Comments by Corylus

Comment #313973 by Corylus on January 6, 2009 at 4:23 pm

I'm liking the bus photo on the home page. Well done Josh.

*Sings The Wheels on the Bus go round and round... in a happy way*

2. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313968 by Corylus on January 6, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Meh. Ask Mike.

This dormouse needs her sleep :-)

3. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313959 by Corylus on January 6, 2009 at 4:11 pm

4. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313953 by Corylus on January 6, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Brian...

5. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313316 by Corylus on January 6, 2009 at 2:49 am

I just saw on the front page the first line of a post..

Comment #313313 by Sarmatae1:

My wife thinks I'm in the bathroom this has to be quick.

Not that type of site I thought!

Heh. Sorry for lowering the tone - just thought I would let you know you gave me a fit of the giggles.

6. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313309 by Corylus on January 6, 2009 at 2:26 am

Comment #313307 by Quine:

I have done Aikido for almost 30 years now, so you know I know you know

Book recommendation.

Angry White Pajamas.

Very entertaining book on aikido training.

7. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313288 by Corylus on January 6, 2009 at 1:50 am

DG

Have you ever had to take charity? It’s not pleasant. Charitable giving is something that people are told they can do (and feel good about themselves for doing it); while the people that receive it are told they must accept and feel grateful in response.

The fun and the freedom are somewhat unevenly distributed. Maybe you don’t understand what the (proper) purpose of charity is.

It is simply this: to negate the need for its own existence.

Disaster relief is a good example of this – repairing a suddenly destroyed infrastructure so that that people can function again.

Giving money that supports people at subsistence level without providing ways for them to get out off their dreadful situations is not charity – it is self indulgence. It also has the side effect of allowing governments out of their responsibility to provide a basic standard of living for their citizens. This perpetuates the need for the charity. Personally, I think it better to fight for people's rights instead of their gratitude.

Thought experiment: If there existed a society where there was no need for charity would this mean that the inhabitants of it were living a “less good” life?

8. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313187 by Corylus on January 5, 2009 at 10:42 pm

Comment #313139 by jgirolamo:

nope, but I did not click on the link so all I know is what you said.

When you come back I hope you will explain why you do not click on links. I don’t understand your position on this and I would like to. I can think of several possible reasons:

1) Perhaps you are worried about practical issues concerning internet use. For example, picking up a virus or being sent to a phishing site. If you have an up-to-date virus checker, do not download anything other than a PDF file, and remember never to give out any passwords online this is nothing to be concerned about.

2) Perhaps you are concerned about being directed to a site that contains material that you would consider offensive (extreme sexual content/violence etc.) It is extremely rare that anyone posts a link to anything that is genuinely off the scale, in fact I have only seen this twice in the two years I have been on here (and interestingly enough one of these links was posted by a Christian). If it is any help I have been happily looking at some of the links people have posted on this thread and have been learning stuff. I haven’t looked at them all, but I really don’t think you need to be concerned on this.

3) You are worried that someone with access to your computer might view the sites that you have been looking at. You just need to delete your ‘history’ if this is the case. When online you should have tabs at the top of the page (one marked history) – go from there. If this does not appear just press just the F1 button at the top left of your keyboard – this opens your computer’s ‘help’ menu and you can get instruction that way.

4) You have been told by someone not to click on links. If this is the case, what reasons did they give and do you think that have any right to tell you what to do?

5) You just don’t want to.

If it is #5 that’s OK.

However, you must understand that this:

a) makes people feel as though all of their evidence is not being viewed by you. Imagine someone only listening to the first two words that you say in any sentence. I’m thinking you would get frustrated after a time.

b) makes them wonder what precisely it is that you are trying so desperately to avoid.

If there is some other reason, please say what it is. I am genuinely interested about what is behind this.

9. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311749 by Corylus on January 4, 2009 at 5:37 am

Comment #311740 by Sarmatae1:

What a waste of time.

Well I found reading your posts very interesting, so I don't think so.

(My studies involving statistics were some time ago).

10. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #311743 by Corylus on January 4, 2009 at 5:30 am

Comment #311735 by Bernstein:

Perhaps the distinction is obvious but a fine one. The difference between not allowing certain parents to have a child and taking it away from them at some later point is analogous to denying some people the right to marry and denying it to them only if they actually wanted to get married.

