Comments by Sargeist

Comment #240488 by Peacebeuponme

Coulda done without seeing the harlequin baby pic though.

I agree. But given its horrific nature, it does back up the obvious answer to the problem of evil quite well.

Is it immoral of me to think that the best thing that could be done for that baby would have been a quick dose of morphine and a quick burial?

3. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240899 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 9:01 am

Cheers, Steve :)

This was a fun discussion. I'm probably back where I started, with a big jumble of things in my head. But I think I agree, basically, with what this few of us have been saying here. Yes, for me it is pretty much about cooperation and collaboration. And this is presumably because people mostly all behave the same. I always say mostly because of that hypothetical psychopathic individual who always scuppers the Kantian imperative by thinking all sorts of things could be made into a general law.

Right, I'd better be off. I may reappear later after some work has been achieved!

4. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240894 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 8:54 am

Hi Donald,

Yes, I agree, that is a better way to say what I (ought to have) said :)

This consequentialism leads on to tit-for-tat, I think, and helps to explain the evolution of cooperation. So, cooperation could be a result of having to deal with the biological fact that, even if I am top dog now, bodily decay and dysfunction means that, sooner or later, I will be at the mercy of people in the future who are like I am now. So I'd better encourage them to be nice by being nice, too.

5. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240891 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 8:42 am

Steve,

Now, you see, this is why I couldn't see what you and FK were arguing about! If there is a requirement for fairness (by which I mean that almost everyone wants it) and this is because we don't want to get shot after games of chess, or get smacked in the face (and hence, is pain-avoidance) then I would be perfectly happy to just define "good things" as being those actions that tend to help us all avoid being smacked in the face. And if we all have common biology then it will mostly be the case that our likes and dislikes will be broadly similar in this sort of respect. And so... maybe this means that, within any meaningful definition of "objective morality", morality based on pain-avoidance and happiness-increase could be said to be objective?

This is probably just utilitarianism, and I do not know enough about theories of ethics to continue with this point, but the upshot is that it looks as though slavery, par example, really was wrong even when people thought it was right.

6. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240884 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 8:25 am

I once had a little discussion with a friend about war. I said that I thought it was interesting how we fight each other to sort things out, which comes down to strength and money for weapons etc, but we could just as easily play chess, for example, to sort things out.

My friend's response was that let's say we sit down for a game of chess, and I beat him. He will then pull out a gun and shoot me.

It is in our nature to do these things and, much as it bothers me to say it, I sometimes think (amongst all the other things that I sometimes think) that ethics is just the art of what you can get away with.

An example I like to think of is wild animals. They just "do what they do". David Attenborough will go somewhere and say "Animal X, when presented with situation Y, will do actions from set Z", and this is possible only because animals pretty much just "do what they do." Is it "wrong" for a male lion to kill the younger cubs when he takes over a pride? We don't worry about these things because it's just what lions do. So, sometimes I think ethics is a waste of breath. And sometimes I don't. But I do wonder whether empathy is a disease that most other animals don't "suffer" from.

7. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240873 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 8:01 am

I know Quetz was being tongue-in-cheek, but I would probably take it seriously (sorry). I may be being very relativistic (which is why it takes me so long to type things - boom, boom) but any value words such as good, bad, fair, and so on surely have to be matters of opinion. They may end up being universally agreed matters of opinion, but they are opinions nonetheless.

Even fairness is an awkward one, I think, and just comes down to having to agree on what "fair" means. Maybe I am arguing in circles, I don't know. What I am trying to say is that you and I would have to agree on what "fair society" means, and then agree that we want it. Then all would be fine, until a 3rd person comes along who may have different ideas. We hope to end up in consensus, but I don't think that the issue of consistency is necessarily any more important than other ethical questions.

