451. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173240 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 2:33 pm

The previous comments are right, these kinds of shows have a tendency to be very samey and repetitive. I guess that we here at RD.net occasionally lose sight of the fact that most people are not so well acquainted with the old recycled bad arguments - certainly most people who listen to popular radio broadcasts such as this one.

For my own personal gratification I would prefer different questions and discussions on air, but I accept that it is important to raise the consciousness of as many people as possible, so I am happy to forego more esoteric ruminations on public media if the result is a greater diffusion of the basics.

452. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173175 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Bureaucrates? Wasn't he a 5th century Athenian philosopher who sat in the agora talking to passers by and doing their paperwork for them?

453. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173164 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Cartomancer CARTOONS: "Find love while arguing with Wooter",
Bored now. Can we have someone with something interesting to discuss instead? Or how about another game of Mornington Crescent, or some more baking recipes?
Clearmind clears: Hmm, I do not think that they can find love while arguing with me. But surely they can find LOGIC.

Clearmind clears: You can date someone since you can't find any argument against LOGIC. Since this web page turned into a dating web page.

Can someone with a better grasp of Wooterish furnish me with a translation please? Much obliged...

454. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173019 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:34 am

Perhaps you could come up with some appropriate verses for Atheist Grace before meals?

How about we just adapt the famous grace from Christ Church College, Oxford, like so:

Nos ridentes homines et gaudentes, pro cibis quos nobis ad corporis subsidium acquiremus, nullo, non presertim Deus omnipotens Christianorum, qui "Pater Caelestis" vocatur, gratias reverenter agimus, nec Quetzalcoatlo, nec Zeu, nec Monstro Volenti Spaghettifacto et cetera; simul optantes, ut iis sobrie, modeste atque grate fruamur.
Per Ricardum Daucines, exemplum nostrum. Amen.

We joyous and smiling people, for the food which we gather for the sustenance of our bodies we give reverent thanks to no-one, especially not to the almighty god of the christians, the so-called "Heavenly Father. Nor do we give thanks to Quetzalcoatl, nor Zeus, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc. At the same time we hope to enjoy this food with sobriety, moderation and gratitude. Through Richard Dawkins, our example, Amen.

I'm sure Dan Dennett would have much preferred that formulation when he was doing his DPhil there!

455. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172993 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:18 am

I have evolved a recipe over the years. I will explain what has been selected.

Hmm, what with the Pat Condell anthology swelling the RDFRS commercial catalogue (and the new dating section of the site going live!) perhaps it's high time for a RichardDawkins.net Atheist Cookbook to hit the shelves?

456. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172979 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 8:13 am

Bored now. Can we have someone with something interesting to discuss instead? Or how about another game of Mornington Crescent, or some more baking recipes?

457. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172912 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:58 am

I'm afraid I don't play the personal insult game well.

Oh dear, Such a shame. I consider myself a veritable grand master of that particular sport. I could give lessons...

I am done responding to any of your posts until this time tomorrow.

Ecce gratum et optatum, ver reducit gaudia!

458. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172883 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:37 am

Looks like RD.net is fast becoming the hottest dating site on the internet! And not just of the radiocarbon kind.

This could be a wonderful opportunity for marketing slogans. "Find love while arguing with Wooter", "You can still find your soul mate if you don't believe in souls", "RD.net - romance on a scientific footing"...

459. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172871 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 6:26 am

I assume you are trying to say if it's based on 'confirmed facts of physics and chemistry' is should be reliable? Since both dating methods qualify, why does one show tens of thousands of years and the other billions?

What you have uncovered here, if indeed your statement is accurate (and I have my doubts), is an area for further research into the accuracy of our technology and the reliability of certain of our dating methods. You have not demonstrated that radioactive dating methods should be disregarded or abandoned. We have many, many dozens of different types of radioactive dating methods, not just the two you bring up, and most give remarkably similar figures. The outliers can thus be investigated and their accuracy doubted. The principle behind them all (the confirmed fact of physics and chemistry I mentioned) - the regular rate of decay in radioactive nuclei - is not in doubt. There are also numerous other scientific methods of dating things which broadly agree with the radioactive dates - epeeist mentions tree rings and ice cores, to which you can add soil strata, astral spectrometry and others.

