451. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132059 by Richard Morgan on February 24, 2008 at 4:32 am

Steve Zara - stop reading my mind! A couple of weeks ago I did a musical "sketch" of a debate in which Hitchens would be a participant.


http://www.esnips.com/web/Hitchindebate


Just for a little light relief.

452. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132049 by Richard Morgan on February 24, 2008 at 3:14 am

Richard D, I believe it was you, yourself, who suggested somewhere that, just as religion inspired composers and artists in the past, the wonders of reality revealed through (scientific) observation could inspire artists and musicians today.

But, Richard M, did you actually COMPOSE this music especially for the lava lizards?

Yes I actually composed this, not for the lava lizards (who, judging from the way they scuttle, prefer Reggae), but as a celebration of your message as expressed in The Lava Lizards Tale.
Depending on people's reaction to "Fingerprints - past time", I shall be working on more compositions. Clearly, where your words and/or voice are used, this will be strictly for sharing with the RD.Net family.
Yes, I have to admit - your words are inspiring.

453. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #132029 by Richard Morgan on February 24, 2008 at 12:54 am

I'd like to listen to this, but all I get is an error message.

The link to the site esnips.com should open a page that plays an mp3.
Perhaps this will work for you :


http://www.esnips.com/web/SuiteforEvolution



If this doesn't work, I can send the mp3 to a personal e-mail address.

Radesq:

the music is pleasant enough...the first clip seems to me to be smouldering with sexual innuendo.

"smouldering with sexual innuendo"? You seem to be listening to something a lot more exciting than my mp3!!

454. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131828 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 11:53 am

Please, somebody, anybody, give me a reaction to my little "sound collage".
I'm not a troll.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

455. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131811 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 11:18 am

http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

456. Fleabytes

Comment #131796 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 10:26 am

Wales 47 : Italy 8
Celebration time!
Music!
http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

457. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131795 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 10:25 am

Er.... Wales 47 - Italy 8 ( you provocative ol' sod, you!)

458. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #131792 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 10:20 am

Completely off-topic, but after the 47-8 score, I felt like letting my hair down a little.


MUSIC!


http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

459. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131790 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 10:19 am

Sort of off-topic, but after the 47-8 score, I felt like indulging myself a little.

Music!

http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

460. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131783 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 9:48 am

Is this the first musical comment?


Suite : For Evolution

N° 1 : Fingerprints - past time?


Text by Richard Dawkins;
Spoken by Richard Dawkins;
Original music : Richard MORGAN

Dedicated to Lava Lizards everywhere.
(Special thanks to Darwin for an original idea.)

http://www.esnips.com/doc/94b0ab1a-0c3c-4708-a60f-993b87db161f/N°1---Fingerprints----past-time

461. Moral thinking

Comment #131663 by Richard Morgan on February 23, 2008 at 12:53 am

JemyM :

I'm actually looking for the studies required to work with research on this topic.

Have you tried this?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/descent/default.htm


Sure, it's not a study, but there are some pointers.
Enjoy

462. Fleabytes

Comment #131598 by Richard Morgan on February 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Paul Creber

Like many others here, I suspect that his response will be empty, meaningless and full of prejudice.

"Suspect"?
You seriously expect us to believe that you have any doubts? Have you read any of his previous posts? And in spite of that, you only "suspect"? I'm sorry - I don't believe you.

What matters is that we listen to what he has to say and then address his case.

Have you heard the expression : "Been there - done that."?

Anything other than that is dogmatic and intolerant.

It may surprise you to learn that I am a free-thinking atheist, and also absolutely intolerant of certain things.
Being the gullible victim of manipulative mind-games is one of them.
Child abuse is another.
Driving under the influence of alcohol is another.
Do I need to continue?
Yes, I can be dogmatic and intolerant.
Sometimes I deem it not only appropriate but essential.

Oh - and why should we care whether or not he plays the martyr? Haven't you realised that whatever we do or say, he will play some unhealthy game?
We have arrived at a point where the only possible solution is silent indifference.
Let me start - this will be my last post on this thread.

463. Fleabytes

Comment #131553 by Richard Morgan on February 22, 2008 at 2:46 pm

the great teapot :

then why ever visit this website again?

