451. Fleabytes

Comment #139118 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 6:54 am

Dr. Benway - PM for you.

Styrer

452. Fleabytes

Comment #139110 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #139105 by Dr Benway on March 5, 2008 at 6:23 am

Comment #139101 by Styrer:
Street slang?
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=How_to_speak_lolcat

Yes, I've already linked to this from one of your previous posts.

I really do not know what the fuck you are on about.

Why do you positively regale yourself with such cryptic utterances and links to websites I simply do not understand?

While others seem to find it funny, the humour is absolutely incomprehensible to me.

You make me feel even more stupid than I normally feel.

Happy?

Best,
Styrer

453. Fleabytes

Comment #139109 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 6:31 am

the boundary between good religion and toxic religion

Unpersuasive. If you would kindly replace your word 'religion' with 'faith', would you continue to see such a distinction?

Please tell me what 'good religion' is?

Best,
Styrer

454. Fleabytes

Comment #139101 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 6:14 am

LOL. I can haz massacre.

Street slang?

What's going down, man?

Wearing shades yet?

Dude - you the cool prof of the boardwalk threads, man. No can do with yo massive talk.

Leave, like, sho' respec' for yo'self.

Yeh?

Nice.

Styrer

455. Fleabytes

Comment #139072 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 5:20 am

3530. Comment #139059 by Steve Zara on March 5, 2008 at 5:06 am

Comment #139051 by Styrer-


Your one side will do just fine for the moment.

Teach!


How could I resist that?

My view, as simply as possible:

We have experiences, which some people call "qualia", such as happiness, redness and so on.

I think it is strange that certain patterns of firings of nerve cells lead to the feelings of these experiences, rather than the knowledge of them. MPhil would probably say that these are the same thing!

I don't believe that there is anything more than physics, and everything derives from the material world. But, there are things that emerge from that material world that can't be reduced to the lowest components. Like temperature (saying one particle is at 100C makes no sense).

My view is that it makes sense to say

There is something that is what it is like to process information in a certain way. That processing being the patterns of firing of neurones, in the case of our brains.

I have no idea what type of information processing is necessary for it to feel like something to do it.

But I am not in any way talking about dualism. I expect that the feeling of what it like is a property of the material world, and it can be predicted from the material world (Paul Churchland has shown this clearly).

Thank you, Steve!

I intend now to leave for a few weeks to try to understand the ideas!

Thereafter, I'll be after MPhil's.

I think I already need to lie down. :)

Best (and thanks again),
Styrer

456. Fleabytes

Comment #139051 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 4:48 am

I can't help because I am on one side

Your one side will do just fine for the moment.

Teach!

Thanks,
Styrer

457. Fleabytes

Comment #139034 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 3:55 am

Is there anyone amongst you erudite and clever lot who would possibly be prepared to deliver, for the likes of an old thickie like me, the edited highlights of your banter? Some cogent summary?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Ah well.

Styrer

458. Fleabytes

Comment #139009 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 2:56 am

When Brian started posting commentary on the debate between a couple of members a few days ago, I thought: shut up, you massive pain in the arse.

But now I would gladly pay for his services. Is there anyone amongst you erudite and clever lot who would possibly be prepared to deliver, for the likes of an old thickie like me, the edited highlights of your banter? Some cogent summary?

Thanks,

Styrer

P.S. No offence, Brian! :)

459. Fleabytes

Comment #138996 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 2:35 am

Max D

Can you cut and paste your response here, please?

Thanks.

Best,
Styrer

460. Fleabytes

Comment #138965 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 1:57 am

"Thomas, because thou hast seen me,

thou hast believed. / Blessed are they that have not seen / and yet believeth."

Esp that last line. Lack of empirical evidence is positively encouraged

The less, the better, in fact.

Remaining with Harris, it is surely an insult to these divine words to seek out miracles, which are unflinchingly offered as proof in the here and now of such divinity?

I cannot understand why this huge discrepancy is not used much more often to show that we all share at least some level of empiricism on which to wend our way through this world.

Best,
Styrer

461. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #138951 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 1:34 am

Russell, you've given birth to a new Dawkinsian phrase!

'That's all interesting buttery'!

Come, come, sir. Your first three paragraphs of your post are, again, wholly defensive - is that any way to behave towards your oft-quoted notion of me as an ally?