We are all aware of your views on all types of marriage.

I am asking you politely to please give it a rest and not send this thread off on a tangent.

Thank you.

11. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311502 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 2:43 pm

Brian

I'm not sure how Clifford gets past the fact that we must act sometimes without evidence for beliefs.

Sometimes we act without sufficient evidence certainly, but do we ever act without any evidence? Is a blank slate capable of action?

Being sensible about the limits of our knowledge is a separate question to our duty to try to expand it.

I know of no way to show them wrong (I'm pretty thick) except to appeal to the great edifice of science, which of course, is not showing the fundamental assumption of science is justified.

So why not concentrate on the ethics rather than the epistemology?

12. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311481 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Brian

Actually, you have sufficient evidence for saying that it is not safe - I believe I have mentioned on board the fact that I am extremely short-sighted.

With some situations it might be better not to look for affirmative proof, but instead look for a disproving observation...

13. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311478 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 1:58 pm

Decius,

Brian's only playing, he knows I'm not gonna pull out a killer refutation to Hume out of my furry little butt - he is just making me work a bit :-)

Steve

This is why I think education can (and does) work against religious belief. Because most people do want to think that what they believe is reasonable.

I agree, but I would add (personal hobby horse!) that some education in psychology in a school curriculum would be a good plan.

Teach kids the mechanisms by which they can be manipulated and find themselves playing along.

[Edit: this is also about being about to recognise BS is all of its manifestations - people are absolute mugs where advertising is concerned]

14. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311473 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Brian

I thought Clifford's point was that all beliefs had to be evidenced.

Close but no cigar :-)

It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe. [my emphasis]

Yes, you get the asked what is sufficient evidence, but you can make the point that; where the well-being of others is an issue; then the evidence should be pretty damn good.

15. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311467 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm

Brian

I understand where you are coming from. Our poor wee brains mess with us and all of our resolutions, including those on acting rationally, come to nothing.*

However this does not effect the general principle that we should always try to seek evidence for belief. In fact, modern day psychology; with it's understanding of cognitive bias; can help us (try to) control for our prejudices, and also keep us humble about what we consider to be factually true.

----

*Unless we are cunning and set ourselves easily achievable goals. My personal New Year's resolution is to remember to moisturise and (barring the occasionally drunken flopping into bed with my make up on) I think I might just manage to keep this one...

16. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311461 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Steve,

This essay be found here.

The language is a bit old fashioned, but the point it makes about us having a moral duty to seek evidence for our views (because we risk hurting people if we don’t) is still completely relevant.

In relation to private reason this point really does need to be made.

Paula I think you will like this too – if you haven’t already read it that is! It is pretty much what you were saying.

Thanks Quine I admit I do have a habit of recycling things

17. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311445 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 11:42 am

Baron

Everything?

How about

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
Timothy 5:23

I like that one :-(

Heh. Even if it is alternative medicine!

----

Steve

I feel less sure that I have in the past about the separation between public reason and private reason.

I do understand where you are coming from. Yes it is true that beliefs inform actions in a variety of ways and countries are made up of individuals. Therefore worries about simple distinctions are justified.

(BTW have you read Clifford’s Ethics of Belief?)

However, I don’t think we need to get disheartened, this is because the emphasis on high standards for public reason decision making has the wonderful side effect of making people investigate their presuppositions relating to private decision making.

If evidence is required for private views to be given weight in the public sphere (and let’s be honest they often are given weight without it at the moment) then this very demand can aid thought and foster discussion. Even if this doesn’t make people think it really does rein in excesses.

Remember, properly reasoned governments are only in their baby stages worldwide. If the distinction between public and private reason does not work then we will know soon enough. Until then I remain optimistic about fostering secularism.

With regard to specific issues such as the environment then it should be possible for public reason to help with the implementation of initiatives that foster responsible behaviour (tax breaks for environmentally friendly companies for example).

18. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #311438 by Corylus on January 3, 2009 at 10:53 am

Bugger!

I have just spent some time writing out a mediating post about the distinction between public and private reason only to find that Steve and Paula have managed to settle their friendly disagreement without any help whatsoever from me.