Written historical evidence on the other hand, especially when it is as scant and diffuse as anything we have from 2492 BC is, has much less by way of a corroborative framework to vouch for its reliability. The chances it was all faked are much, much higher. Mostly we have to take the dates given by ancient sources on trust, or speculate about why they might not be trustworthy, what biases the author might have held and how he might have misunderstood his own sources.

And yet the evidence of material culture does fit with our scientific estimates of the age of the universe and the earth. Scriptural accounts, however, have nothing to reccommend them as evidence in the slightest because they conflict with the reliable evidence of science and came about through idle, unfounded speculation by men utterly ignorant of the evidence we have for the age of the world.

Can you prove all of space is a vacuum as you conceive it and where does the force of gravity fit into your equation?

I'm no astrophysicist, but if you seriously want to argue that gravitational phenomena and non-vacuum areas of space could realistically account for a 99% reduction in the observed ages of the stars down to 4500 years then I'm sure there are plenty of better qualified minds here to pour scorn over your ignorance.

460. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172833 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:57 am

So you're theory covers all bases?
Billions of years in case science is right, and thousands of years in case the "ancient texts" are right?

I'm not sure I'd call that a "theory", more a complete lack of certainty.

If that were all it took to qualify as a theory, I could come up with a comprehensive theory of everything in a heartbeat:

"res sunt quod sunt" - things are what they are.

There. No need to do science anymore. All explained. Pack up and go home everyone.

461. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172821 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:46 am

Written records, artistic records, both are products of human ingenuity. I see no difference in the degree of trustworthiness for their dating.

Radiocarbon dating, Potassium-Argon dating - the difference is one of details not of principle. It's all scientific data analysis based on confirmed facts of physics and chemistry.

And the light from distant stars travels at a fixed speed through the vacuum of deep space, so it is a very reliable way of telling us how long ago those distant objects emitted light, and hence how old the universe must be at minimum.

Why do you trust mere historical evidence more than you trust scientific evidence? The writings and material culture of egyptian and near eastern peoples would be far easier to fake than the readings of spectrometers and radioactive dating. Also, why the cut off point for 2492BC? Surely we have cultural evidence from cave paintings much, much earlier than that? Or does the written word have some magical truth value to it which images and other evidence do not have?

462. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172801 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:32 am

I see some individuals that could benefit from reading some of the debate logs

"I have seen the future, Kain, and you're not in it..."

463. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172799 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:31 am

Cartomancer: You still using the avatar from the flag fiasco?

I thought I'd change it back today, but when I got to the edit avatar screen, somehow I couldn't bring myself to do away with him just yet...

464. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172789 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:24 am

I believe both the universe and our planet are at least 4500 years old and beyond that, the sky's [and the theories are] the limits.

But why 4500 years? What evidence do you base that figure on? Why is evidence from 2492BC utterly convincing to you while evidence from 3000BC or 10,000BC or even 4 Billion years BC not so convincing?

Why should the artistic stylings of early Egyptian ceramics be a better source of evidence than the radiocarbon dating of prehistoric bones and the light distortions from distant stars?

465. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172783 by Cartomancer on April 30, 2008 at 5:12 am

Perhaps we need an answersinabiogenesis.com?

466. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171344 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm

Can you tell me exactly how you are an oppressed minority in 21st Century England?

I'm not. I didn't say I was. In fact I even said that here in Britain the marches are rapidly becoming depoliticised. What I was saying was that the marches came about (in the 60s and 70s) as a response to oppression and discrimination. They're still all about that in places where it genuinely goes on, and there is still the idea that we need to show solidarity with those less fortunate than ourselves.

467. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171330 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:40 pm

what I meant with flaunting in public is the flamboyant behavior and those damned parades. They fuck up traffic, seriously. I don't really hate gays, just the fact that they're too demanding and they whine all the god damned time. They took all the good things from the straight guys, the color purple used to be cool, now it's gay. The rainbow used to be for kids, now it's gay. I love Queen, especially Freddy Mercury, but the ones I know in general are whiny and bitchy

You try being an oppressed minority, then see how important it is to make big public displays of pride and confidence. In my country pride marches are rapidly becoming depoliticised, because the fight has been substantially won, though there is still residual homophobia to battle against. In your nation, however, which is still rife with homophobia and treats its gay residents as second class citizens, the marches have a hugely important political function to play. Go to places like Riga in Latvia, which recently held its first ever pride march in the face of massive popular hostility, then complain. And even in places like the UK where we are accepting and tolerant, there is still the need to stand up in solidarity with those who are less fortunate.

To complain because it slows down the traffic is the most fatuous piece of mean-spirited philistinism I have had the misfortune to chance across in a long time.

And just because gay people warm to certain symbols and colours and modes of expression doesn't mean they're forbidden from straight people. Hardly any of my straight friends would think twice about wearing a pink T-shirt or a pair of purple jeans. My twin brother dresses in a far more stereotypically gay manner than I do. And children can still enjoy rainbows. And if the worst comes to the worst and someone thinks you are gay, where's the problem in that? Gay people get mistaken for straight all the time - do you hear us batting an eyelid? (well, most gay people anyway. I was reliably informed by my students the other day that I cannot pass for heterosexual under any circumstances.)

468. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171317 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:30 pm

But don't whine when people question your loyalty to our Republic

I have no loyalty to your republic. There is no reason why I should have.

I understand the use of symbols and symbolism. I know the rivers run deep. It is irrational yes, but a certain amount of controlled irrationality is positively good for people. We need ritual and pomp and ceremony, or at least they are harmless enough things which help some people. I just think that sometimes it can go too far.

The degree to which citizens of the United States fetishise that flag is one of those times. Important British dignitaries and soldiers have the union flag draped on their coffins. Important Japanese dignitaries do the same with the Hinomaru. That's a fairly ubiquitous tradition. But do you find anyone other than americans coming up with such silly, antiquated totemic customs as never putting the thing on the ground or wearing it like a cloak? Those are military practices which date back at least as far as the Middle Ages (where it originated with battle standards and heraldic devices), but enter modern usage from early modern regimental custom. Only stuffy old retired colonels would talk like that over here. British people have seaside beach towels with the union flag on them. We put it on commemorative pants and gaudy tourist mugs. Hell, we even paint our faces with it for sports fixtures. It's a common joke over here that the Germans use their tricolour towels to mark out their deck chairs and sun loungers on holiday.

And none of this rouses even the slightest ire from British nationalists, let alone ordinary subjects of her majesty.

If the symbol is important to you, then great! Keep doing what you want to show your appreciation. What I object to though is the assumption that others should follow your irrational practices too, even others who do not have the same respect for your traditions. Where is the difference between that and religion?

469. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171278 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 12:04 pm

But it's a SYMBOL. It's not the thing symbolised. Doing things with a flag does not affect your precious republic one whit. That's crazy poppet magic with a vengeance! Weird voodoo nonsense! Utterly irrational!

And what if some people find the symbolism of wearing it as a cape more powerful still? What if people think that laying it on the ground is symbolic of the values it stands for being the foundation of your liberty or similar patriotic guff? Just because it means one thing to you doesn't mean you have any right to impose that meaning on others.

You simply cannot impose an arbitrary code of semiotics on other people without their say so.

470. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171269 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:59 am

At best it is unsanitary... he is laying FACE DOWN.

I have got one of him lying face up, but it's not really suitable for a family website like this...

471. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171266 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:56 am

The flag should never touch the ground and/or be used as an article of clothing.

But why not? Why not? What is so special about a bit of old cloth? That phrase sounds suspiciously like talismanic magic to me - i.e. pointless irrational superstition...

472. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171256 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:52 am

pretty hilarious, but still disrespectful

It don't think it's disrespectful at all. I would be proud to have such a fine specimen of masculinity reclining on my country's dear union flag. He's american, he's beautiful, he's gay. Perfectly simple. Where's the disrespect?

473. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171247 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:48 am

But what's wrong with flaunting one's sexuality, whatever it may happen to be? What is so bad about that and why should people not do it if they want to?

474. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171243 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:45 am

Now if only I really did look like that. I was going to change back straight away, but I think I might just keep him around for a while longer...

475. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171236 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:38 am

Sorry, couldn't help myself there...

476. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171209 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:18 am

Honestly can't really tell you why it doesn't fit, but when I picture the ideal America they just don't fit in. IDK why not, but if you want to pick my brain, it might take you a while.

But there are millions upon millions of gay people in the USA and there always have been. There always will be. Wherever there are human beings, indeed wherever there is pretty much any kind of sexually reproductive animal, there are homosexual individuals.

If you can't specify a reason, might I suggest you need to rethink your opinion. Prejudiced gut reaction is no way to run one's life.

Since you mention engineering and the keyboard, how about realising that superlative renaissance engineer Leonardo da Vinci had homosexual preferences, and we wouldn't even have computers without the genius of Alan Turing.

477. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171194 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 11:06 am

I don't think that gays fit into the picture of an ideal America. He drapes himself in the flag which is a privilege that is not earned cheaply and he uses it for his ways.

Why don't gay people fit in to your "ideal america" then? What is it about attraction to one's own gender that does not fit? What harm does it do? And why should your version of "ideal" automatically trump everyone else's?

And why should the wearing of flags and symbols be a privilege? If that were so then you wouldn't be able to buy the things in just about any shop you care to name. What's so special about a bit of cloth with some spangles on it?

478. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171188 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 10:58 am

No response? Oh, please, do tell me what you have against the use of flags in homoerotic imagery. I am fascinated by the workings of such a mind as yours...

479. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171164 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 10:43 am

Might I ask precisely what is wrong with the use of flags in homoerotic imagery? Do you have a similar animus against their use in heteroerotic imagery too?

I am intrigued as to where your homophobia stems from. It is rare that I get a homophobic individual to question on these matters - the information you provide may prove most fascinating...

480. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171142 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 10:30 am

And besides, if you think that's a homoerotic picture of the US flag, you could barely dream of some of the exciting things I've got stored on my hard drive...

481. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171129 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

And our proud forefathers didn't die so a fag like star spangled eagle could drape the flag like a fagrobe...

My ancestors fought for that flag and now people like him are using for their homoerotic pics

Oh look, we have another homophobic troll here now. Well, half-troll anyway. Some trollish blood to be sure. How is Far Harad this time of year?

Would you like to apologise for those vile comments please: they are incredibly offensive to all right-thinking human beings.

482. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170817 by Cartomancer on April 28, 2008 at 4:04 am

So... let me get this straight. Science leads to killing people, and the only solution to this danger would be to flood the world with millions upon millions of belligerent jackbooted american squaddies. Sorry, millions more of them. Makes perfect sense I'm sure...

Universities are full of nonsense, whereas churches and synagogues, presumably, are not? Legislation has no bearing on morality and social conduct, but fanciful fantasies of supernatural goblins are at its heart?

Day is night and night is day, the truth is a lie and the lies are true. 2 2=5. Welcome to the crazy mixed-up world of Ben Stein. Big Brother loves you, it's just the rest of the world who think you're a drooling idiot.

483. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170110 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 11:47 am

What is that from? Because it's excellent. I used to write a lot of (bad) poetry before I got into philosophy.

From the heart dear boy, from the heart... (*blushes*)

Traditional Japanese love stories almost always have an unhappy ending, so my brother tells me. Rather like the Greek tragic theatre. Life imitates art here I suspect - in my case at least...

484. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170083 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 10:53 am

as I understand it one is trapped between their desire to touche their friend, and move it into that next step, but also the fear of ruining the friendship, and losing them forever. So they are trapped within a buffer of where they are close, but not nearly as close as they want to be, and afraid to get closer because they might lose the position they already occupy.

