Comments by phil rimmer

Comment #314838 by phil rimmer on January 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm

So I see that Dvophoto has rather pathetically raised only £22 each from myself, Steve and Eventhorizon for the further promotion of a fear-free future for our kids on the sides of busses.(Event, you were "in" weren't you?)

Worse still Dvo dismally flunked the the Ian Bamlett $100 "Original Argument" Challenge, forwarding the tiredest of old bollocks in his posts.

C'mon Dvo. Do a bit of reading. Get some killer ideas together....

2. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #314265 by phil rimmer on January 7, 2009 at 2:02 am

Comment #314246 by David A Robertson

a Palestinian being bombed by Israel

And how much more tractable that problem would be if both sides believed-

"There's probably no God.."

Nice one David.

3. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313982 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 4:33 pm

Carries on-

"The Slogan on the Bus says there's no God,
There's no God,
There's no God.
The slogan on the Bus says there's no God,
All day long"

Corylus, genius idea. Get 'em young with nursery rhymes. We'll outdo the Jesuits.

OK...no, sorry.

*Coat*

4. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313937 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 3:51 pm

Comment #313904 by Steve Zara

Just out of curiosity, does anyone else now like the wording of the slogan (like me) when they previously didn't think much of it (like me)?

Yes and yes.

I think it is light and upbeat without being frivolous. It correctly describes "our" mode of thinking with probably.

"Probably" is the essence of Richard's argument. "Probably" is sufficient to be able to say to the religious you have no special rights or privileges, get over it.

It is sufficient as a message to the young and intimidated to question oppressive parental certainties.

5. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313926 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 3:37 pm

Comment #313892 by Cartomancer

I don't think it's going to be as easy to put the message on the side of Phil as it would be to put it on the side of a bus...

A kind thought. Alas, Christmas has not been as kind. I fear an entire chapter of the The God Delusion might fit now. :(

I charge very reasonable rates, however.

6. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313874 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Comment #313843 by Richard Dawkins

He's earned £20 (£40?) towards the next bus campaign so far.

Besides, he (?)is evidence and at the very least deserves honest answers to his questions.

7. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313806 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm

Comment #313769 by epeeist

If she was brunette rather than blond and wore rimless glasses.

Just sometimes reality throws up something that should have been merely a sick fantasy.

*shudders*

8. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313782 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Comment #313748 by Ian Bamlett

$100 Excellent!

You can do it, Dvo. Atheist poverty is a real prospect here.

9. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313766 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Dhamma,

Financial crisis? We have to spend our way out of it. Thats what Christmas was all about, surely?

Eventhorizon,

Good....erm...human!

Dvo,

Keep it coming. Trust me. There are answers for all your questions here.

£12

10. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313743 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 1:55 pm

I feel a little guilty at not joining in with this poster campaign first time. However, I'm sure there'll be a second opportunity.

So, with apologies to Diacanu, I propose to make Dvophoto's posts serve some useful function at least by committing to pay £1 to the next Atheist Bus Poster campaign for every post he makes on this thread.

£11 so far.

Go for it Dvo!

11. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313679 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 1:20 pm

jg, I think, is a little like me in some ways.

I used to have troubling dreams. Nightmares, in fact. Moderately bright as I am it took me a while to understand why I had these things. With a little help, I sussed it eventually. I stopped going to see horror movies. The bad dreams went away. Now I get a little nervous about the prospect of seeing a movie or a programme that might set me off. I studiously avoid any chance that I might see something that might disturb me. Delightfully, it works.

I have dreams about tidal waves destroying cities or my dead relatives and I wake refreshed and without a care. I haven't been subjected to what really disturbs me, another person's sick and manipulative fantasy.

jg is like me but a mirror image, reassured by another's sick and manipulative fantasy but shit scared of seeing a video, an article, a link, telling the story of how the real world is.

I'm sure she's a nice woman. I'm sure she's confronted her fears just as much as she's prepared to. But it's time we went back in our box.

12. Atheists launch bus ad campaign

Comment #313627 by phil rimmer on January 6, 2009 at 12:11 pm

I've changed my mind. I was a nay-sayer about this campaign. No more. I can see how it can work now.

We need a few more photo ops with a host of rational celebs riding the rational bus.

Boy, Richard can coin them too.

"They [the religious] have to take offence. Its the only weapon they've got."

Cracking.

13. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312153 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Comment #312150 by Steve Zara

I think you underestimate the power of a vocal audience. I strongly suspect the contents of the Today mailbag might start to shift the balance in favour of the rational if the audience are given a taste for it.

14. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312147 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Steve, its a step and

The non-religious approach to morality is not just one of many approaches. It is the only fair approach.