Because this site is a precious place for me at this point in my life.
Because Dawkins' books have changed my life for the better.
Because I am attached to many of the people here.
Because Wales is experiencing the greatest miracle of all in the Six Nations Tournament : the godless miracle.
Hallelu....oops!
"Cymru am byth!"

464. Fleabytes

Comment #131545 by Richard Morgan on February 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Excuse me, guys, but I can't read any more of this stuff without asking the question : "Am I the only person here who can see what a farce this is all becoming?"
Does anybody here really, honestly believe that DR will have anything of interest to say? I don't, and I would humbly suggest that I am not alone.
So why allow, or worse, invite him to clog up these columns with his predictable (insert word from Styrer's/Diacanu's vocabulary)?
I'm sorry, but I can't avoid the uneasy feeling that we're drooling at the idea of seeing DR make a fool of himself again.
Earlier in this thread I suggested it might be a case of morbid curiosity. I'm getting more and more convinced that this might be the case.
I do hope that we're not going to special lengths to show that we're squeaky clean and fair and honest. To what point?
Steve is absolutely right - the "right to reply"thing just doesn't have any real meaning here.
All the in-house references make it quite clear that Paula's review was written for us, her RD.Net chums. And we applaud her for her efforts. I think.
But why invite him back into the arena when he's been effectively stripped of all his weapons? To give a new meaning to the expression "flogging a dead horse/flea"?
I'm almost on the point of asking Véronique to come back and say, "Now just stop that, children, you're getting nowhere!" (Although she'd probably throw in a "fuck" or two to spice things up a bit!)
Seriously, where will the rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal thing come to an an end. Or is it like turtles : "rebuttals all the way down."?
I'm sorry, but this is no longer healthy debate. This thread is beginning to acquire a distinctly unhealthy feeling.
I'm almost expecting someone to write : "It's not fair, Sir, he/she started it all."

465. Fleabytes

Comment #131315 by Richard Morgan on February 22, 2008 at 8:33 am

clearthinker :

Now I have to go as I have a job to do - a sermon to prepare for Sunday.

Without doubt, the best part of the whole post. Clear, precise, with only the tiniest appeal for the need to exercise faith.
Before David gets back to assault us with part 2, can I propose a little competition - just amongst ourselves, for the fun of it?
Since many of us knew what he was likely to say, and how he was likely to say it, can we start writing Part 2 for him?
I dare you!
You know his points of view, his techniques and strategies, his vocabulary and all the rest. I'm sure some of you could do a superb job. (In between the Six Nations Rugby Tournament matches)
Don't forget to appear to be polite and well-meaning when you start introducing lies, which should be limited to a maximum of one per sentence.
Be careful not to overdo the Pathos - actually weeping into your keyboard will be considered bad taste and will be severely penalised.
Well, what are you waiting for?
Allez-y, mes amis!

Closing date : 24h00 (CET) Sunday,24th February

466. Fleabytes

Comment #131119 by Richard Morgan on February 22, 2008 at 1:43 am

Styrer :

I am not absolutely sure what little game you have decided you wish to play here.

Oh dear, you're sounding like my ex-wife. (LOL)
But I understand your point.
I was having an emotional, un-reasoned reaction to your daring to criticize everybody's-darling's hard work.
I will delete my original post tomorrow.

467. Fleabytes

Comment #131106 by Richard Morgan on February 22, 2008 at 1:09 am

The same Styrer writes :

The texts you chose to attack in rather pedestrian manner (their own texts being possibly wholly pedestrian in presentation does not enforce you to respond likewise!

AND

...your godforsaken god is a load of shite....
unalterable, irrational crap.
...fuck off.

Well, at least you're consistent!
But frankly, Paula, in her "pedestrian manner" is the better communicator here.

You would do Paula an enormous disservice and grant her very little respect if you do not offer her every conceivable dissenting point you can think of.

So your criticism was motivated by respect and the desire to "do her a service"?
If you say so.

468. Fleabytes

Comment #131086 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 11:46 pm

styrer :

The texts you chose to attack in rather pedestrian manner (their own texts being possibly wholly pedestrian in presentation does not enforce you to respond likewise!)