'Why, Styrer, how nice. Your post is a fine example of what's wrong with the internet.

This was a robust, sharp, engaging rebuke, well-placed at the beginning of your post, all the better to grant it power - but you now try to diminish the scope of it by intimating you were simply anxious about the internet's 'lack of non-verbal cues'. Poor show. I prefer your 'kick him in the balls from the start' stance to your rather weasly re-shaping of your rebuke into something smaller. For shame, sir.

The rest of your post is at least more equal to your initial position, though you still do not seem to consider my concern about the language you employ of any consequence whatsoever. I do not know what more I can do to persuade you on this point.

I must also, sadly, continue to disagree with you on your so-called Wittgensteinian support of 'fuzzy' terminology. We are now at a quite different point in the history of ideas, such that there is today, hyperbole notwithstanding, a war between faith and reason which cannot be fought by way of easy sound-bite references to the traditional 'ideas people' of the past. Harris did not over-egg the point by referring to 'a moral and intellectual emergency.'

There is a large measure of agreement between us. But I again advance the point that it is your language and your approach which I think are not fully and adequately embracing the level of irrationality that faces us, if you are willing to permit me to consider your posts as a genuine reflection of your stance towards this issue.

I trust I have made my concerns clearer this time round.

Best,
Styrer

462. Fleabytes

Comment #138937 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 12:57 am

People claim that religious experiences are some kind of evidence for the existence of God. People like David even claim that beauty is such evidence.

Just imagine when we know enough about the mind to know precisely what is going when they have such experiences, or find something beautiful...

If Harris is right (during the Horsemen get-together), it's even worse than that - the fact that there is no evidence is evidence itself for the veracity of faith in deities.

Beat that.

Best,
Styrer

463. Fleabytes

Comment #138931 by Styrer- on March 5, 2008 at 12:47 am

I wish to remind Steve Zara, MPhil, MaxD et. al. that you simply must stay on-topic.

You must all surely know that the main topic on this thread must, er, remain within the province, er, of the, er, hang on, er, David, no, er, the FLEA, no, er, what was no. 1243 again, er...

Fuck it. Fill yer boots, boys.

P.S. this thread must surely go down as the most sublimely extravagant in the history of the site. Simply love it for that. Good work. But if RD complains - gallantly blame Paula. :)

Best,
Styrer

464. Fleabytes

Comment #138886 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Before I post my response to Paulas [sic] review of my sixth letter I want to mention a couple of the posts in the 1000 or so which have been posted in response to my last one. As per usual most were irrelevant, self indulgent [sic] and pointless. And the infighting amongst yourselves is reassuring - its [sic] not only Christians who can do that!

Having urged all of you, at several points in this thread, to understand that Robertson has fully earned our dismissal, I now abjure my earlier comments.

I request a moment of sombre silence from you all to consider this above opening comment from Robertson.

Having 'just returned from speaking to 700 students', (apparently none of whom wished to detain him any longer with drinks at the bar and follow-up chat), he rushes off to log on, all alone, to...Richard Dawkins' website!

In the time-honoured tradition of those lonely souls seeking solace on message-boards throughout e-land, he creates a little stir ('most were irrelevant, self indulgent [sic] and pointless'), by which he might be more readily acknowledged, even negatively, by those whose condemnation he so desperately wishes to replace with affirmation, with understanding, with a little love, leading to...acceptance, from us all.

I am glad I've finally realised the motivation behind the comments from Robertson I've clearly wrongly to date perceived as crass, ignorant, solipsistic, nasty, specious, arrogant, deceitful, manipulative, cruel, insulting and disrespectful.

May we all - please join e-hands here - welcome David into our midst.

David - speech. Go easy on personal thanks to me - I blush far too easily, you big tease!

Best,
Styrer

465. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #138809 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Why, Styrer, how nice. Your post is a fine example of what's wrong with the internet.

It's not a bad comment, you make some interesting observations, and you are, of course, entitled to disagree with me or to request clarification. And yet it's a bit annoying when people go around accusing each other of being "foolish" in what is supposed to be a friendly discussion. No wonder flame wars happen when such churlish (to borrow a word you used) remarks are made by people who are supposed to be allies.

Oh well, I've been called worse, but I just think there's a lesson here. Why not simply stick to the merits of arguments?