It’s not needed now. Hmpf. Damn unreasonable, fundamentalist atheists :-)

19. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #311074 by Corylus on January 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm

Gustavus29

Why have I provoked such a hostile reaction?

Most people on here appear to be laughing rather than hostile.

Friendly advice: you have made yourself look a bit of a wally. When you are in a hole stop digging.

I have bought items from this website, as have my loved ones, and we have a right to know exactly what our money is doing to do the world.

What would you do if I said that I didn't believe you and wanted to see your credit card statement as proof?

Seriously - go and take a walk and only come back when you willing to stop throwing accusations of dishonesty about, and retract those you have made.

You really have been extremely rude you know.

20. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309798 by Corylus on December 31, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Happy New Year GT :-)

21. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309790 by Corylus on December 31, 2008 at 3:35 pm

skb

I scarcely know where to start.

Let’s begin though with the simple misunderstanding. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that you are being told to engage in acts that you are not comfortable with.

I love women and i would rather spend my life with them than with a dude. It's just the way iam.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Personally I don’t give a stuff what floats your boat, however, as a general principle I like to see other people happy and surrounded by people that care about them. This makes me happy. Were I to see you in a photograph with a girlfriend smiling and happy, I would probably smile in response.

I told you already Iam sorry for offending you personally, but im not sorry for not endorsing gayness. So accusing me of homophobia is just not plain right. It looks like everyone who doesn't support homosexuality is homophic to you.

You are confusing support with participation. We are not forcing a lifestyle choice upon you. All that is being asked is that you extend the same sense of fellow feeling and care towards those with different inclinations that we happily and freely give to you.

For example, I have seen Steve’s wedding photos: they made me smile. I simply see no reason not to be happy at the sight of happy people. If you can explain to be how I am morally depraved at not making the distinction that you do – by all means, make a case.

It's funny you don't detect rudeness in your posts.

I spent a moment sucking in my teeth in response to that one, but I have to ask...

Who taught you manners?

I am not talking about etiquette here. N.B. This is generally about contrived ritualistic behaviour that is only of use to the shallow social climbers, but manners. In case you are not aware - manners concerns showing consideration for the feelings and the worth of others. This is important in social situations whatever the levels of intimacy. Yes, the written word tends to be formalised and structured, but still concern can still be shown. You consider how you would feel receiving you own words addressed to yourself.

It’s really very, very easy.

I don’t wish to upset Cartomancer, who is a sweet, kind man, but I have to repeat some of your words to make a point. I have highlighted some terms that I found relevant.

Your believe system is not just scary, but also evil and depraved of morality. God has probably given you to uncleanness through the lusts of your own heart, to dishonour your own body between you and your homosexual friend. This is just too creepy and i am sorry you have found reasons to justify such sins are pornography, homosexuality and such. When and where did you come to settle the lie that gayness is a wonderful, natural behavior' I mean your welcome to believe whatever, but this sir is going too far with you... nothing i read from your post was informative except a justification for sin. I think with these signs of evil and men running away from the faith, we are nearing Armageddon, it's really a burden that you will cary to the lake of fire. And who told you homosexulity was not a condemned sexual deviance' have you been to the world lately' Most people hate homosexuality, it's a dumb thing only practiced by the low self esteemed.

With this post you (in order) made accusations of evil, depravity, 'uncleanliness', dishonour,‘creepiness’, ‘sinfulness’, lying, lack of factual knowledge, evil (again), being hellbound, deviant, a subject of hate and demonstrating a lack of self esteem.

Have you ever been accused of these things by a total stranger? Any of them? Much less all of them in one sitting?

I really, really have to say to you. It's funny you don't detect rudeness in your posts.

Actually, it's not funny. Not at all.

22. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #309353 by Corylus on December 31, 2008 at 4:00 am

I enjoyed your Barbie story Titania.

If I had thought of that I would have saved by parents some money...

My sister and I were only ever bought one Barbie doll each and then given distinctly different types of toys.

I’m afraid I got into trouble for cutting off a large proportion of my one’s hair (I wanted a ‘punk barbie’ with a “Mohican” haircut). My sister got into even more trouble for getting over enthusiastic and literal minded when playing ‘doctors’ with hers (suture marks drawn on with indelible ink).

Ha. Thank heavens for little girls...

----

Happy New Year All.

23. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309345 by Corylus on December 31, 2008 at 3:34 am

Cartomancer Thoroughly agree. I going to make a small effort at education though.

I seriously doubt that he will look at it my link but it is worth a try, if only for lurkers rather than the individual himself.

----

skb here is a little story for you to read about what’s wrong with gay sex.

If you are going to argue the morality of such things it might save us all some considerable time if you realise how the arguments have been addressed before.

24. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309316 by Corylus on December 31, 2008 at 1:43 am

Wosret

Fun fact. It is not only a question of dummy drug only working a bit or a lot. They can actually make you feel worse. See the lesser known nocebo effect for an explanation.

Moral of the story – don’t read the side effects leaflet you get with any drugs.

It is a strange mind that of this species of primate. I am constantly amused, shocked, amazed, thrilled, saddened, awe-struck, and disgusted.

Yep. Nothing like the noggin for messing with you.

25. Darwin shouldn't be hijacked by New Atheists - he is an ethical inspiration

Comment #308763 by Corylus on December 30, 2008 at 11:36 am

David Roberston

The fact that your 'rebuttal' of it begins by nitpicking over the title of the book, and offers no substantive rebuttal, is perhaps indicative that Bunting is quite right.

Is it nitpicking to note that when someone gets the title of a book they are discussing wrong, then this is indicative of someone whose research skills are lacking?

Personally, I have noticed that people are very seldom quite right when they make no effort to get it right.

Sigh, 'tis doubtless one of my prejudices as a fundamentalist atheist...

26. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #308151 by Corylus on December 29, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Always a difficult period - that gap between Christmas and New Year.

The bonhomie wears off and all you are left with is the feeling of nausea that arises when you perceive the unpleasant fruitcake left on the sideboard.

Arh well. It wouldn't be Christmas without it.

27. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307511 by Corylus on December 28, 2008 at 5:10 am

Brian

Was it not a faint memory of the pre-rational Hazel's experience that lead you after all if you don't count the pre-rational by what rational reason would you bother?

I am sure that there is an element of that – we don’t approach family situations de novo after all.

I imagine you'd do it for reasons that come down to human nature or am I being a tad empiricist?

You want to talk empiricism, now!? Dude, what time of the night is it for you??

I'd go as far to say that I trust all people (in proportion) who have not given me reason not to trust.

Sounds reasonable... if not rational ;-)

28. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307501 by Corylus on December 28, 2008 at 4:52 am

Brian

Which totally ignores the question of what you did when you were too young to choose and that's who you were stuck with. Did you she earn that trust?

Can the pre-rational conceptualise trust in the adult manner that we are both talking about? With no notion of betrayal is trust a word that can be used in this context?

Tell you what. Would you be happier if I noted that she did not earn my trust when I was too young to make this distinction (even though she always acted in a manner that would have earned the trust of an adult), but continues to do so today?

P.S. Sorry, I'm having fun arguing as you might notice with my trolling of Dianelos.

Yes, I know :-)

29. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307491 by Corylus on December 28, 2008 at 4:34 am

Brian

did your mother earn your trust?

Yes, everyday. That's one of the reasons I love her :-)

To me this is why a statement that trust is earned seems not correct in some, probably the most important, cases.

However, I do understand where you are coming from Brian, so I think it is important to clarify further.

The problem when talking about trust is that there are different types.

1) Trust that we place in organisations. (N.B we do have to be cautious here though in that we can’t always split trust simply into a public/private distinction. Not least because public institutions consist of individuals that we can get to know)

2) trust that we place in people due to a Professional role (doctors etc.)

3) trust that we place in our family and friends, and finally

4) trust that we place in strangers to act in a sensible fashion.

I think you are right in that Hume’s problem of induction is relevant, but I suspect mainly in the last case.

For example, when standing on a station platform I “trust” that other commuters will not push me under a train. I may well be mistaken on this one – but I simply have to live with this small but nagging doubt. So I agree that this trust is unearned, but necessary.

So, yes, it is true that “the statement trust is earned seems not correct in some cases”. You have me on that one :-) However, I am not sure that you have me on the most important types of trust being unearned this is because...

We still need to work out:

a) A definition of trust that stops us conflating public and private types.

b) What types of trust we feel are most important and

c) What types of breach of trust we find most egregious.

30. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307467 by Corylus on December 28, 2008 at 4:07 am

Bernstein

And your solution is simply to privilege theirs over mine? How I would act and the decisions I would make depend on a lot of things; not just cold and hard "rationality". In a simplified universe, perhaps; but not the one we live in.

I am sure that Steve will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that he is advocating impartiality not ‘cold and hard “rationality”’ (whatever exactly you mean by that). You appear to be presuming that he is taking a much stronger position than he actually is.

I read him as saying simply this:

When looking at morality; especially but not always; in terms of societal obligations it is often a good idea to bracket (set aside) notions of personal interest. This is because an understanding of what would be a general good, as opposed to an individual one, can help with settling debates over certain issues.

This is not about a denial of individual feelings, emotions and desires, (not least because the notion of value free decision making is problematic) it is simply about realising that we do not exist in splendid isolation.

Of course your feelings are you own and relevant to you, but in order to settle disputes we do need a method of adjudicating between competing claims. It may well be that purely rational decisions are impossible. However, an understanding of what would be required or advised by an idealised ‘rational’ observer can add insight.

That’s all.

Brian

But we take the accreditization organization on trust in any case.

Yes, but this point is valid insofar as you talk about organisations and not individuals. With organisations we have recourse to legislation after breach of trust (self-interest does seem act as a guarantor of better behaviour :-) with individuals we very rarely do.

This is why trust is assumed in some cases and earned in others.

31. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #307407 by Corylus on December 28, 2008 at 1:46 am

Skb

But the thing is that what pascal said is still in need of consideration to this day.

Hmm - I take it you don't agree with the conclusion that the proper response to Pascal's Wager is that...

Only nontheists go to heaven.

32. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #307129 by Corylus on December 27, 2008 at 8:42 am

Tom Morris

It's sad that there is so much anti-philosophy rhetoric here.

Agreed.

33. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #306255 by Corylus on December 24, 2008 at 8:43 am

Mitchell

Is that you being a bad boy??

34. Would you Adam and Eve it? Quarter of science teachers would teach creationism (Response by Dawkins and Jones)

Comment #306249 by Corylus on December 24, 2008 at 8:24 am

Dear me, why do morons always want to play at meta-ethics?

GBG

Now, do you believe that what these Nazis did to thse Jews was wrong? I'm not asking whether you empathise but whether you think it was morally wrong. Or is it just a matter of opinion?

Do they not understand just how much of their own moral inadequacy and lack of compassion they display?

[sarc]

Empathy!! Pfft. Nasty intersubjective, inadequate, irrelevant thing. Cold prescriptive, reified, theistically derived moral facts – obviously that is what the world needs.

Not peace, love and understanding. No. Bloody useless that type of thing.

[/sarc]

----
Anyway, Happy Xmas to all sane individuals on here - a significant proportion of you (even though I have never met you in the flesh) I have become fond of.

XXX

35. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #304601 by Corylus on December 21, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Onanism

Arh yes, from the biblical character Onan.

When my grandmother got a parrot I wanted her to call it Onan due to its habit of throwing its seed on the ground.

She didn't like the idea for some reason.

36. Secularists' vital war on religion

Comment #304585 by Corylus on December 21, 2008 at 11:32 am

Anvil

His [Grayling's] short collection of essays - Against All Gods - is my choice of present for family waverers:

He has several other collections of essays out, all good present material IMHO. (I liked The Heart of Things best.)

37. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #304579 by Corylus on December 21, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment 66 above, is completely uncalled for and evidently written by an exceedingly nasty individual.

Not well named though as I he doesn't appear to have any.

38. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?

Comment #304494 by Corylus on December 21, 2008 at 5:39 am

Well I waded my way through it. I always keep an eye out for the inevitable denigration. It comes on page 9.

The new atheists seem to resist the notion of Yahweh's rightful prerogatives over humans precisely because they seem uncomfortable with the idea of judgment in any form.

Yep – we throw out the moral injunctions of the bible not because the fictional Yahweh acted abysmally, but because we want to get on with our sinful practises without being stopped.

Yeah right.

Anyway moral actions tend to be fostered by how much you think and how much you feel – not with ‘rightful prerogatives over humans’.

