. Comment #159859 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 9:19 am

FightingFalcon-

They have no responsibility toward anyone or anything other than to make money.

While that may be pragmaticly true in the larger sense, and I'm not advocating state control of production, when people embrace that as a personal philosopy, one shouldn't be shocked when they behave like sociopaths.

The Austrian School of Economics makes so much sense to me...

Whip-a-dee-doo.

Sorry, I'm not into many Austrian/German things.
Something in the water over there, I dunno, they had a propensity for militaristic cookie cutter robots in a row stuff long before it went too far and became Nazis.

I'm instantly distrustful of anything that came out of that mindset.

Other Comments by Diacanu

170. Comment #159861 by Bonzai on April 13, 2008 at 9:23 am

Only idiots would believe in the Austrian school. When Hayek was sick, I suppose he would have gone to a doctor instead of waiting for nature to take its course because he didn't know all the possible side effects of medical interventions.

But then only idiots would think a hack and a tenth rate writer like Ayn Rand was a genius.

Other Comments by Bonzai

171. Comment #159862 by IPV4 on April 13, 2008 at 9:25 am

For those who keep carrying on about the oil companies and about how the market dictates this or that, is a bunch of bull shit. Oil is the biggest scam of the century. Their is not reason why 80% of cars are not running on batteries. In the U.S.A 70% or all drivers travel less then 40 miles a day. Put that fact in your hat and smoke it. For those who think that if you don't like a product don't buy it, wow, that is very clever of you. The problem is that due some invisible hand certain product don't ever get made. The biggest culprit is called mass manufacturing and only the biggest companies have theh ablities to take advantage of these economies of scale. Go research http://www.teslamotors.com/ which has the technology to put oil companies out of business. Their are other companies such as http://calcars.org/ which are made up of a handful of engineers that are able add a kit to your toyota prius and make it drive 100 to 200mpg. Now why is that the major auto companies with these tremendous R&D budgets not making such vehicles. I can go on and on about technoligies that are easily feasible for the 5 major car companies to create but they don't.

Other Comments by IPV4

172. Comment #159863 by Layla Nasreddin on April 13, 2008 at 9:25 am

Fighting Falcon wrote:

FYI to anyone considering going to Mecca or on the Hajj - you do realize that Mecca is off limits to all non-Muslims, right?

I suspect that everyone was being sarcastic, or at least I hope they were. Non-Muslims are forbidden from entering the city.

The kuffar (nonbelievers) are also banned from Medina. As for me, I have proof that would let me in! :-D Of course, I'd just have to conceal any doubts and go with the flow.

"Labbayk Allahummah, labbayk. Labbayka la sharika laka labbayk. Innal-hamda wan-ni'mata laka wal-mulk. La sharika lak."
Here I am (at your service), O Allah, here I am! Here I am, you have no partner, here I am. Truly all praise and favor belong to you, and all dominion. You have no partner. (Talbiyya, the Hajj chant)

I'm all set! :-D (Yes, this is tongue-in-cheek. Sort of...I'd still go if the opportunity presented itself.)

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

173. Comment #159866 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 9:28 am

If corporate destruction of the world is so self-evident, you would have no problems coming up with other examples, would you?

Thank You.

A corporation is a legal person (abuse of the 14th Amendment set up to protect slaves) , if we treat it as such it is a psychopathic person. By law, a corporation can only consider the interests of their shareholders. It is legally bound to put its bottom line before everything else, even the public good.
Sweatshops, pollution, health, the suppression of studies that show products to be unhealthy e.g smoking, countless medicines, the creation of diseases so drugs can be marketed. Healthcare in general. The privatisation of natural resources google privatisation of rainwater in Bolivia for example, or take villages in Africa that can't get access to water because they have to pay to use the well, so they die. Marketing Campaigns that manipulate children. In the US, the Supreme Court ruled that anything alive can be patented except a human being. The media is censored. American corporations role in Nazi Germany (IBM and the holocaust). I can go on and on.

Watch this for an education

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

174. Comment #159867 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 9:29 am

FightingFalcon-

I will never agree to a company ever having a societal responsibility.

And that's where we part.
No man is an island.

Humans are social animals, and to fight against that is the definition of sociopathy.

As for government, when you start with the philosophy that government can do nothing but evil, government is never going to work.

Other Comments by Diacanu

175. Comment #159877 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 13, 2008 at 10:01 am

I can go on and on about technoligies that are easily feasible for the 5 major car companies to create but they don't.