I am thinking now that one could view consistency in a logical way: I say that "X deserves Y" and you say that "Z is a kind of X, therefore it deserves Y". But then I could try to protect the exclusive access of X to Y by pointing out the ways in which X and Z differ, claiming that these differences mean that Z is not deserving of Y. You can then argue with me about why it does, and I say not, etc etc. So we would argue about what it means to be consistent, and this ends up being a matter of opinion, too.

Just cos I don't see a way out of it does not mean anything of course!

8. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240858 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 7:27 am

Steve,

On the other thread you said something like (I write from memory): If you impose rules against certain thoughts that are not liked, then you might find that you will become subject to them when different thoughts are not liked.

This ties in with your comment above:

I can't go around claiming, without a convincing proof, that I know the absolute truth, as I can't then ask that someone else proves their claim of knowing the absolute truth about something.

But, of course, I wonder: Why not? Is there not an assumption along the lines of "consistency is good" in there?

Now, I do think that consistency is good. And it tends to be the basis of a lot of the things I think. But I think that it is also the source of the slippery slope argument: "if we let them have/do that, then we'll have to let them have/do this." And yet slippery slopes are generally dismissed as fallacious.

9. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240856 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 7:16 am

The way I interpreted the ongoing (I assume) argument "elsewhere" on the site was that it was ultimately about what "the right ones" actually means...

The way I see it, if we cannot say that "right" is a fixed thing, then all we can do is do what we currently think is right at any particular time. The fact that things change is annoying for an absolutist approach to morality, but maybe we just have to live with that.

I worry about these things because there appear to be no ultimate right and wrong, just opinion. But is it the opinion of the majority? In which case, why does the majority agree that democracy should protect minorities? Is it just an accident? Maybe nothing "matters" in any "real" sense? But, what do those words "matter" and "real" mean anyway?

It all gets very awkward and annoying.

I like to think that our ethics are, sort of, entirely obvious and easy. Almost everyone agrees that being happy and free of pain is better than being miserable and in pain. This comes about through some brain chemistry or other, and so perhaps there is a biological basis for morality. But it bugs me a great deal because even if we think we are thinking rationally about something, it all comes down to a bunch of assumptions. Even the apparently simple idea that being happy is better than not being happy requires us to make a leap and state: "And that is what I mean by the distinction between good and bad."

But, going back to my "it's easy" musings - maybe it is all easy? Almost everyone prefers things to be one way rather than another, and so that makes it right. We have an in-built "conscience" through our evolved empathy, and this might be good enough.

Sorry for the rather rambling nature of this!

10. Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

Comment #240847 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 7:05 am

For those people here who are interested in the cutting edge of physics, there is a very informative video about the LHC on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM

11. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240844 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 6:58 am

Hi, Quetz.

Having been embroiled (in a purely lurking sense) in the moral absolutes & objectivity insurgence on Another Thread, when I read things such as the Irish abortion case I find myself wondering constantly now about "why do I think that is wrong?" It all seems to come down to a certain amount of "ick", a bit of "emotional reaction" and a sprinkling of "do unto others."

I've not read enough ethics, no doubt. But part of me really does think that our knee-jerk reactions could be a good basis for a system of ethics. But only because I happen to think my morals are the right ones! ;)

I possibly subscribe to a woolly, vague system of "subjective absolutism" or something. We are always right when we think we are right. But that doesn't mean that what we think is right doesn't often change. Not sure what use such an attitude has though!

12. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240840 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 6:48 am

Much as I often have some moral problems with abortion, this story was so horrifically awful, and so obviously a terrible product of the lunacy within the Catholic Church and its brainwashing that it really made me boil inside when I heard about it.

I mean, whatever one's thoughts about the killing of a foetus/embryo/baby/etc, surely one without a brain and missing most of its head cannot be regarded as something with a right to life?

Surely?

EDIT: Fortunately, it seems that sense prevailed (in the end):Here

But the quote that really makes me incandescent here is:

On the Saturday before the bank holiday that court refused the order, citing the Irish constitution's protection of the right to life of the unborn child.