....This, I suspect, will become patently and surprisingly apparent to many who listen in.

All we need is the chance to prove it.

15. Atheists have moral reflections too

Comment #312128 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Comment #312117 by Richard Dawkins

It would be a good opportunity to demonstrate to people who think otherwise that there is such as thing as a well thought-out secular morality.

And indeed, as hugely successful socialised creatures, that we are naturally moral! No thinking out required.

16. Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey

Comment #312106 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 3:42 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemochromatosis

Bloodletting is used in only a very few instances in modern medicine. The above is one application and appears similar to Rocket777's claim.

Here is the only other application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycythemia

Leeches had a more general benign effect as a blood letting technique due solely to their secretion of a natural anticoagulant. Far safer and more controllable delivery mechanisms have been found now for anticoagulants.

This is a lovely example of Tim Minchin's question to a barking mad new age hippy, "What do you call alternative medicine that works?"

"Medicine!"

Two absolutely tiny applications for phlebotomy have been found to be beneficial, they are now part of medicine. The point is the good applications have been found and the rest junked. Do you think others have been covered up?????

Rocket777, not anecdotes but corroborated evidence is what is called for.

17. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #312061 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Bullseye, Decius!

PM for you.

18. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #312045 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Comment #312035 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I argued that naturalists on the one hand claim that ethics is not objective but on the other hand speak as if it is,......you can only say that something is improving if there is some objective measuring stick

A measuring stick like homicide statistics, for instance? This argues for morality being objective??

Oh....oh...I see your problem. They can indeed be read subjectively, as you have just proved in Comment #311883.....

(And before you argue ethics is more than morals, you are the one equating "moral zeitgeist" with "ethics".)

19. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #312034 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 2:11 pm

Tithing is a close cousin to both insurance premiums and protection money with none of their utility.

20. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311971 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 1:05 pm

Comment #311955 by epeeist

Thanks. An interesting read, especially "piglet", who, I suspect, speaks for a few of us here.

BTW The second link has a surplus (but effective) full stop.

21. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311956 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 12:45 pm

I'm really enjoying jabber's posts at the moment.

Just thought I'd say...:-)

22. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #311953 by phil rimmer on January 4, 2009 at 12:39 pm

Comment #311883 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Indeed France clearly follows the trend (its homicide rate is about 4 times higher than Britain's)

DG, you are starting to look really desperate. Can't even bother to check your own wacky sources. Your linked statistics point out that-

"The French homicide rate also includes attempts."

No other caveats on HOMICIDE rates are given.

This was feeble also.....

In any case the relevant question here is how religious belief affects an individual's moral behavior.

I remember long ago when you came across as a reasonable, enquiring spirit. Almost (but not quite) "Here's an interesting idea. Lets test it."

After repeated testing and subsequent failure, you now seem to barely test ideas before you chuck a bucket load out as so much, self protective Chaff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(radar_countermeasure)

The comparatively high moral performance of certain European Countries may well have come about precisely from a shunning of questionable, individual acts of charity etc. in favour of simply voting for morality being embedded in the fabric of society itself and being paid for by boring old taxes. In such a decent secular society charity-giving religites may certainly "appear" even more moral than their more numerous non-religious neighbours, but left to their own self-serving ways would probably screw it up.

(EDIT My point being that reasonably credible alternate models exist.)

In my experience, simple, natural empathy has a way of being loused up with a smear of Godly license, Godly stick and Godly carrot.

23. Atheists Sue to Get Prayer, God Out of Obama's Swearing-In

Comment #310816 by phil rimmer on January 2, 2009 at 5:23 am

Comment #310810 by Quetzalcoatl

Attaboy!

ROFLMAO

Seriously we really could be rich. Think of it....Tie-ins with a Channel 4 TV series. (They love balanced!) Part work magazine series. Anime cartoon series for the kids, and not forgetting Top Trumps competition cards. And the toys!

24. Atheists Sue to Get Prayer, God Out of Obama's Swearing-In

Comment #310808 by phil rimmer on January 2, 2009 at 4:53 am

Quetz,

Great idea, but perhaps you're not thinking big enough. There are thousands of Gods, hundreds of religions we could do the "Big Book of God". Tell everyone what they want to hear.... that they're all right.

It works on so many levels...

25. Atheists Sue to Get Prayer, God Out of Obama's Swearing-In

Comment #310802 by phil rimmer on January 2, 2009 at 4:34 am

vast sums of money...

Alas there is a fatal flaw in this Flea book plan. No one buys them. It seems you have to fill them with arbitrary big bright colourful pictures, make them the size of flagstones and then give them away to get any sort of volume.

I think the second best plan is to offer to ghost write (sic) for DR et al. It'd lift the quality of the English in most cases.

26. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #310798 by phil rimmer on January 2, 2009 at 3:48 am

And here's another try...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14 " target="_blank" title="">

27. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #310795 by phil rimmer on January 2, 2009 at 3:37 am

The greatest single advance that science could afford us is if its method (as per Popper) were taught continually to all schoolchildren in the world so that they would know for themselves what constitutes useful evidence and how real knowledge is accrued.

This, at a stroke, would change everything.

(Thanks to Diacanu for his recently posted video reminder of the methods astonishing power.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

28. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310580 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Oops!

Schtum.

29. Jimmy Carr on Richard Dawkins

Comment #310577 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Comment #310572 by beautyscientist

Hah! Brill.

Damn, spilt my coffee now.

30. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310575 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Have just finished Diacanu's linked video. Excellent.

jgiralamo, I do hope you look at it. What just begins to come across in it is the vastness of the entire science enterprise. The necessary mutual dependencies (interlockingness) of all science facts and theories makes the opportunity for any sustained dissimulation vanishingly small.

I would also like to point out that Goldy's claim to Godhood is false. It is clearly Mrs Goldy who has the power to pacify and nourish.

31. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310503 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Comment #310489 by Laurie Fraser

I'll swap some emails with you on the subject, if you like.

Its a deal!

Comment #310490 by Diacanu

Well...that was...too easy

It was the lightning flash that swung it. You obviously have a higher authority on your side.

32. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310487 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Comment #310475 by Diacanu

Not just the temerity, but the insolence, insubordination, and yes, insurrection!!

Yep, well that's enough qualifications for me!

Music it is.

33. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310483 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Laurie, talking of teaching, I was reading your paper on teaching in prisons today and greatly enjoyed it. (Came across it quite by accident looking for material on educating for creativity for Dublin next July.) Did you publish anymore formally or informally?

34. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310473 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 2:21 pm

Diacanu

We only have your word that its music. And you have the temerity to argue with a musician!...and a teacher at that!!!

Now nu metal..thats music. SOAD ruled. They could scream.

35. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310430 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 12:27 pm

Silly Quine!

I will loose the info of the initial internal support for a self-justifying world view.

You already have your answer..

I do not have to prove they were not lying as I have said before, you look at all the info, the claims of Jesus and deicide for yourself

(I must admit I'm a little worried about the deicide slip, but hey a little resurrection will soon fix that.)

Baron, your intentions are admirable. Carry on. jg looks like a nice lady who probably has nice children. You can only do good

EDIT Argh too quick for me Steveroot! Edit some more...ever thought of calling yourself radicalsteve? The Latin scholars would go for it.

36. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310400 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 11:50 am

Wosret PM for you

37. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310362 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 10:31 am

Comment #310356 by Bernstein

Neither is a gay rights activist.

....because?

A bigot on the other hand is someone whose beliefs (sic) are uninformed by evidence

38. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310355 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 10:17 am

On the issue of gay parenting

The issue for you was marriage.

If I was in charge of giving into custody a child

We are all mightily relieved you are not. A bigot is not well placed to make clear headed decisions.

39. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310349 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 10:07 am

Bernstein

Inaction (on prop8 for instance) due to lethargy if coupled with a twinge of guilt is one thing...

Twinge-less neutrality = fuck 'em.

40. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310344 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 9:56 am

Comment #310335 by Steve Zara

Exactly. If there are certain matters of parenting skills, such as the need for partners to take certain roles in front of children, that can be dealt with independently of gender.

In my experience of two gay-parented families this indeed appears to be the case. Further, I agree with Bonzai that quite a number of heterosexual-parented families work along conventionally-reversed-role lines or indeed work flexibly.

A key aspect to parenting in my own experience is the need for Good Cop / Bad Cop tactics, roles mainly being defined by who was on the scene of the crime first. I believe that early rigid parental roles (soppy Victorian mother, stern Victorian father) were hugely damaging all round denying some aspect of pleasure and involvement to all. Simply being able to share the parenting load with another allows time to enjoy the tasks and build the relationships.

41. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310233 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 6:47 am

I started out long ago thinking Bernstein was a simple unselfconscious bigot.

More recently, based on some posts by others I thought he was near to redeeming himself (Nope, my mistake.)

Based on comment 801 I thought...sociopath, perhaps?

But no, I just don't think he is capable of abstract thought. The idea of "the importance of ideas" seems quite beyond him.

The effect is well.....bigotry.

42. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310190 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 6:06 am

I await the answer to 798 with keen interest.

43. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310187 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 6:03 am

Comment #310161 by Wosret

I haven't.

They aren't hate-filled, they are joyous!

I believe you.