WWeeeeellllll...not necessarily. Just research the short-lived demise of General Motors BRILLIANT little vehicle: the EV-1. It coulda been BIG, coulda been a contender. Those who KNEW about it wanted one. Big ol' waiting list. The infrastructure was ready for California consumers. What did GM do? Offered only leases with no option to buy, scrimped on advertising that was pathetic compared to its Hummer line. We HAVE the technology, consumers that know about it, WANT the technology. Where is it? Why are we wasting time and research on the infeasible hydrogen cell when electricity would be able to fill the gap UNTIL such technology is even remotely feasible? Oh, and the Tesla Roadster? DO WANT! :)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

176. Comment #159881 by Quezcatol on April 13, 2008 at 10:15 am

I love how Dawkins said Collins isnt a bright man,here is a man who save lifes thanks to his job on the genom in the labs,and what do Dawkins do? write books,wow,who is the scientist again?
Dawkins can fuck himself.

However anyone who beleive in a talking snake is laughable,I agree with that,however that doesnt make Collins 10x smarter then anyone in here.

Other Comments by Quezcatol

177. Comment #159882 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 10:31 am

Quezcatol-

I've flagged your ass as a troll for being a jackass, and for impersonaiting another poster.

Other Comments by Diacanu

178. Comment #159885 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 13, 2008 at 10:40 am

Seconded, Diacanu.

HA HA HA! False sock puppet.

He doesn't even have Quetzie's kewl avatar!

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

179. Comment #159888 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 10:57 am

I have already told him to get a new login name Diacanu.

Looks like he didn't listen.

Other Comments by Corylus

180. Comment #159890 by phil rimmer on April 13, 2008 at 10:58 am

IPV4

Don't oversell! You will spoil it if you over-claim. Unreliable batteries with outrageous prices have been the problem before now. To say nothing of the eco-consequences of managing the massive waste.

Simple improvements in fuel efficiency through weight reduction and better combustion management is available now in conventional vehicles, with no added cost, eco or otherwise.

My five seater takes the kids, three bikes, all our luggage in great comfort, very quickly. It produces less than one third of the average US vehicle CO2 emission. Why wait?

(Don't get me wrong about electric and hybrid...They'll be great one day. My job depends on it.)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

181. Comment #159891 by Frankus1122 on April 13, 2008 at 11:00 am

Toad, your link did not work. Was this what you were trying to link to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y

Other Comments by Frankus1122

182. Comment #159892 by Peacebeuponme on April 13, 2008 at 11:01 am

Quez-whatever

However anyone who beleive in a talking snake is laughable,I agree with that,however that doesnt make Collins 10x smarter then anyone in here.

Wooterism.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

183. Comment #159895 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 13, 2008 at 11:07 am

Yes Frankus1122 Thank You. I've fixed the link

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

184. Comment #159896 by Frankus1122 on April 13, 2008 at 11:11 am

But then only idiots would think a hack and a tenth rate writer like Ayn Rand was a genius.

I find a lot of people go through an Ayn Rand phase but get older and grow out of it.

As Diacanu said:

No man is an island.

Humans are social animals, and to fight against that is the definition of sociopathy.

As for government, when you start with the philosophy that government can do nothing but evil, government is never going to work.

As you live more life you begin to see the intricacies of social interactions. Black and white one-size-fits-all philosophies do not work.

Societies are hugely malleable. As societies we are very much followers of the established norm. The established norm can be the result of the efforts of a few individuals.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

185. Comment #159898 by Quetzalcoatl on April 13, 2008 at 11:13 am

To the poster known as Quezcatol-

I would appreciate it if you would change your user name to something further away from my own. While it may have been inadvertent, the similarity in our user names may cause confusion, especially since I can tell from the contents of your few posts that our views are wildly divergent.

It is entirely possible that readers might mistakenly ascribe comments by one of us to the other. I'm sure both of us wish to be judged solely on the contents of our OWN posts, and not someone else's.

Thanks.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

186. Comment #159903 by black wolf on April 13, 2008 at 11:31 am

btw, is it possible to change a user name without having to register a completely new account? I'm asking because I'm toying with the idea to follow in the footsteps of members like Steve Z. and Paula in switching to my real name.

Other Comments by black wolf

187. Comment #159906 by Enlightenme.. on April 13, 2008 at 11:35 am

Quetz,
I don't think your polite request is gonna get through the reason sieve.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

188. Comment #159911 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 13, 2008 at 11:42 am

I was able to change mine, black wolf, by requesting it from the admins. For veteran members like myself, it really wasn't a problem, mainly because my old handle: ColAbernathy, was misleading. People were mistaking the "Col" for "Colonel" and it was getting tiring correcting people, "No no...it's ackshualy short for 'Colwyn'." I'm sure if you ask Josh nicely it shouldn't be a problem.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

189. Comment #159913 by Quetzalcoatl on April 13, 2008 at 11:44 am

Enlightenme..

I PM'd him as well, so he can't say he didn't notice it. Fortunately he posts so infrequently that it's not really a major issue. We shall see.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

190. Comment #159914 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 13, 2008 at 11:46 am

Quetz,
I don't think your polite request is gonna get through the reason sieve.