Yes, that's right. The right to life of a body without a brain or much of its head.

Well, I suppose it could have gone on to get a job with the Irish Health Service.

13. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240739 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 1:43 am

"Is it possible," the Cardinal asked, "to agree that there are objective values for which we should have serious regard because of their implications for the good of society?"

Objective by whose standards, in what era?

Half a century ago, the objective values for which the Irish hierarchy had serious regard included obstructing a health service designed to protect the lives of mothers and their children: communism by another name, the Church howled. And the poor and their babies died in droves. Objectivity can be a very subjective matter.

Sorry for the comment attack, but this was also very good. In another thread there has been robust conversation about objective morality, and I think that the "objective by whose standards" bit is actually quite pertinent both there and here. I was going to quote more from the article, but realised I would end up pasting most of it into the comment box. The Catholic Church appears to never have given up its aims of political control.
This article covers nicely some of the ways in which religion and politics are a dangerous mixture. Can anyone sensibly refute the contention that women are actually much better off nowadays without Church interference? We hear so much about how religion encourages charity and the care of the weak and oppressed, but so often it appears that this so-called "charity" is performed only as a way of brainwashing the masses, or of trying to convince people that their suffering brings them closer to god.

And they object very strongly to being told that they are slavering monsters of depravity because they don't believe in a supernatural being.

Too right. Although I am trying hard to be more monstrous. Just can't quite manage it.

14. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240734 by Sargeist on September 1, 2008 at 1:36 am

Except clubs don't work that way; certainly the Roman Catholic Church club does not. You're in and you keep the rules, or you get out.

I like this. The missing part in a lot of religion, though, is the realisation on the part of its members that they are allowed to leave the club if they don't like what it is doing or where it is headed. They could always try to get on "the Board" and change it from the inside, but it might just be better to split off and make your own club.

This might be the only way that Islam can be modified into something less dangerous - get enough people wanting it to be something else, and start a breakaway group. Not that I am confident it would work very quickly, but over time we might just find that enough people prefer being treated nicely and things might change. This is my hope, anyway. It happened with Christianity, so I have my hopes.

15. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #240298 by Sargeist on August 31, 2008 at 9:53 am

It is always a touch dangerous to assume that anything one reads in a newspaper is correct.

Anyway, it is interesting to compare the wording between the previous and new signs:

He used the same layers of fossils to show the slow changes that are taking place over the millennia of earth history, each small change enabling a species to adapt to the rigours of its environment - the struggle for survival, through the natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest

That's the new version. The only differences between this and the previous wording are: that the missing "adapt to" has been inserted; that the incorrect apostrophe has been corrected; and that the phrase "that had supported the Genesis view of evolution" has been removed.

The question, I suppose, is whether saying that fossils had been used to support Genesis is inaccurate, or not. My assumption would be that fossils did not support Genesis, but people simply worked out a way in which they could be absorbed into the already accepted story.

In any case, it seems rather odd to cover it up. The only lesson I can take from this is that someone should have rung up the museum and asked them about it before some of us got annoyed and wrote emails/letters.

16. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239590 by Sargeist on August 30, 2008 at 1:23 am

Steve,

But their focus on people of "foreign descent" is rather troubling. How do they define that? Dare I suggest that colour might come into it?

Offering certain people money to encourage them to leave is tantamount to saying "we think we'd be happier without you", I contend. And that would not lead to a nice background sentiment towards many citizens, even if they are not planning on throwing them out.

(I know you weren't trying to justify the BNP, just show that Fanusi is more extreme than they are - I presume)

17. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239585 by Sargeist on August 30, 2008 at 12:59 am

She might cite the curious paradox, noted by Richard Dawkins, that selfish genes get together and produce selfless people.

What? I just find myself sitting here at the laptop so often these days, struggling to find something else to say other than a gob-smacked "what?!"