As for the points of substance. No, I am not hung up about the distinction between natural and supernatural in the sense that I had in mind and attempted to convey. I'm relaxed about it. I.e., I don't think we should try to draw the distinction too precisely because I don't think it's a precise concept. We should accept that it's a loose distinction and carry on from there. My whole post was about that, so I don't see how I've contradicted myself.

Nor do I see how I've somehow "bought into" a theistic idea without evidence. The orthodox Abrahamic theists do typically claim that their deity somehow transcends/precedes/is independent of the universe, not merely one of the things in the universe, like a ghost would be. I have plenty of evidence that that's what they say.

If you mean that I have no evidence that such a thing as the God of the orthodox Abrahamic theologian actually exists, of course that's true ... but when did I assert that such a thing exists? Since I'm an atheist it's an assertion that I'm very unlikely to make.

The point is that it's easier to believe in God if you believe in other (loosely) supernatural stuff like ghosts and spirits, and harder if you think we live in a disenchanted universe, devoid of all those spooky things that people used to believe in - ghosts, fairies, spirits, and all the rest.

Russell Blackford

It was precisely on the basis of 'sticking to the merits' of your argument that I made clear my concern that you were being 'inconsistent' and 'perhaps a touch foolish'.

I certainly understood all too well from your first post that you have a 'relaxed' attitude to any distinction drawn between the natural and the supernatural; it is this 'mellow, chilled-out' approach itself which I cannot accept as consistent with your evident wish to see irrationality vanquished; and for which I rebuked you (ever so gently, I wish to clarify). If so-called rationalists are unwilling, or too 'laid-back', to enunciate clearly where irrationality begins, how, sir, on earth do you propose we continue to wage the war against superstitious supernaturalism, let alone grant ourselves a real chance of winning it?

I remain concerned that your approach to the natural/supernatural divide, together with your curiously assertive comment that 'God, of course, is not just supernatural; He's actually something that supposedly transcends the universe, unlike spooky things within the universe such as ghosts' unintentionally cedes far too much to the faithful against whom your post is surely attempting to offer a full refutation of their beliefs. (My comment about evidence was exactly about this latter point, and certainly not about your self-evident lack of belief in deities.)

I am constantly amazed at how quickly, how disingenuously and how aggressively theists will pounce, for their own duplicitous ends, on even a small flirtation with religious ideas and terminology uttered by atheists. Your own language and approach, however well-intended, are precisely of this latter kind, and it would, in my little opinion, be foolish of you to persist in this vein.

May I finally add that your comment 'Your post is a fine example of what's wrong with the internet' is surely an almost hysterical, and extraordinarily defensive, response to my rather tame suggestion that you were being 'perhaps a touch foolish.' My post is perhaps a fine example of what's wrong with me, if you prefer; but I urge you to reserve your criticisms of the internet for matters weightier than one of my humble posts, lest you ridiculously marginalise your comments, which I otherwise enjoy reading.

Best,
Styrer

466. What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Comment #138735 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Because of the bold and satisfyingly irreverent title, I expected a similarly bold and irreverent treatment of the issue. Sadly, no.

This strikes more as a good old tongue-in-cheek, 'it's all a bit of a laugh, really', self-satisfied smug-fest of an old members' reunion, with about as much real critical analysis as you'd find at one.

Almost a waste of nearly 28 minutes, but for the long-overdue and pathetically marginalised wisdom of Susan Blackmore, granted a full 30 or so seconds towards the end.

Best,
Styrer

467. Fleabytes

Comment #138615 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Science has built into it this idea: this is the story so far. We know it needs some work and we are currently revising it to come up with a better version.

The book of religion has been sent to the printer and published. Each new edition, however, contains the same errors as the last edition.

That's rather good!

Eminently quotable!

Best,
Styrer

468. Fleabytes

Comment #138585 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 3:00 pm

Paula

Your 'long post above', as you termed it, is most beautifully written. You actually moved me!

Having never been a believer myself - despite considerable effort when I was younger, I must say - I lack such perspective as you share in your post, and think that such accounts and insights from former believers such as yourself will prove indispensable in waging the war against superstitious supernaturalism ever more convincingly.

Many thanks for that.

Best,
Styrer

469. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138253 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 5:26 am

The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail

I do rather like it when faithheads employ terms from their own sphere to denigrate us atheists and anti-theists.