10 pages of turgid writing to hang onto the notion that theism equals morality. Dear me.

Mind you, if you plump up your self-image with the notion that atheists are, by definition, less moral than your good self then them questioning the moral actions of your exemplar will sting.

N.B Some theists are honest enough to admit that morality is not about following ancient texts, but about how we deal with each other. However, I don’t seem to hear from them very often.

39. Turkey bans biologist Richard Dawkins' website

Comment #304066 by Corylus on December 20, 2008 at 8:57 am

Comment #304040 by heretic_anatolian:

Im also Turkish atheist. We are suffering from islamization of Turkey during AKP islamic party.

Small consolation, but this is being noticed and reported upon.

See this article from the BBC yesterday.

40. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #303831 by Corylus on December 19, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #303816 by Steve Zara:

As it is Christmas, I'll give you a present you don't deserve. A reply.

Personally, I'd told him to stick his holly where the sun don't shine, but that's just me.

41. The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom

Comment #302410 by Corylus on December 17, 2008 at 2:38 am

Brian, if Hume were alive he would be beaming with pride :-)

42. Warning: A Truckload of Stupid

Comment #301914 by Corylus on December 16, 2008 at 3:41 am

Ivan

"But in reality belief in God does not require a divorce from science. It simply requires faith in something that cannot be proven."

WTF?

Echoes of Hebrew 11 in that one.

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. ... 3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

As you say WTF??

Incidentally, if the author of this is reading this, might I recommend the reading all of Hebrews 11 as instruction on what faith is and what it is not.

17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.

Yep – atheism as faith that really works. [/sarc]

43. Orangutan's Spontaneous Whistling Opens New Chapter In Study Of Evolution Of Speech

Comment #301522 by Corylus on December 15, 2008 at 3:14 am

Van Youngman

My first question is when would homo sapiens have started to whistle.

In response to tuition from Lauren Bacall.

44. Tiktaalik: The Music Video

Comment #301253 by Corylus on December 14, 2008 at 8:07 am

Bluebird,

PM for you.

45. How to stop creationism gaining a hold in Islam

Comment #301123 by Corylus on December 13, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Steve,

You (and Roger) have taught me new things and I would be very sorry to see either of you go.

46. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #301121 by Corylus on December 13, 2008 at 2:43 pm

anyegin

I have to respond before leaving you all.

Ha! Careful this place is addictive...

47. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #301118 by Corylus on December 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Worset,

Dianelos is a bloke. I recall him saying some time ago. Not that gender makes any difference to the questions being discussed, of course, but I thought I would just save you some of the s/he him/her ing :-)

48. Vatican tightens in vitro opposition

Comment #301116 by Corylus on December 13, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Comment #301112 by Metch:

Do humanist organizations respond to these Vatican statements?

Yep. You might enjoy the Center for Inquiry’s recent press release on this.

49. Richard Dawkins interviews Derren Brown

Comment #300767 by Corylus on December 12, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Swordmaiden

Hope I haven't lost all credibility on this site with my last post....be gentle with me!

Why would you lose credibility by being honest? :-)

There has been talk of multiple personality, but there is whole 'nother possibility here.

...In all other ways my ex was "normal"; not a depressive or anything (other than being an arrogant arsehole) which is why I left him many years ago.

...saying how wonderful he was when I knew he was a git, but a seemingly clever git...

...my ex was such a selfish bastard most of the time...

Those are interestings statements.

I wonder was he good at flattery and pulling a pity play to excuse bad behaviour? It might be that you were the very person that he got the most pleasure out of fooling.

Book recommendation. (Don't be put off by the populist cover it is very good)

Might be totally off the wall - I don't like to make judgements about people I haven't met... but worth a look.

50. Here Be Dragons - The Movie

Comment #299774 by Corylus on December 10, 2008 at 11:27 am

Skep

I am not going to get draw into a long discussion on what is a small matter blown out of all proportion,however, as you asked me a direct question I will answer.

Tell me, why don't you, how that comment is wholly unreasonable based on Roger's post, and why.

Well, the use of the term 'we'll' for a start. This indicated that this was unrelated to comments made on here, which are made in an individual capacity.

Now, I hope we can all move on.

[Edit: you're welcome Roger, I hope your projects go well]