Articles like this worry me greatly. Like most people, I presume, I like to think that I think sensibly and rationally, but articles such as this demonstrate that one can be an absolute fuckwit, seemingly without realising it.

18. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239417 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Carto,

Don't worry. Edison Chen might be enough to set you back to normal.

19. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239412 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Ah, my mistake. The logic was indeed unavoidably excellent.

Although Imam bots would need to be kitted out in full cricket whites.

20. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239409 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Quetz,

You'll only start a horde of angry Imams entering Masterchef, ready to take control of this heathen nation by basting our butts with their hairy batter.

21. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239402 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I've just had a great few minutes chortling over "Wiquran" and "granny frenzy" while trying to get my not-really-Muslim-at-all gf to laugh.

Oh well. Back to the old drawing board.

New slogan for Decius' plan:

"From Wicked-pedo to Wikipedia"

22. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239397 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm

decius:

Hairy imams!

I'm cured!

23. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239390 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Rachel,

I thought that, too, when I was in there once. Turned out I'd wandered down the Mexican food aisle.

24. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239388 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Diacanu,

You are right! They were completely out when I got to the shop.

Thank goodness you and I are talking about the important things in this thread. I must go now, though, to whack Quetz with the world's densest smallest violin...

25. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239379 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm

\begin{run off to "Goodle" John Constantine}
...
ooh! Keanu Reeves!

I am more partial to Christian Bale and Robert Downey Jr. Not that I am aware of their preferences.

It is "simpler" being homo- or hetero- because the fact that I am about 80-20 or 90-10 F-M preferenced means that, in some sense, I am straight, but just mildly kinked at times.

Anyway: David Bowie, Alan Cumming, Bai Ling, Drew Barrymore, Hans Christian Andersen, and many others in the very handy Wikipedia "List of bisexual people". Though there seem to be far more women than men in the list.

EDIT: Egads! This thread is rapidly moving quickly much faster now.

26. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239363 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:51 pm

CFL (et al)

And we poor minoritised bisexuals are left in the gutter, to turn to dust, our sexual habits regarded with suspicion by the gays and the straights. Oh woe is me, for what role models do I have?

[/drama]

27. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239360 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Rachel,

Gotta be careful with arguing about such "cut and dried" issues like the atomic bomb! ;)

28. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239344 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I was pretty sure (as sure as I can be in this maelstrom of recrimination) that Fanusi was advocating punishment of those actively speaking out in favour of violent jihad.

This is why I am confused. We have laws covering hate speech, and incitement to violence. I am not sure what the "extra" bit is, other than that people seem to be saying that individuals should be rounded up and shoved out of the country by force. It has been suggested that Fanusi and TWP were even proposing deportation without trial, but I can't believe that.

It looks to me, from my admittedly weary viewpoint, as though this has all got so worked up that everything has become clouded.

Oh well.

29. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239339 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:24 pm

179. Comment #239334 by al-rawandi

al,

That's the bit I am a bit lost with, too. To be frank, though, this has gone on for so long that I am entirely lost. I am in favour of deporting foreign citizens who commit crime - after they have served their sentence here (just to ensure they get one), but if someone is a citizen of the country in which they committed the crime, well there is nowhere to "send them back to". But I also gathered that there was a suggestion that people who were not "originally" citiens of a country could be deported to the country of which they used to be citizens. But this only works if that person has multiple citizenships. Many countries do not permit you to be a citizen of them and another state. So, the X-ish person gains Y-ish citizenship and has to stop being X-ish (officially). Hence, country X would say "not our problem any more".

All this stuff about one commenter offending another has got me sidetracked, whereas it would be nice to just get a straightforward explanation of what is supposed to happen in the "tricky" circumstances.

Even the response: "we stick them on a raft and let the stateless bastards float around the Atlantic" is at least a response.

30. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239333 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I hope that, in time, when enough people refer to their "civil partner" as, appropriately, husband or wife, then we can all just call a civil partnership "marriage", and I for one will be much happier :)

31. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239170 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 7:34 am

Unused graveyard?

I have an unused graveyard in my bathroom at home.

32. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #239128 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 5:53 am

Did anyone say: "Civilisation shall not achieve perfection until the last stone from the last church has fallen on the last priest", or were they misquoting Diderot?

33. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239101 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:55 am

Historical contingency is an interesting thing.

For example: consider, if you will, Jeri Ryan, the very attractive actress who is perhaps best known for portraying the ex-Borg Seven of Nine in Star Trek: Voyager. She was married to Jack Ryan, who was later to run for the Senate as Republican candidate. They divorced over, it appears, Jeri and Jack's incompatibility over the desire to perform sexual acts at adult clubs. As a result, Jack Ryan pulled out of the campaign for the Senate, leaving the Democratic candidate without his expected opponent. That Democratic candidate was Barack Obama.

So, I like to think that if Jeri Ryan had been more into kinky sex games, Obama would possibly not now be so close to the Presidency.

Funny how things turn out.

And now, back to your usual programming...

34. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239091 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:33 am

Isn't "alternative history" as a means of making decisions a little dangerous because of the problem of hindsight? It can be interesting to think, "ooh, what if Dunkirk had gone differently" but we only say now, as another example, that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "good" because of the effect that we know they had. If things had turned out differently, we'd have a load of other people saying: "well, any fool could have seen that it was a bad idea". If we knew at time t0 what would happen under different options, then everything would be so much better. But the world most often doesn't behave that way.

35. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239087 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:21 am

Telic,

I agree, if only because I know how the press can distort things, without even meaning to.

But it is explicitly stated that it has been confirmed that there was a complaint, and that:

A spokesman for Northampton Borough Council said the sign was covered up due to the original complaint and also because of its poor syntax.

We have to assume that the "offence" that might be caused was not simply due to its poor grammar.

So, there was first the reported speech that staff confirmed there had been a religiously based complaint. Then a spokesman confirmed that there had been an "original complaint" and then a problem with poor grammar.

36. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #239082 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:11 am

Crusade:

1) Take crucifix
2) Mix with carbonated water
3) Serve with pieces of spiritually alive, metaphorical, symbolic flesh
4) And a slice of lemon.

37. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239077 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:54 am

Fanusi,

I read the long posts on the RD.net forum about Saudi Arabia, by the doctor who was working over there for some time. They brought me close to tears but mostly to the brink of apoplexy because of the dreadful things that go on over there. I don't even think that my normal flirtations with moral relativism come into play - the things that go on over there are an affront to fundamental human-natured decency towards others. My mind boggled so many times I thought I was going to lose it. What can we do? Are the general public over there happy to go along with such a dreadful "society"? If we could empower women, would they want to see an end to what most of us regard as their mistreatment?

The reason I ask these questions is that there is a danger that we will say: "Well, they are only allowing themselves to be treated that way because they are unable to fight back." And then, if we give them the means to fight back, but they continue to live like that we would say "They have been brainwashed into accepting it."

Much as I do feel that Saudi Arabia is run like a mad-house, I cannot but help thinking that I would be, effectively, saying: "You cannot be making an informed choice, because you are not making my preferred choice." And, my comments about fundamental decency notwithstanding, I cannot see how to get around what I see as a logical problem there.

Perhaps I am unduly worrying: people do want to be happy, and this is no doubt why the "Western" capitalist society is so attractive to people.

38. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #239074 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:47 am

Quetz,

If I go around being quite vocal about why religion is false and why a non-belief in god is the only sensible approach, given the lack of any real evidence to back up the god hypothesis, can this not be regarded as a crusade for atheism?

39. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239063 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:37 am

Not being a US citizen, and seeing all this from the cross-Atlantic POV, I only know what the news media tell me, and what I have been bothered to watch. It looks like just a, as usual, Democrat vs Republican contest. And given that I think John McCain would be a disaster (though I do like his oven chips), I have to therefore assume I would be happier with Obama.