Robertson and his consistent reference to us as 'Dawkins' followers' - he's now gone as far as lending us sacred capitalisation in 'Followers', I note - show the same use of this conceit. No doubt they think it intimates some kind of wise, ironic commentary, when, of course, they are unwittingly expressing suspicion and criticism of those very terms themselves on which their claims to veracity lie.

A rather tasty irony, don't you think? And one which shows their sheer ignorance and short-sightedness even while being their most calculatingly duplicitous.

They really are on the run, if this is the best they can manage.

Best,
Styrer

470. Fleabytes

Comment #138233 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 4:55 am

Welcome back, NMcC!

I've enjoyed lots of your posts in the past - glad the site isn't losing you - we need all the help we can get!

Good stuff.

Best,
Styrer

471. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138174 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 3:06 am

Wishing Richard a successful and convert-filled tour.

Trusting that Josh will upload all those delicious videos of the proceedings from the earliest for my fellow office- and country-bound!

All good wishes,
Styrer

472. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #137124 by Styrer- on March 2, 2008 at 11:42 am

AtheistJon and other Scooternyc defenders

Scooternyc's ideas on any topic can of course stand or fall according to their own strength or weakness; the idea that this is not the case, that he is being ganged up on for his ideas, unfairly, is a misdirection from the real complaint that he often crosses the line from robust and thrusting presentation of opinion (of which I am all in favour) to hurtful, insulting, personal and intimidating comments which not only add nothing to the debate but positively detract from it.

Many here are more than capable of putting forward their ideas in robust, challenging and even rather 'close to the bone' terms - I myself enjoy the oftentimes profane thrust and parry this site offers and am quite capable of such 'lowering the tone' (!) - but such debate is rarely unproductive or designed to insult just for the sake of insult. There is for the most part a point behind such bantering, which in turn drives the debate onwards, providing valuable educational insights which I know I am not alone in appreciating.

By contrast, please indicate to me where the educational value lies in the following quotes from Scooternyc's recent 'contributions':

To Steve Zara, no less:

You're so liberal and so incapable of assimilating anything of intellectual usefulness that you just come off like a ranting liberal fascists

To Steve, again:

Your emotional diatribes feigned as intellectual relevance, are crap, just pure crap.

To Cartomancer

What a mess you are and what a mess your life is.

To SharonMcT:

Sharon, I would never be directly apply intellectual information in your direction as it would be a futile act. I just figured you were on the site to flirt, impress and breed with Cart so that the standards of Darwinian stupidity can continue on rather than advancing to higher levels of intelligence in your part of the woods.

BTW - I ALWAYS have good points to make, that's why I make them. If you're not intelligent enough or free of enough disease to know it [emphasis added], then it would be like ire to your ear.

To SharonMcT, again:

Sharon - do the world a favor and don't breed.

To Diacanu:

You're incapable because of your limited intellect, we understand.

To Diacanu, again:


Diacanu, I can't say the same about you because you never have anything to say.

To Steve Zara, again:

Sorry, but you are not smart enough for me to engage in a conversation about determinism. I save those transactions for those with greater capacity.

Find any?

Do the above give you now at least some idea of where the real objection to Scooternyc's posts lies?

Of course it's possible to present our ideas with such a passion in the cut and thrust of these boards that they can appear, or even become, rude. I am more than capable of doing so. But I submit that the above posts are in a different league, and are arguably offensive (and, in some cases, extremely unpleasant) for their own sake, without adding anything of value to the substance of the debate whatsoever.


Styrer

473. Fleabytes

Comment #136556 by Styrer- on March 1, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Comment #136545 by Cartomancer on March 1, 2008 at 11:41 am

To this end I have decided that I shall bridge the gap and engage him on his own terms...

Brilliantly conceived.

The one downside I detect is that your post still actually contains rather too much internal cogency, which I fear will fail to entirely bridge said gap.

My fingers are nonetheless crossed on this one.

Best,
Styrer

474. Fleabytes

Comment #136505 by Styrer- on March 1, 2008 at 10:47 am

I wonder if Robertson is aware, as a slight aside, that it is actually illegal to write a cheque when there are insufficient funds in your account?

Nice one, David. Better get praying the police don't pay you a little visit after this heartwarming little story.