Cruel the fates who wove me were when setting forth my heart,
To long for what I cannot have now touched by cupid's dart.
They made a boy of golden hue and set him near to me,
Then stirred my soul to seek from his a love that cannot be.

Ganymede, Adonis and Apollo fall behind,
To the beauty of his body and the candour of his mind,
His virtues and accomplishments are myriad and great,
Allow me the indulgence that a few I might relate.

In every scholar's discipline he masters all he tries,
Such kindness and compassion true are carried in his eyes,
To matters of this life we live he comes with great elan,
A paragon, a prodigy, the noblest son of man.

He's everything I want to be and all that I admire,
Is it so strange that, given this, to hold him I desire?


How dearly would I cleave to him should all the stars above
Accede to my desires and admit him to my love,
But ceaseless is their tyranny, and though I burn with flame,
His heart is held for different stock and ne'er will feel the same.

I can, it must be freely said, approach him as a friend,
Among the truest and the best on whom I can depend,
And so I staunchly stoic stand and watch, consumed with strife,
As passion for another so invigorates his life.

Oh how I wish it could be me who takes that happy place!
And my designs that spark the smile upon his golden face,
Alas of these emotions, felt so strong, I cannot tell
Lest the very act of telling loses me a friend as well.

So silent is my agony, and thus it must remain,
Lest friendship falls to foolish fears and Fosters further pain.


Had I but the pen which tempted Faustus into sin,
Or the wedding gift of Discord which did Troia's war begin,
I would gladly bear their torments, diabolic or divine,
If for but a single moment I could say that he was mine.

Alas my first and only love I'll never have nor hold,
Whatever curse I cry amidst the darkness and the cold,
Lachesis, Clotho, Atropos ignore my bitter tears,
And carry on their baneful work with spindle, loom and shears.

So where am I to go from here, resigned to callous fate?
Condemned to leave my love behind and find another mate?
To wish such pain upon my friend, or break if I do not?
To reconcile my burdens and be happy with my lot?

I know not what the answer is, nor even where to start.
Confound the fates who wove me and the boy who broke my heart.

485. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170068 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 10:34 am

excuse me while I go and google shirtless pictures of the guy to drool over. I might be away from RD.net for some time...

486. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170066 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 10:29 am

Don't worry Sharon, the delightful Rafael Nadal fits in very nicely with my my sexual interests - it's on topic for me at least!

(though of course men as attractive as him should be prevented from wearing any kind of t-shirt at all in my opinion)

487. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170057 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 am

Generally speaking, if you want to look at how features arose in a species, you look at the more closely related ones. We are most closely related to Bonobos. I would say that it shows!

True, but I generally avoid places where I've seen human beings masturbating each other in trees before. Somehow that makes for a rather uncomfortable social situation. I still can't quite bring myself to venture back to that particular corner of the University parks again...

488. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170040 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 9:52 am

I didn't notice this was a Templeton Foundation piece at first. Hmm, I smell bias too now - if only because they'll all have to pack up and go home if they come to the correct answer - which is yes.

489. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170031 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 9:37 am

We're talking about the fruit, right?

In a very particular manner of speaking, yes!...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_(slang)

After those uncomfortable moments, we go back to pretending the reverse.

That's the difference between cats and dogs. Dogs have owners, cats on the other hand only have staff.

490. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170029 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 9:33 am

I think that's where Shermer and Dawkins are using different definitions of "god". Shermer is taking the "creative ability" as the defining characteristic, Dawkins the "uncreated" status. I must say I think Dawkins is closer to what we in the West at least generally think of as the defining characteristic of a god, but it's pretty much a pointless semantic argument anyway.

491. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170023 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 9:26 am

What does a gay man bring on the second date?
Second date - what is that?.

Second date? second date? I've never even managed a first date before. What are they like?

So I do consider lovers and friends to be very different relationships. Though I understand that other people are different, and have extremely close friends.

What happens if you fall in love with a very close friend but can't have a sexual relationship with them because they've got someone else? Oh yes, that's right, four years of treatment for clinical depression - how silly of me to forget.

I see it more like calling a pet a family member.