Agreed, but at least there's now evidence of an ATTEMPT at politeness before the tearing of the new orifice begins. ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

191. Comment #159917 by GSP on April 13, 2008 at 11:52 am

clearmind,

Your post (number 114), although I am not sure I completely understand it, is a fairly accurate representation of what goes on not just on this forum, but on forums in general. I just love coming to this forum because it strikes me as the definition of ironic that so many people devoted to reason and rationality allow themselves to fall into the sludge of inane debate.

Watching a thread evolve, this inevitably happens: The normal kudos to a particular thread originator and the people involved. Some comments on whether someone agrees with this fact or that. And then, as hoped for by the usual suspects, there comes a long someone who feels the need to "intellectually" analyze what they feel is the underlying theme of everything related to the thread. And so it begins! The constant parsing of sentences, the constant disagreements over definitions, the logically fallacies thrown left and right... it is really interesting to watch it happen.

Almost nothing is ever solved on these discussion boards. It is an immature game of "king of the hill." Whomever can scream the loudest (and longest) wins. And they call this rationality.

I have tried this myself in the past, as anyone that can click to right button can attest. But it really is futile. I think many of the people on here need a therapist more than they need an internet discussion forum.

Other Comments by GSP

192. Comment #159920 by black wolf on April 13, 2008 at 11:54 am

Thanks Colwyn, Sir, yessir *salutes*
winkwink

Other Comments by black wolf

193. Comment #159935 by AllanW on April 13, 2008 at 12:29 pm

FightingFalcon;

'I didn't know I had any fans on here :-)' I wouldn't go as far as 'fans' because very little on this site is unquestioning but I appreciate the job you do and the viewpoints and insight you express here.

'my views are not shared by nearly half of America'. Not true; the vast majority of Americans share the free market views you espouse. They have elected free-market, non-interventionist, no universal health-care etc parties since the early Sixties. As a measure of this look at the policies you mention by the current Democratic nominee-aspirants; you disparage them as being interventionist and I guess left wing. And in America they may seem so but the political spectrum over there is skewed heavily to the right. As a marker for you, both parties would be seen as at best centre-right if not extreme right wing in most European countries.

'Corporate charters exist for no other reason than for government to reach its greedy paws into areas that it doesn't belong.' I sometimes post quickly in response to a point on this site. I'm sure you do as well and I believe this may be one instance. If not, this viewpoint is a clear example of the prejudices you hold with regard to government and society. Of course the 'American way' meme is strong, of course the history and popular culture of the wild west and the pioneers is a strong one and of course there are elements in these memes and stories that pull powerfully at certain entirely human parts of our psyches so I can understand your point while being absolutely convinced that it represents the worst options for how to organise human societies in modern times. Every man for himself until someone stops you at the point of a gun is a crude, unnecessary and uncivilised way to live a life in my opinion.

We live in a world that is so complex, so interconnected and so technologically advanced that the power to affect other people around us and large segments of global society are within the reach of many people. Yet, as Christopher Hitchens eloquently put it in his debate on free speech; "Our frontal lobes are too small." We have developed personal morality and actions based in physiology that is minutely removed from cave dwellers. The danger this poses is vast.

So to start from a point that any government cannot deliver any service or good or be of any use whatsoever is to ignore the benefits that higher-level social organisations can and do deliver; it is a reversion to roving-band idealism.

'Corporate charters are an old relic of the initial Joint Stock Companies and have no place in our current economy.' Maybe I was unclear in my choice of words. The basis for existence of any corporation is currently within the powers of government to bestow, withhold or withdraw. Why would you have it any other way? Do you seriously want me to accept that the creation of any form of organisation endows it with an existence and power that from that moment on is untouchable by government? I'm sure that a moments' reflection will tell you that this would lead to anarchy.

'I will never agree to a company ever having a societal responsibility'. Why?

The next section of your post I can agree with (referring to the detailed workings of the corporation). I meant that intervention is conducted not at this detailed micro-economic level but normally at a macro-economic level. Apart from legislation to ensure things such as lack of racial, sexual or ageist prejudice in employment practices and certain kinds of non-exploitation of workers (working conditions etc) I would expect regulation in whatever form, as I said in my original post, to work towards moving actual market conditions towards those at which our economic models tell us the maximisation of utility occurs. The models work; I believe in the theory but the real world differs and can be made, through regulation, to approach ideal conditions.

'Personally, I would argue that government intervention in the market place has never helped - only hindered - economic growth.' I disagree. Economic growth would be miniscule but for the intervention in certain areas of governmental regulation. Don't forget, governments can just be the reflection writ-large of the aggregate of individual viewpoints. An illustration; how much would your personal economic productivity and growth be hampered if there were no police force, national defence force, fire service, healthcare system or public service organisation for roads, utilities etc? I venture to suggest that without these services and economic goods you would in effect be living in an anarchic, third world country where the safety and integrity of you personally and your family would entirely depend on your own ability to wield a gun or otherwise deter thieves. These services would never be provided in a free market. Studies have shown time and again that these societal goods (justice, the rule of law, personal property rights etc) are NOT provided without government mandate and are never provided under free market conditions.