Best,
Styrer

475. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136488 by Styrer- on March 1, 2008 at 10:12 am

Scooternyc

What a hateful, solipsistic, misogynistic individual your posts indicate you to be.

Your earlier ridiculous dismissal of Steve Zara'a intellect, together with your infantile and vacuous insults against a thoughtful and wise Oxford scholar member here (Cartomancer), suggests to me that you'd be in better company if you leave this thread and hop to 'Fleabytes', where David Robertson has just returned, having made a 'double post' (possibly in competition with your repeated 'triples' here).

You'll make a well-matched pair.

Styrer

476. Fleabytes

Comment #135558 by Styrer- on February 29, 2008 at 5:03 am

The Dark Night of the Soul and the Sweet Light of the Gospel

I recall the Professor in Lynchburg, Virginia, spelling out, almost apologetically (because of its sheer obviousness), to his audience that that which is comforting is not made true because of it.

Robertson's piece here is entirely an expression of such an ignorant, self-deluding proposition. The Professor can clearly not spell out his point often enough.

And, of course, the piece offers not the slightest iota of a jot of a speck of an evidence-based reason why he should not glean all of his life's meaning from 'music, food and my family' without recourse to his fictional holy text of choice.

Paula's excerpt underlines that Robertson really has never had anything of reason to offer in support of his theism, either here or elsewhere.

Let's please do ourselves a huge favour by recognising that he has fully earned our dismissal going forward.

Best,
Styrer

477. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133853 by Styrer- on February 27, 2008 at 12:09 am

Fuck, sorry.

What was I fucking thinking?

Fucketty-fucketty-foo!

Ok, we'll let it go. You seem to have learned your lesson.

My personal fave is from 'Four Weddings' - Fuck-a-doodle-doo. Difficult to get into a conversation, I admit.

Care to take it on a probationary run?

Fucking thought not.

Best,
Styrer

478. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133851 by Styrer- on February 27, 2008 at 12:02 am

Cosmos was wonderful, and it was inspiring, but let's not get too carried away.

I think that it is in the very carrying away with an idea that we can start to hear beyond that 'still, sad music of humanity' and begin to approach, without solipsism, the kinds of ideas Richard spends his time explaining to us. Would you not agree?

Anyway, everyone knows that the closest to perfection a TV series has achieved was the return of Dr Who in 2005.

Rubbish. When the Doctor, Tom Baker, together with his scarf, was replaced by the lamentable Peter Davison, I stopped watching. For ever.

Don't you dare offend and humiliate my belief here. I might have to, er, re-think.

Best,
Styrer

479. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #133844 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Steve-

Sorry, it's just the level of loony shit you have to believe to buy into the whole "scientists are twisting the evidence, and evolution is a worldview", theory is such...agh!!

Hey, Shmeezer, did we go to the moon?

How about Kennedy?
Still alive on an island with Elvis?

Diacanu

Your language in your previous post has gone too far, sir.

You are disgracing the otherwise commendable communication you are known for, and you should seek this site's members' apology forthwith.

You did not utter the word 'fuck' even once.

Please pull yourself together, lest we be forced to refer you for counselling to the Reverend.

Best,
Styrer

480. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133816 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Oops - I forgot the key word in that first sentence!

I found the unfavourable comparisons....


"...I'm sorry but I don't think cosmos can be beaten."
"...but I simply can't conceive of Cosmos being outdone, though I hope for that day that it is. "
etc.
Thanks for pointing that out to me, Styrer!

Er, ok.

The fact that even a mere snippet of Richard in action can bring Cosmos to mind for some is surely something to welcome, in any case.

Not quite sure what your point was, nor still of what your PM would have contained.

Best,
Styrer

481. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133809 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 9:30 pm

I found the comparisons with Cosmos to be in rather poor taste, here, on Richard Dawkins' site.
I was going to start PMing people, then I realised one of the posters was somebody who needed the evolution of life explained to him more than 36 times.
Enough said.

While the poster may indeed require multiple explanations of how evolution works, I do not understand why any comparison of Richard's performances, anywhere, with the groundbreaking, extraordinarily successful 'Cosmos' should be considered 'rather poor taste'.

Is such a comparison not, in fact, an enormous compliment to Richard?

And I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what your PMs in this regard would have said.