I have to agree, but, honestly, does it matter? Did you have to say that?
I can imagine that as Paula was preparing this article it was probably not a state secret, and in all likelihood she was encouraged by friends and/or virtual fellow-travellers on RD.Net.
Even though she jibes "given that his book is most likely to be read by Christians who don't want to read TGD for themselves but want to know how to argue against it,..., many of us here are happy that she has read the books for us and suggested "how to argue against" them.
LeeC's "Thanks for doing the reviews... a handy place to "cut and paste" from. " expresses an increasingly widespread phenomenon from which RD.Net is not exempt - a sort of unwillingness to do the leg-work, allow others to do it for us , then sit back and "cut and paste".
I am old, and enjoy reading. Mayde the information generation functions in a different way - it is too soon for me to pass judgement.
But, my dear, respected Styrer, my feeling is that Paula was motivated by the wish to do us all a favour, (and have a lot of fun in doing so, I'm sure) "us" - here on RD.Net
Her pals.
More power to yer elbow, Paula!
Styrer - try not to over-dramatize, ok, chum?

469. Whale Evolution

Comment #130956 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Double Bass Atheist.
Since we are in the throes of the Rugby Six nations Tournament, I'm not really in the mood for articles and comments on "the evolution of Wales".
Sorry about that.
I'll get over it.
'Twll tin pob sais'

470. Fleabytes

Comment #130737 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 8:07 am

kaiserkriss :

We might not learn any new argument, but don't CENSOR the guy. That would be doing EXACTLY what he would want us to do, which is wrong.

I trust that we are all adults here, and can act independently of what WeeFlea may want or not want us to do. I hope we have grown beyond playing that sort of game.
Basic rules of (intellectual) hygiene are not censorship.
(No offence intended, sincerely, jcw)

471. Fleabytes

Comment #130726 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 7:49 am

Philip 1978

I share your anger.
And I fear that if the Wee Flea is allowed to expose himself here again, I shall have to report this site to the RSPCA.
Please - let's try to keep this a "clear-thinking oasis".
Please.

472. Fleabytes

Comment #130721 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 7:39 am

Bill Bryson :

Here are instructions for being a pigeon:

1. Walk around aimlessly for a while, pecking at cigarette butts and other inappropriate items.
2. Take fright at someone walking along the platform and fly off to a girder.
3. Have a shit.
4. Repeat.
-- (Notes from a Small Island, 1995)

Since I have no desire to be confronted with Robertson's hypocritical nonsense again, and since it looks like he may have convinced y'all to give him some free advertising space, may I open a little competition as light relief?
Complete the following:

Here are instructions for being a Wee Flea:
1.
2.
3.
4. Repeat.

The winner will receive a bunch of converted Marxist daffodils.

473. Fleabytes

Comment #130710 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 7:23 am

Questzalcoatl :

Clearthinker-

I'm sure we'd like to hear your response to Paula's review.

You're "sure"?
Really sure?
Sounds rather like morbid curiosity to me.

474. Fleabytes

Comment #130697 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 7:06 am

David Robertson

If you would like me to reply to Paula...

Any takers?
(I can't see how his reply would be of any interest, but others could I suppose.)

475. Fleabytes

Comment #130684 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 6:41 am

PJG :

It isn't the non-belief that is increased, you are right in saying that you can't "REALLY-not-believe" but I think you can become more aware of the strength of your own disbelief.

AllanW :

"I didn't believe before but now I can better understand and justify my non-belief."

Thank you both for these explanations (and the other posters who have responded to my query.)
You have confirmed my impressions, and expressed them more clearly than I could have done.
I am particularly interested in the whole process of moving from theism to atheism. (Not as simple an issue as it may appear to some.)

When Paula affirms

If religion loses followers in a secular society it will be because a) it is no longer being actively forced on children by the State and b) because former believers will have lost their belief. Not through force, not through coercion, not through oppression, not through extermination (it's embarrassing to even have to refute such patent nonsense), but through debate and explanation.

I wonder to what extent "former believers lose their beliefs"..."through debate and explanation". I will continue to investigate that one.
Just a side comment here. I couldn't avoid giving a guiltily embarrassed chuckle when I re-read

..given that his book is most likely to be read by Christians who don't want to read TGD for themselves but want to know how to argue against it,

You see, to be quite honest (something I do at least once a week) I value Paula's article for precisely the same reasons.
I don't want to read the Fleas but...etc

476. Fleabytes

Comment #130625 by Richard Morgan on February 21, 2008 at 3:17 am

my atheism has strengthened considerably as a result.