Watching Obama on TV recently, I found myself wondering why he hasn't used "08ama" as his election logo. Would be quite clever, I think.

Anyway, in the USA, surely everyone running for office is going to seem at least slightly religious. Anyway, he may just be the best of a bad lot. I was hoping that Hilary would've made it, actually. She's quite hot. Kind of.

40. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239058 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:23 am

92. Comment #239053 by Chris_The_Positivist

Who is totting up evil?

I am. You're not trying hard enough. Come on, a bit more naughtiness is required. Of all of you. You know who you are.

On the topic of politics, I hope Obama wins. Almost entirely because of xkcd and "Barack me, Obamadeus".

(Cannot find the link! Argh!)

41. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239055 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:05 am

Wrysmile,

Yes, sadly it is in the UK. If Francis Crick were alive today he'd be turning in his grave,

42. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239054 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:05 am

51. Comment #238914 by skip:

I've had a look at the pictures - pretty nice. However, I am pretty sure that "ancestory" is not the correct spelling (or, a variant spelling) of "ancestry". Those naughty museum display designers!

43. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239050 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:44 am

Raiko,

Is it telling, or not, that we're not told what the offensive wording supposedly is/was?

I thought that the end of the article, where it shows the "Third paragraph that is causing all the fuss" was the offensive wording.

I am hoping that

each small change enabling a species to [adapt to] the rigours of it's (sic) environment

is merely missing the bit I have put in square brackets by some newspaper editor, and not that it is written like that on the sign itself.

We may find out that the newspaper has it all wrong. No doubt we shall find out when some commenters here get responses to their emails.

44. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239048 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:41 am

Fanusi,

The fact is, and regardless of whether or not you agree with the whole axis of evil thing (I have my own reservations), the governments of Ba'athist Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are pure evil.

Can we include Saudi Arabia in there, too, please? Though I am not sure if they are evil or just galactically stupid.

45. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239044 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:36 am

I am deeply offended, nay, shuddering with appalled obsessiveness at the apostrophe debacle, but also at the fact that none of you (no, none of you) seem to have noticed "Chronocle".

I've just been looking at the original article, and one of the comments has pointed out that Francis Crick was born in Northampton (well, in a village on the edge of Northampton).

46. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #239041 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:19 am

Well, I'd probably go on a date with many of you. Or, just a meeting. Or, maybe wave at you from across the street, or from the back of the cinema. In the dark. When you weren't in your seat yet.

;)

47. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239039 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:14 am

I suppose that, ultimately, anything that can be "answered" is a scientific question. Science is just a "way of finding out" that places more emphasis on evidence-gathering than personal opinion. Isn't it?

So, in principle, we could learn enough about brain structure and chemistry to find out what it is about the neuronal configurations that change when we are shown certain art, and then link these changes to the parts of the brain that represent "pleasure".

48. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238672 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Al,

Generally scholar use qiyas (Syllogism) to arrive at the conclusion that any intoxicant is forbidden.

Well, actually, that would make some sense!

Right off to watch telly for me, now. Bye!

49. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238669 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:05 pm

_{I rather enjoy Tera's posts...}

50. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238666 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Al,

One of the "best" things about a really old book full of rigid rules is that if it says "wine" then, hey presto! it only means wine! So, cocaine, beer, poppers (quite handy with those young boys) and any number of other things might well be perfectly allowable.

Not sure why smoking is permitted. Surely the addiction and total mental derangement that results from being a slave to nicotine must count as being ever so slightly not-in-the-right-mind?

(EDIT: I should clarify that the "mental derangement" part was not saying that smokers are mentally deranged (though I think their actions are ill-advised). I was commenting more on the desperation that some people will exhibit when craving for a cigarette. Just wanted to clear that up!)