Please explain.

Best,
Styrer

482. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133804 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 8:41 pm

AND read Robertson and creationist literature without getting dizzy.

And you'd nearly persuaded me, as a hater of heights.

Lying bastard.

Best,
Styrer

483. Sharia fiasco

Comment #133801 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Oisha

Thank you for your full reply.

While I agree that 'you and I perhaps share a lot of common ground', your post indicates to me that such common ground is not on the most important issue of 'non-propitiation'.

You are entirely wrong that there is no right or wrong answer to the questions we've been discussing. It is entirely wrong to withhold our condemnation of Islam as a religion in its entirety for simple fear of 'offending' or of being 'politically unsavvy'.

You insist on making common cause with my ideas. But your equal insistence that political considerations must inform the way in which my ideas can/should be presented renders your common-cause-making redundant and, may I say, insincere.

Until you can state that Islam is intrinsically a doctrine, for moderates and fundamentalists alike, of conversion, subjugation or death; until you can state that all faith is in potentia lethal; until you are prepared to forgo your political, appeasing, propitiatory approach; then I fear any common ground you wish us to share will prove extremely elusive.

Best,
Styrer

484. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133776 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Yes Styrer you are right. It seems right that resources that are scarce, i.e not available to the majority, should be disallowed.
I believe that would be an acceptable compromise.

No, you don't get off that easily. Certainly not by simply agreeing with me.

I delimit at dope - what is your delimiting factor? I have been specific here, stating that all but drugs is fair and equitable. What on earth are you saying? The 'acceptable compromise' you mention is precisely the status quo! So do you have a point or not? Do you repudiate your claim that dope should not be considered 'against the rules'? Do you simply want to reduce the scope of your argument by claiming 'it seems right that resources that are scarce, i.e not available to the majority, should be disallowed' or do you have the backbone to see through your original endorsement of the inclusion of dope in competitive sport?

And you have still not answered my question: 'Where else, sir, would you make a cutting-off point?'

Stop wriggling and/or sucking up and answer the question.

Best,
Styrer

485. Fleabytes

Comment #133770 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 6:16 pm

...*sigh* okay, Styrer, I'm done.

No need to sigh, Diacanu. Your brilliantly incisive profanities are simply better directed to areas where they don't inadvertently and unjustly aggrandize gobshites undeserving of them.

Best,
Styrer

486. The Giant Tortoise's Tale

Comment #133768 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 6:08 pm

I recall that Richard, in a recent interview, explained that his love of biology did not begin with love of animals themselves, and their habits, but with the explanatory power he thought they held, intellectually and evolutionarily.

How wonderful it is to see him here, a la Attenborough, becoming so physically 'up close and personal' with some of those creatures he has not hitherto been such close friends with!

Always a joy to hear Richard pour forth on the evils of religion; always a greater one to hear him share his wonder of the natural world with us all. From such, his refutations of religion acquire even greater and more persuasive force against those seeking to set rationality on its head.

Heartwarming and educational stuff, Richard. Thank you, and more, please.

Best,
Styrer

487. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133761 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 5:27 pm

In reply to comment #133720 by ThoughtsonCommonToad:


Actually just a question for everyone. Can anyone give a coherent reason why drug doping is against the rules?



I think it's a futile rearguard-action attempt to preserve the genetic inequality on which the entire elite sports industry rests.

Once science enables every human to be as athletic as he or she wants to be, the average person will probably lose interest in worshipping our current genetic anomaly sports heroes.

Then all the people making money off pro sports will have to find honest work.

I don't buy the rationale that anyone cares about the health of the athletes. Granted, the current performance-enhancers are dangerous. But so are some of the popular sports. The richest sport in the U.S. is American football. Look at the human wreckage churned out by the NFL. An NFL lineman has a life expectancy of about 50 years. Many players are crippled after they hang up their cleats.

It would be nice if science could find safe, cheap ways to increase human performance. The industrial world is about to experience a decline in petroleum. This will make life physically harder for many people. It would be helpful, for example, if everyone could ride a bicycle like Lance Armstrong. Then it would be much simpler for society to adapt to the coming shortage of fuel for transportation.

Way to go, Teratornis!

You made accessible sense!

Keep 'em shortish and sweetish, and you'll be read!

Don't you dare forget this, ok?