This remark of Paula's raises a point that I, personally, find particularly interesting.
The idea that there can be a "strong" and a "weak" atheism.
It's almost as if Paula is saying, "I didn't believe in gods before, but now I really don't believe in the existence of gods."
Or is it more a question of, "I didn't believe before, but now I can better justify my non-belief."?
Now, I know that this is not exactly what she is saying, and it is the language of one who has previously espoused a faith which weakened and then disappeared.
Is there a critical mass of "knowledge" that can replace "faith" with reason? Or are different mental processes involved?
Are there different degrees of belief and non-belief?
What personal references do people use to decide where they place themselves on the "theist-atheist" scale... if such a thing exists?
Many stories in the Converts Corner contain a version of "I never really believed anyway, but...". Are they true converts?
I have heard about "faith-strengthening" experiences all my life. But, what, exactly is "atheism strengthening"? Or is it a question of non-overlapping magisteria?
My personal jury is still out on this one.
Can any of you guys help bring it back in?

477. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129763 by Richard Morgan on February 19, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Comment #129458 by Tyler Durden

Because our parents told us to. Can I have my money now?

For this one-generation answer, you have just earned 5p. Where should I send it it?
The other £1,899,99.95 will be spent on the study of all the other generations way back to the beginning.
If that's all right with you...?

478. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #129035 by Richard Morgan on February 18, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Machines to match man by 2029.

To match man?
I can't believe this!
Why would people want to start making dumb machines in 2029?
I thought AI was supposed to be an improvement.

479. Bill Moyers Interviews Susan Jacoby

Comment #129033 by Richard Morgan on February 18, 2008 at 2:16 pm

And we've heard it over and over in the primaries from candidates who supported the war and changed their minds. "We were lied to," they said. If we'd known then what we know now we wouldn't have done it. And they say to the public, "You were lied to."

How come everybody in France knew that the WMD story was a bunch of lies, and y'all stopped drinking good Burgundy because France refused to go and slaughter innocent Iraqis on a false pretext?
So - the Brits have Richard Dawkins, the Americans have this remarkable woman Susan Jacoby, and here in France we have, well...er... good Burgundy.

480. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128802 by Richard Morgan on February 18, 2008 at 1:59 am

Humans and machines would eventually merge

This makes me so angry!
I mean, has anyone consulted the nanobots on this proposed merger? Do they have a say in the matter?
This is so typical of human pride, isn't it?

481. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128698 by Richard Morgan on February 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm

To end on a lighter note, we hope that our fellows on this site may recognise others with whom a strong connection might be made; let them unite and join that special RDF club founded by Veronique and Yorker, who found each other here and discovered the persistence of love.

A wonderful idea!
I am wondering why my wife doesn't share my enthusiasm...

482. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128692 by Richard Morgan on February 17, 2008 at 4:36 pm

They had in short, fallen in love.

Evidence, please.
Peer-reviewed papers on the evolutionary advantages, for example?
Punctuation problems : They had >,< in short, fallen in love.
Aw, fuck, it ain't always rational thinking and evolution, fercrissakes, SOMETIMES IT'S JUST LIFE
I am so thrilled about this. Thank you for sharing your happiness with us. I almost forgot to be cantankerous there for a moment...
What's love got to do with it?
There, now I feel better. ;-)

............(...(`.-``'´´-.´)...)..........
..............)......--.......--....(...........
............./......(o..._...o)..............
......................(..0..)......./..........
..........__.`.-._...'='.._.-.´.__.......
......./.......'#.'#.,.--.,.#'.#.'.........
.......\__))..........'#'......... ((__/.....
__xxxxxxxxxxx______xxxxxxxxxx
_xxxxxxxxxxxxxx___xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
____xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________xxxxxxxxxxxx
___________xxxxxxxxx
_____________xxxxx
______________xxxx
______________xxx

483. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128572 by Richard Morgan on February 17, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Juxta Monkey :

Jesus, you should see me walking down the hallways! It is one humorous sight. ;)

You can walk down my hallway any time you want. But stop calling me "Jesus" - it makes ne nervous on this site.

484. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128558 by Richard Morgan on February 17, 2008 at 11:36 am

Juxta Monkey :

BTW, I think I nust be misunderstanding the last bit about "mother tongue". English is my only language =)

*Blushes*
*Looks for a hole in the ground in order to be swallowed up and disappear forever.*
*Covers himself with sack cloth and ashes.*
*Rends garments.*
*Realises he is making himself even more ridiculous and decides to simply apologise."
JuxtaMonkey - "I am so sorry. please forgive me."

annabanana :

185. Comment #101502 by Richard Morgan on December 20, 2007 at 12:59 pm
If you don't belong to the enemy camp, don't wear their uniform and don't perpetuate their rituals. If you ignore this advice, don't expect to be taken seriously - however lovely, innocent (and naïve) you may be.

Comment #101512 by annabanana on December 20, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Richard Morgan,
Thanks for the assumption that I am naive. I will take that as a compliment as I am young still, and am enjoying being so.

171. Comment #128391 by annabanana on February 16, 2008 at 10:29 pm
It is sometimes frustrating when I feel that I try to make well thought-out, rational arguments and someone just retorts with "you're just naive". It's also something I've been battling my whole life, not just on the site.

Perhaps you just need to be a little humble on this one, and try to understand what is coming from you that provokes others to call you "naive".
Take an example from my own experience.
After only about fifteen years, and some 3524 women calling me "patronising", I was able to question my personality and realise that I was, in fact, insufferably patronising with women... of all ages.
I immediately set about correcting this, and was able to find a perfect solution.
I stopped listening to what women said about me.
Seriously, though, whatever your reaction, whatever you decide to do, DON'T GO AWAY!!
What would Diacanu and I do without you?


P.S. annabanana :

Comment #126756 by annabanana on February 14, 2008 at 6:54 am
this site has come to represent quite an important aspect of my life at the moment.


I'll simply say...me too...I shall send you a pm later. :)

I'm still waiting...

485. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128028 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 10:07 pm

dkv

There is a possibility that all the religion bashers will get roasted in hell like insects...they will might get subjected to inhumane torture by the devil who will throw their half conscious body in boiling oil.

I showed this to a very young nephew. He asked me which video game was being described and was a Gameboy version available.
Well, over to you, dkv

486. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #128019 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm

82abhilash :

Americans are more smarter than the mainstream media gives them credit for.

*Groan.*
Grammar groan.
A special prize for the first person to re-write this sentence in correct English. (Please mention your mother tongue. If you are a native Welsh speaker, the prize value will be doubled.)

487. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #128000 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 9:15 pm

JuxtaMonkey - you're going to have to be understanding with tooltroll - it's not always easy being green AND ugly.
You don't need to apologise to anybody about your English or your grammar. I wish I could express myself as well as you do in a language which is not my mother tongue.
Without being able to find the exact wikipedia reference, I can assure y'all that serious and thorough studies have shown that there are dumb people in every country on the earth. The bell curve is a constant.
Before criticising Americans (as if there were such a thing as "an" Amercian!) remember you're on a site dedicated to reason

488. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127996 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Why does it worry me that for so many questions great and small, I get hyper-linked to wikipedia?

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


Is it only because you guys think that I don't know how to use Google and Wikipedia? Or is this the "only way of knowing" for you?

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

D'oh....

489. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #127990 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 8:43 pm

"Sexual desire, perhaps (only "perhaps", mind you) mixed with immorality, gave us rape and sexual abuse of children."

I'm beginning to think that Stein's reasoning is flawed...

490. Ben Stein Wins Intelligent Design Money

Comment #127972 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm

dlitt :

the majority of Americans are going to flock to the theatre in search of something (mistakenly perceived as intellectual)

I find this notion surprising but, in some ways encouraging, since I've just finished reading the thread "Dum and Dumber : Are Americans hostile to knowledge."
This seems to contradict the notion that a majority are going to flock to see a film because of it's (apparently) intellectual appeal.
Doesn't it?

491. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127964 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Teratornis :

Temporary alliances have proved useful throughout history.

If we adopt the confused-narrator model of self, then hypocrisy begins to make some sense.

Speaking of fetishes, it would be easy to develop one for our own brainy, fun, flirty, and apparently hot annabanana.

Not that I could necessarily get it straight with book length.

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand how you reason. But in spite of that I can easily imagine that you're a very nice person and you help old ladies to cross the road, and young ones to stay on the same side as you.

492. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127087 by Richard Morgan on February 15, 2008 at 12:12 am

Teratornis

The self-conscious religious person certainly is not convinced that having a religion is as unambiguously good as having a billion dollars.