My list was intended to be interpolated somewhat in its span from (irrationally) "hate filled" to "irrationally tolerant". The point was just that feelings ARE to be talked about, just not necessarily acted upon.

P.S. I need some advice on where to look for more good anime. My (14yr old) son and I have become fans going from Ghibli (Spirited Away, Princess Mononoke), through Akira, Ghost in the Shell, Vampire Hunter D. Any suggestions?

44. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310131 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 4:18 am

Comment #310118 by Bernstein

Why do we need to question our natural proclivities?

Do you claim to be rational?

You want us to abandon our "firmware" for your new and improved "software".

I want our firmware to pass a test of rationality. It was, after all, evolved to meet challenges, some of which have long gone and some changed radically.

Are you talking about our proclivities and predispositions about everything? Or just certain things?

The answer lies in the desire for INTEGRITY. Its all worth examining if you want it all to hang together.

It's simply a matter of just how I feel. What you are suggesting, it would seem, is that we not even be given the "option" of saying so

Nope! Everyone here has at one time or another talked about how they feel, admitted to murderous thoughts, or hate-filled thoughts, or irrationally tolerant thoughts. We all have amygdalas and a shed-load of childhood conditioning. But do we just accept these feelings? Are they rational? Are they helpful? If religion is the result of our tendency to see agency everywhere, should we try and suppress this proclivity? Well possibly not. It may be the cause of a lot of other good stuff. Simple suppression may be the least good answer to becoming more rational. But, whatever, acknowledgement of the problem is the essential first step.

The cool thing about software is that it is more readily tweeked than firmware and it sits on top of it.

EDITED added stuff.

45. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310102 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2009 at 3:28 am

Bernstein, Comment #310084

You're not big in integrity are you?

People who feel absolutely no need to rationalize themselves about how they feel on every issues. It's entirely their prerogative.

At root this "clear thinking oasis" is entirely about questioning our natural proclivities and predispositions. Our natural (self protective) tendency to see agency where none exists is just one of the most absurd and common. Another is the vestige of tribal thinking that our (self protective) amygdalas foist upon us. Left unchecked it can lead us, irrationally, to harm out of group people or at least allow harm to happen to them.

Our proclivities and predispositions are precisely what we should should "introspect" on and try and rationalize. It is precisely what we should expect to be challenged on here.

Intellectual integrity, at the very least, does not require that you always manage to do the right thing. (We have all failed at some time, through lethargy or whatever) But it does require you to make a judgement on yourself, something you shrug off with with a crass "But its just how I feel..."

46. Storm

Comment #308676 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2008 at 7:51 am

Jabber, see-

66. Comment #307988 by milt

47. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #308559 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2008 at 3:54 am

Carto.

I hate "New Atheism" also.

Active Atheism, perhaps?

(The risks from the alliterative acronym would be that we might be mistaken for reformed alcoholics or someone who can fix a car...)

48. The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz

Comment #308550 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2008 at 3:45 am

I hope Dan will forgive me reposting his comment from his Cif post of 8 hours ago...

Andrew Brown trots out an old atheist, Anthony Kenny, who (he surmises) would reject all six of the tenets he attributes to the New Atheists. What would that show, even if it were true? His six points are all caricatures in any case. The uniting feature of the New Atheists is that we have all decided that the traditional atheist policy of diplomatic reticence should be discarded. Brown doesnt tell us if he himself is any kind of atheist, old or new, but I suspect from the confusion of his essay that he is one of the tribe of But Atheists, as in Im an atheist, but . . . . I find that But Atheists are the most frantic defenders of religion these days; they themselves have no need for religion, they say, but they are worried that hoi polloi do. It puts me in mind of another old philosopher, Henry Sidgwick, a utilitarian who thought that utilitarianism should be a secret kept by the elite, a pernicious doctrine often called Government House utilitarianism. The seminaries and churches are full of atheist clergy who live their own version of this paternalism. We New Atheists think more highly of our fellow human beings; we think its time for us all to grow up.

Daniel Dennett

He has rather boldly picked up the cap of "New Atheist".

He has a point. A distinguishing feature of New Atheism (otherwise identical to Atheism) is the feeling that something needs to be done, if only declare it or discuss it.

Epeeist, AllanW. I knew no good would come from the Guardian's move from Manchester.

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

Comment #308121 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2008 at 1:41 pm

What an appalling, condescending fuck Matthew Parris can be.

I particularly "loved" this in the context of what he was advocating-

This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

Talk about not needing Godfather figures...

50. Storm

Comment #308080 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2008 at 11:41 am

milt, perhaps the third right thing for you to do is to email Tim and point out this utube link?

Hate to be a kill joy, folks.

Maybe, he'll let it go this time?