I'm with upsidedawn on this one. My cat Wednesday is far more important than anyone else in the family, including me.

492. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169951 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 5:40 am

They are just like people, only more complex. They can do things like multitasking and remembering precise details from 20 years ago.

Sounds frightening. Real people are far too complex for my poor little brain to comprehend, let alone these strange new female ones...

493. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169937 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 5:24 am

my fumbling attempts to initiate relationships with women when I was younger ended up with me as close friend.

Funnily enough my fumbling attempts to initiate relationships with men generally end up with a new person who won't talk to me ever again...

494. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169925 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 4:59 am

Trusting your mind is capacious enough to give mind to both, may I ask if your doctorate thesis is in any way taking in notions of atheism as to be evident in your final piece? Or will your final D.Phil success indicate no such atheistic ideas as you hold?

An intriguing question, and one I had not really thought about before. I guess the answer is that my atheism hardly comes across at all in my thesis, or indeed any of my academic writing, because the questions I am addressing don't really have any bearing on the existence or otherwise of god.

Now, most of the time I find myself discussing theological concepts and philosophical ideas of a heavily theistic bent. My concern, however, is not to discuss whether these ideas are true, rather, it is do discuss why they were held by the people who held them in the first place, what factors influenced their adoption and transformation in societies, how they developed over time and who they influenced later on.

I suppose that, were I a christian, a muslim or a jew, I might feel compelled occasionally to introduce theistic reasoning into my account ("as it says in leviticus, the soul only enters the body after forty days or so. Alfred of Shareshill is therefore clearly wrong here, and shouldn't have been so reliant on Aristotle and the medical tradition for his information. Perhaps his faith wasn't strong enough to see the truth, or maybe the devil tempted him from it"). I doubt there are any serious theistic historians of ideas who would do such a thing though. Admittedly, in order to understand and extrapolate ideas it is sometimes necessary to inhabit a theistic mode of thought, or to entertain the internal logic of a philosophical system to which I do not subscribe.

Were I actually writing about medieval atheism directly, as a fellow supervisee of my supervisor is, then I expect it might be a lot harder to avoid personal comment. As it is I take the view that the thought of the Middle Ages must be understood on its own merits, and an injecion of modern atheism would be deeply ahistorical.

The one sop to my atheism I do maintain is that I refuse point blank to capitalise "bible", "scripture", "god" or the pronouns referring to that entity unless it is in quotations or translated quotations. I don't go as far as I do on here and deliberately refuse to capitalise any religious term as a mark of scorn (which is why it is muslims, jews and christians above, rather than Muslims, Jews and Christians) - scorn is not considered an appropriate stylistic device for formal academic writing, and I capitalise Aristotelians or Avicennists or Platonists, so I can't really avoid extending the same courtesy to theistic philosophical schools.

495. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169909 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 4:32 am

I had an attraction to girls, but it just never worked.

Now that I do find interesting. I can't say I have an awful lot of stories to compare my own experiences to - I only really know one other gay person - but for me girls were simply never on the agenda. I only really knew I was gay at about 14, but I've sort of known ever since I can remember that I certainly wasn't straight - I've always been starkly aware that, in this way and others, I am just not like most people. During my long years of denial I absolutely could not bring myself to tell anyone that I liked men, but I simply could not even begin to pretend that I liked women, even as a facade. I am somewhat baffled by the feminine gender to be honest - I've never really had more than one female friend (who was always rather tomboyish, indeed she is an engineer in the navy these days) and find most women very hard to relate to most of the time. The whole "gay men get on well with straight women" stereotype is very far from my experience indeed.

My experience growing up seems to have been rather more like Steve describes until I hit my twenties, but changed rapidly after that to become more reminiscent of what Mitchell discusses. I didn't really have the points of reference or the role models to confirm the validity of my sexuality either - all the people I looked up to were fictional characters who didn't really have a sexual aspect to their natures. In the end I forged my personal image in the mould of a disinterested asexual and tried not to think about it at all, though that was also triggered by my desperate need to suppress the burgeoning first (and only) love I felt (and still feel) for my best friend. Suffice to say the issue was a complex one indeed, and the pressures on me came entirely from societal depictions and images rather than any direct bullying or confrontation.

496. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169901 by Cartomancer on April 27, 2008 at 4:07 am

Cartomancer suggests in comment 169770 that people, especially teenagers cannot control the results of their emotions at the moment and so shouldn't be expected to. I'm sad that he seems to imply that humans cannot improve themselves either individually or in aggregate.

Now there's an exaggeration and a half! Of course human beings can change and improve themselves, but not indefinitely, not in all things and not uniformly. Human beings are not and cannot be emotionless, coldly logical, Vulcan-like beings - it's simply not possible given the structures of our brains and hormonal systems. It would also be hugely undesirable even if it could be achieved - the mechanisms of insult, offense and sympathy are vital parts of our social structure.

Why should we be teaching the victims of abuse how to tolerate the abuse rather than teaching the abusers that their abuse will not be tolerated in a civilised society? Since when did victims become the ones at fault here - that's a very dangerous and unworthy thing to argue indeed. There is a line that can be crossed between mere ad hominem insults and implicit attacks on someone's right to exist - people should be held to account for causing psychological harm to others, even if it was reckless and unintended.

I can see the benefits of encouraging people not to break down and cry at any little thing, but that's not what we're talking about here. Even those with the strongest mental resolve, if they lack self-confidence and societal support, can be massively damaged by bullying and sustained insensitivity from all directions. It's an immutable part of human psychology. Furthermore, the T-shirt issue is not about whether the slogan on the front is offensive to gay people (it undoubtedly is), but rather about whether the school places absolute freedom of expression above making a statement that it will not tolerate bigotry, narrow-mindedness and discrimination. If schools are for anything in our society it is to educate the young in what is acceptable and what is not - they have a positive duty to clamp down on homophobia in all its forms.

497. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169799 by Cartomancer on April 26, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Oh dear oh dear oh dear...

I sense a well-meaning individual here, and politeness is always a pleasant surprise from the theistic crowd, so I shall try hard to downplay my scorn for this one.

Unfortunately everything she says is just unsubstantiated assertion by fiat.

It truly is peace from God, it passes all understanding, truly it does.

If it passes all understanding, how come you can understand it? That statement is blatantly self-contradictory.

I've gone through a divorce, deaths in the family, many things in my life, and without my relationship with God, I would probably be a suicidal statistic.

That's evidence for the stability and tenacity of your own mind - it has no bearing on the existence of your imaginary friend. I am sure you do believe it exists, but that's all that's required for psychsomatic phenomena. People all over the world have the same experiences thanks to beliefs in thousands of different gods or none at all.

I have a good feeling most of you have never read the entire Bible, let alone studied it.

That's where you're wrong. Most people on this site seem to have a very good understanding of this particular antique text, not to mention many others. I myself have read the whole sordid collection of fatuous inanities from cover to cover, including the apocrypha, in both the King James and the Vulgate versions, and I've looked at passages from the Vetus Latina and the Septuagint. It's because we've read these kinds of texts with an open mind that we realise how painfully derivative and of a kind they are with other mythical stories. Truly dispassionate study of the bible cannot but lead to this conclusion - only a willfully ignorant person, or someone so enwrapped since early childhood with the fantasy it is anything else could come to a different appraisal.

Hell is a very real place, and the worst part about Hell is that it is the complete absence of God, which is something no man has ever experienced

Evidence for this assertion please...

That's all He wants, people, is just for us to come to Him, love Him, get to know Him.

Evidence for this assertion please...

The complexity of DNA assures me that my (and your) mind will never comprehend how extremely intelligent our God is.

But we do understand how complex our DNA is. Not very as it happens, with only four nucleotide bases and big heaps of junk DNA which don't actually do anything. And what does DNA have to do with gods? The complexities of life and the universe can be explained fine well without recourse to such ideas as gods - they're a spectacularly unparsimonious hypothesis to posit.

Christianity is not a religion. It's a relationship and a way of life. It's a way to be free from sin and destruction of our lives, from addictions and chaos.