I sense that you have made a rather unfortunate comparison here, where both propositions are somewhat questionable.
On what basis do you affirm that "The self-conscious religious person certainly is not convinced etc etc "? Do you actually, personally know self-conscious religious people who consider that owning millions is morally preferable spending eternity in heaven?
Also I am far from convinced that having a billion dollars is unambiguously "good" for everyone. When I was a (false) "true believer", we had a joke : "It's obvious that God doesn't like money. Just look at the people He gives it to!"
Without forgetting that a Bible-based believer is programmed to consider that mockery and scorn are to be expected and that "the wisdom of God is folly to man" etc etc (yawns, falls asleep next to a snoring Diacanu).
Ridicule, however, remains a useful tool of enlightenment in dealing with people who are uncertain, or better, worried about their beliefs.
Some psycho-analysts talk about the salutary effects of coming to the realisation the "absurdity" of neurotic constructs. And yes, it is a happy day when a person realizes and is able to accept the idea, "Man, that's just so crazy." before moving onto the "How-could-I-ever-have-believed-that?" phase.
For the true believer (whatever that is) open ridicule will provoke a defensive reaction and strengthen, not his belief system, but his attachment to his beliefs. But we all know that, don't we?
Don't we?

493. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127021 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Cartomancer : before you go any further (with your highly interesting exposition) I think the time has come for you to define your use of the words "appropriate" and "level". I suspect that when you do so, many of us will find that we are on common ground.

494. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127018 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;
Our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:--
We murder to dissect.

Enough of Science and of Art;
Close up those barren leaves;
Come forth, and bring with you a heart
That watches and receives.

Doesn't exactly have the same ring about it in 2008 as it did in 1798...

495. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126936 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Richard admits that he is "not trying to be a good politician".
What do you guys think about that?
Does it matter?
Do "we" need good politicians?
If so, are there any volunteers here?
(Diancanu and I would most certainly not be in the running!!!!)

496. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126934 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm

I agree with you, Steve Z. Sometimes we need to vote with our feet. Sometimes we must walk away from certain "debates".

497. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126929 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 2:08 pm

I am willing to believe that Madeline Bunting is a well-educated, cultivated, intelligent person. This means, then, that in the absence of any verifiable evidence (during this debate), I am a Buntingist.
Like many of you, I positively cringed with embarrassment for her when she came out with things like "there is some truth here which is not about "evidence", not about "fact" ".
One last thing, at last we can be clear about what Richard is referring to when he uses the expression "child abuse" : it is both the labelling of children as Christian or Hindu AND teaching them about hell fire.
EDIT : Richard admits that he is "not trying to be a good politician". What do you guys think about that?
Does it matter?
Do "we" need good politicians?
If so, are there any volunteers here?
(Diancanu and I would most certainly not be in the running!!!!)

498. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126914 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Epinephrine : thank you for this linguistic clarification. As I have mentioned before, I fear I am losing my grip on the English language.
I'm afraid that I also tend to have an allergic reaction to the word "should".

People shouldn't be committing crimes (or misbehaving) because of the implications of what consequences their actions will have on other people, and because of our evolved sense of empathy we should innately not want to cause others harm.

annabanana - With my highlighting, is this a correct reading of what you were saying?

499. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126838 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 10:29 am

annabanana :

we should innately not want to cause others harm.

Are we opening the "nature versus nurture" debate here?
Does this mean that "morals" are innate? The Golden Rule is innate?
Hm - very interesting.
This affirmation causes me some problems. Does it mean that some people "innately" (are "born" that way) want to cause harm to others?
We "should"... according to what criteria?
What you say is very interesting, but I would like a few more of the nitty-gritty details of your reasoning here.
Also your talk of "consequences" throws us right back into the old behaviourist debates - positive and negative reinforcement and all that. (Oh, the joys of being one of Skinner's pigeons.)

500. A Tyrannical Romance

Comment #126754 by Richard Morgan on February 14, 2008 at 6:43 am

annabanana

Richard, many times you make me laugh, and then other times I'm just frightened.

All the girls end up saying that to me sooner or later...
But you need to know that while I may, many times, make some comments just for the sake of some light relief, in fact this site has come to represent quite an important aspect of my life at the moment.
More details if you ask for them in a personal message...