I'm enjoying our chat. I have wanted to discuss these issues (and others besides) on this site for awhile now as not only are they my own area of expertise (not being a scientist and all) but I believe they are the back-drop, the framing references for the issues we spend most of our time discussing here and are important therefore. Please don't think for a second that I'm aiming these notes at you. As I explained before, I'm not and I welcome a frank exchange of our varied viewpoints.

All the best.

AllanW

Other Comments by AllanW

194. Comment #159939 by mAtheist on April 13, 2008 at 12:34 pm

These are the shows Richard needs to be on. Light hearted conversations, grabbing the wider public's attention, giving them new ideas and raising their consciousnesses bit by bit.

Other Comments by mAtheist

195. Comment #159941 by Noodly on April 13, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Julius,

You haven't understood the concept of Catholic Atheism at all. My point is precisely that there SHOULDN'T be any indoctrination.

I do understand the concept, I just haven't addressed it. You say that you don't hide your atheism, in which case how do you avoid joining in prayers and reciting the creed etc? Or do you pretend to be a believer? Or just don't care what you say because the words are meaningless?

I'm simply an open-minded guy with a lot of historical and cultural interest, whereas you seem to have embraced some weird kind of dogmatism yourself, one that prevents you from looking at history and cultural artefacts with impartiality

I am impartial, I also think other religious traditions are tripe, not only Catholic ones. We'll just have to disagree over our personal interpretations of traditions like "apparently transforming bread into flesh", "kneeling before the statue of a man being executed", "genital mutilation", "praying five times a day in a particular direction" and so on.

BTW expressing a point of view, however strongly, is not dogmatism. Dogma is telling people what they have to believe. I can see value in some music and art that was sponsored by or was influenced by religion.

You still haven't explained why you're worried about people like me - how do we impinge on your freedom to enjoy the trappings of religion?

Other Comments by Noodly

196. Comment #159942 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 13, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Thanks Colwyn, Sir, yessir *salutes*
winkwink

OI! Well, I guess I asked for that....carry on, Soldier. ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

197. Comment #159952 by ghuckin on April 13, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Hey! RD was talking about ME. I'm one of those who thought I was religiously grounded until The God Delusion got me to review what I'd been sold all those years ago as a kid. Now I am amazed how I held out against reality all these years. Even as someone who called himself "christian", I could never get those people who saw the hand of god in everything around them. Now that I recognise the hand of science in everthing around me, I can better understand those who are still God-delusioned.

Other Comments by ghuckin

198. Comment #159954 by Julius Morche on April 13, 2008 at 1:15 pm

197. Comment #159941 by Noodly

I'll try it one last time. A church service can be two things:
a) an expression of belief
b) a cultural institution

Since I am not a believer, it is only a cultural institution to me. Accidentally, you are not asked about your beliefs before entering a church, so I don't even have to pretend being a believer. I don't say prayers in silence, and the common prayers I recite the way I would recite a poem. Most of the common prayers of the Catholic rite actually ARE great poems. You can perfectly listen to a priest performing the rite of transubstantiation without actually believing that he is "apparently transforming bread into flesh". You can just enjoy it as a beautiful ritual that is 2000 years old. It's fiction, for god's sake (literally)!

You still haven't explained why you're worried about people like me - how do we impinge on your freedom to enjoy the trappings of religion?

I'm worried about you for your own sake, not because you are threatening me or anything. I just don't understand why people would renounce such a precious part of their cultural heritage for no good reason at all. And the fact that you are equally ignorant of all other existing religious traditions does not mean that you not impartial.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

199. Comment #159969 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 1:32 pm

154. Comment #159768 by Julius Morche

There are a lot of developments within the Catholic Church that trouble me, but the liturgy is surely not one of them. And since I only indulge in liturgy, not in exorcisms etc., it is not my job to worry about these things.

I can understand, and sympathise with, most of what you say, but the part I've quoted above worries me.
Can it be that you don't see that simply by being a member of the organisation, you imply acceptance of all it's actions? I'm afraid that, as one of them, it certainly is your job to worry about those things, and indeed to try and change them.

Here's a current example of the sort of thing I mean:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n09290708-pope-usa-abuse/

Not the abuse itself; that's not news, but the fact that Catholics are asking the pope to make reparation (rather than saying, as you are, that it isn't their concern).

Other Comments by Geoff

200. Comment #159991 by Quezcatol on April 13, 2008 at 1:50 pm

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON MAN!!!

Other Comments by Quezcatol