By the way - bought a fucking book yet? :)

Best,
Styrer

488. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133758 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 5:16 pm

This is a common theme among believers these days. Rather than defend their positions, they suggest that truth is "relative" or depends on context, to the point that one can actually believe anything one chooses. All claims are equally valid, evidence or no. If propositions supported by evidence can be doubted and disbelieved, then propostions which have no evidence or which contradict the evidence certainly don't fare any better.

A wise comment. Only too very true.

McGrath is a case in illustration of your point. His notion that it is not so much the historical fact of the Resurrection as its interpretative value that is important speaks directly to your notion that 'All claims are equally valid', when granted metaphorical or symbolic weight.

Fucking scary stuff, and as pseudo-rational an idea as you can possibly find anywhere.

Dismiss, and proclaim your dismissal as loudly and as relentlessly as you can.

Best,
Styrer

489. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133750 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Well the point of the falsity of inequality was exactly the one I was making with my examples. Either you force all training to be equal, under laboratory controlled conditions to ensure perfect equality, allowing for differences in effort, or you cannot scream inequality when talking about drugs.

Yes it's true drugs cost money, but so do high-tech training facilities and other performance enhancing techniques.

I'd advocate a universal budget to stop inequality based on wallet size.

It's something that has always bugged me. It could come under the heading of Double-Standards I suppose.

Worthwhile points, ThoughtsonCommonToad.

But until that budget universality day comes, can you recommend anything as practical as my suggestion that we simply maintain a cutting-off point which explicitly disallows drugs?

If not, I fear I do not understand what practical use you could possibly be in this issue.

By the way - you did not answer my question: 'Where else, sir, would you make a cutting-off point?'

Best,
Styrer

490. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #133745 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 4:41 pm

I think we can get too hung up about this natural/supernatural business. Our concept of the supernatural may be more like the Wittgensteinian concept of a game rather than being best defined analytically as "what is beyond nature" where "nature" includes the entire reality that we can we investigate. On the latter definition, the supernatural does not exist, but this becomes a trivial truth with no empirical content: it leaves open that there are ghosts, angels, etc., etc., as part of "nature".

The kinds of things that we think of as supernatural may have no single defining characteristic, but rather have various family resemblances to each other.

The "supernatural" things include gods, ghosts, devils, angels, the planetary influences described in astrology, etc, etc. I'd say that we've reached a point where we can be confident that none of those things, or things closely analogous to any of them, or resembling them in impressive ways, exist in our universe. But the evidence could have been otherwise ... and could still be if a whole lot of new, unexpected evidence comes in.

Admittedly, if the evidence of spooky things came in we'd have a larger view of our total reality, but I suspect that we would indeed continue to distinguish between nature and supernature.

God, of course, is not just supernatural; He's actually something that supposedly transcends the universe, unlike spooky things within the universe such as ghosts. But it's important to be confident that the latter don't exist. If we had actual experience with disembodied spiritual intelligences, it would greatly alter our attitude to the idea that there is a very powerful one existing outside the observable universe. This would become a much more plausible hypothesis.

So almost complete is my agreement with the tenor of your post that it may seem almost churlish of me to say: your post and its conclusion absolutely contradict your questionable assertion that 'I think we can get too hung up about this natural/supernatural business'.

But it is in such fairly bog-standard and rather careless posts as yours that we can occasionally see the fatal trap-door through which we do not wish theists see us stupidly fall.

Do not your post and its conclusion show, catagorically, that we can never become too concerned with what constitutes the 'natural' and the 'supernatural'?

To this end, I really do not follow your statement 'God, of course, is not just supernatural; He's actually something that supposedly transcends the universe, unlike spooky things within the universe such as ghosts.'

How is it that you are able to make a differentiating qualitative statement about two non-entities, without conceding that you have, at least for one, bought into the notion that those non-entities (ghosts, here) can be given a place within which to hypothetically exist?

Have you not, sir, also all too easily bought into the theistic idea, and of course without any evidence whatsoever, that god must reside outside the 'ghost' sphere you posit as equally implausible?

I fear you're being inconsistent and perhaps a touch foolish.

Best,
Styrer

491. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133729 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Big league sports are all about the green.

No doubt. But he only wanted a 'coherent' reason, not the right one.

Yours will do as well as mine.