Funnily enough I've heard muslims, hindus, sikhs and even one marxist say pretty much the same thing. It was only a matter of time before a christian tried it. For a start, all religions promise the same thing and none of them delivers, yours is no different. Secondly "sin" is a meaningless concept and entirely superfluous to ethical debate, it has no more relevance to the real world than magic does. Thirdly, the quiescence and well-being you feel are entirely self-generated: it's the wonderful complexity of your own brain - an evolved biochemical system - that's doing it. Isn't that a much more wonderful thought than having it all put there by a big sky tyrant on a whim? All the things you are currently chalking up to god are really the workings of mankind - little old us, all on our own. You can still be amazed and heartened and awed at it all, you just don't have to pretend it's caused by a silly supernatural character from a fairytale, and that makes it all the more wonderful.

I'm living in light of the God who CREATED science and all there is left to discover out there! He wants us to discover it. It all points to Him.

How do you know this? Do you not realise how circular this reasoning actually is? If you assume in the first place that it was caused by a god, you're bound to come to that conclusion in the end. How, might I ask, would you falsify that conclusion? What would prove to you that it is not true? If you cannot falsify it, it is a meaningless statement, and thoroughly unscientific.

Here is my challenge: point to a scientific FACT (not a theory or hypothesis) that does not clearly point to God

How about all of them? Every last one. Gravitation, evolution, tectonic plates, quantum phenomena, covalent bonding of atoms, the haber process, the mating habits of dolphins, osmosis, the hydrological cycle, sickle-cell anaemia, radioactive decay, pulsars, the refraction of light, homosexual behaviour in sheep, the atomic weight of boron, game theory...

None of these things "point to god". The existence or not of a god is entirely immaterial to these facts. We understand them, and there is nowhere that we have uncovered a phenomenon which would be demonstrably different were such a creature to exist. I think you need to read The God Delusion, or Bertrand Russell, or indeed anything that challenges your somewhat narrow world view.

Another challenge: call me out on anything you think about or within the pages of the Bible

Why should I want to do that? What is so special about your bible anyway? I've read it several times and it is nothing more than an entirely unremarkable and very badly edited anthology of middle eastern folk myths. The Iliad is much more exciting and much better written, and Sophocles, Aristotle and Cicero provide much more weighty matter for ethical and cultural debate.

The devil is the best deceiver there is

Evidence for the existence of this character please...

498. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169770 by Cartomancer on April 26, 2008 at 6:08 pm

The way to handle verbal abuse is quite simple: don't feel insulted. Just ignore the ad hominem irrelevancies, resist the temptation to succumb to the style over substance fallacy, and focus on whatever objective claims the other person is making. Cultivate sangfroid.

I disagree. It is rarely possible to stifle or limit one's natural emotional responses through the sheer application of cold, dispassionate reason - Plato's charioteer is a passable, but fundamentally flawed model of the human mind. For vulnerable, hormonally-charged teenagers it is next to impossible to do this. Furthermore, the best way to give teenagers the confidence they need to confront bigoted idiots like this one is to show them that the society of which they are a part does not put up with his sort.

I also think it is essential that we do feel offended at things which are genuinely offensive. The more we try to denature ourselves to our emotions, the less effective those emotions will be as guides to the conduct of our lives.

499. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169764 by Cartomancer on April 26, 2008 at 5:52 pm

I don't even see a problem in saying "this is so gay". I wouldn't think most people who say that are raving homophobes, it's just an expression.

I have had this discussion with my students before. I will admit that it is hardly the most damaging slur one could come up with, but I still think that ignoring the association of "gay" with "frivolous", "feeble" or "lame" is a mistake. The underlying origins of the term are too prominent to make me feel entirely comfortable there. I will be happy letting it go when I have heard gay people themselves using it in this way without taking it as a slur on their orientation.

500. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169757 by Cartomancer on April 26, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Ah, now bread pudding is an entirely different animal from bread and butter pudding. A well-made bread pudding will keep a family of miners alive for months, and can be used in emergencies for plugging holes in a sinking ship.