Best,
Styrer

492. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133724 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Actually just a question for everyone. Can anyone give a coherent reason why drug doping is against the rules?

If I'm an athlete and I stick to a calorie controlled diet, and another athlete eats high fat, 'unhealthy' foods the former gains a 'performance enhancement' which is the alleged offence.

If I'm a British athlete with access to cutting edge technology to monitor my running style, oxygen levels etc I gain a massive advantage over an athlete training in the foothills of Nepal who has himself and his running shoes.

To aspire to the idea of equality, in answer.

Your calorie controlled diet, your high fat 'unhealthy' foods are deemed the cutting off point, assumed as they may be to be accessible to all, rich and poor alike.

Drug doping is different - the 'best' only available to those with money on the hip.

Where else, sir, would you make a cutting-off point?

Or are you indifferent to inequality?

Best,
Styrer

493. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #133721 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I used it once in an argument here. Stopped that line dead, I can tell you. As I recall, my words were that Hirohito was not only religious, he was a god.

Why 'stopped that line dead'?

My wife is Japanese and not only concurs with the idea that Hirohito was seen as bestriding heaven and earth but has gone further than I have in denouncing him.

In terms of condemnation, I have now caught her up, of course...

Resurrect that line, sir.

Best,
Styrer

494. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #133713 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Fuller is simply adding his voice to the most contemptible imperative: 'Blame the fucking victim'.

His liberal, lily-livered shite is a disgrace.

Reading Harris and Hitchens was enough for me to wake up to the idea of dangerous propitiation. Reading Andrew Anthony's 'The Fall Out' is simply a wonderful re-inforcement. I commend it to you.

Fuck Fuller, the unthinking man's spokesman.

Best,
Styrer

495. Fleabytes

Comment #133701 by Styrer- on February 26, 2008 at 2:49 pm

My dear fellow atheists

What on earth are you doing?

No-one will endorse your witty bantering more than I will. It's fun and clever, and I learn stuff.

But your continuous reference for posting on this thread, your nigh on adhesive insistence on clinging to it, is your almost obsessive quantification of Robertson.

Please - stop.

Re-direct your (mostly) good sense to other threads which require you. Do not waste it for one more second on a self-serving, irrelevant, faux-humility coated solipsistic charlatan such as David Robertson.

You are doing yourselves an immense disservice by granting him an anticipatory audience entirely unworthy of anything he has ever yet said.

Best,
Styrer

496. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132724 by Styrer- on February 25, 2008 at 6:57 am

Al-rawandi

Almost farcical, having to witness in the example you mention the assistance of one superstitious, immoral institution in overcoming the evil actions of another.

But when people's lives are literally on the line, it's simply morally correct expediency to allow such 'diplomacy' to do its work.

It's at times like this that I'm reminded that we really haven't a moment to lose in proclaiming loudly and relentlessly that faith simply has to be eradicated if we're ever to see, as the Hitch put it better than I can, ' humankind reach something like its true height'.

Best,
Styrer

497. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132702 by Styrer- on February 25, 2008 at 6:28 am

I spoke to a friend in the Afghan government. He seems convinced that this guy will not be executed. That they are going to make an example of him and quietly shuffle him out the back door. Probably for rellocation in the west.

Impressive source, Al-rawandi. All possible pressure should of course be maintained, but this information at least hints at some hope.

Best,
Styrer

498. Fleabytes

Comment #131248 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 5:37 am

Still, I don't think Styrer's a fuckwit.

Good to know, fuckwit.

Ok, that's it, I'm out of puerile quips now - let's pool strength for the probably not so wee battle ahead... :)

Best,
Styrer

499. Fleabytes

Comment #131240 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 5:23 am

You really think you're it and a bit.

Well, I did. It seems a long time ago, now. But you've set me straight, BAEOZ. I thank you.

A few minutes with you will no doubt set many others straight, too. They can at least hope.

Kudos.

Styrer

500. Fleabytes

Comment #131229 by Styrer- on February 22, 2008 at 4:57 am

It's not about you Styrer. Peace.

Er, so why mention my name here?

Get a grip, sunshine.

As well as a dictionary which includes the word 'irony'. It may throw llght on my previous comments for you.

Won't hold my breath, though.

Last time I try a joke out on you.

Peace off, humourless git.

Best,
Styrer