451. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98018 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 1:57 am

Verylee

Hello...I have only been posting for about a week and new to forums. What is trolling?

When in doubt run it through the Urban Dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

452. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98014 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 1:50 am

I have never seen a human being make a bigger jackass out of himself than Richard Dawkins Ruht in my six three decades of life.

Fixed!

----
Only the second time on this site that I have marked as 'troll'. Had to be done though.

S/he will never believe it, but part of my reason was concern for Ruht's state of mind.

Some people should avoid agitating triggers for the good of themselves and others.

453. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #97722 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Ravy

As a UK Anglican most of the people I know accept evolution and as far as I can tell so do most of our clergy.

Cool :-)

Let's keep it that way.

These idiots are trying to get into the UK. They have American funding and are not to be underestimated.

http://www.newlife.co.uk/delusion/index.html

The (tiny) bit of research I have done is enough to scare me.

You don't like it. I don't like it. Strikes me that we both need to keep our eyes open.

454. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97661 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Denoir

Modern day liberalism is unfortunately a very distorted version of the original. The inviolable rights of the individual have mutated into universal tolerance. The irony is that while the mistake is simple to make, the two concepts are actually complete opposites. Tolerance of anything is guaranteed to violate the rights of the individual.

Well put.

455. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97655 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Sam, well done to you and your fellow authors.

How about putting some philosophers through this...

Ah, but is it justified belief...


dloubet

You know what they say about a guy with a lot of equals signs...

Big feet??

456. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97401 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 2:59 am

Shrommer
Just catching up with the conversation on this thread (blimy some people type fast!) can I ask you to read another link?

You say:

Have you studied Rene Descartes' philosophy?

I say: have you studied Ryle? His Descartes Myth is great fun.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CPKHKvge3Z4C&dq=classics+of+analytic+philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JK8sC1gT06&sig=opvHvLMU7eaW0yFdnz6rUsS6HSs

(Click on "preview this book" - it is Chapter 13 and starts at page 296)

Sorry for the long ugly link, but I am still working on my formatting skills.

457. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97397 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 2:51 am

Stommer thanks for the reply and reading the link I posted.

Anyway you say

Nihilism does not seem to me to be a "humane" philosophy, but that doesn't make it wrong. We shouldn't pick and choose our philosophy based on what comforts us or what feels good. We should base it on reason and evidence.

Actually, I substantially agree with the statement above.

Where I take issue with you is the implication that nihilism is a 'rational' philosophy. It is nothing of the sort. Nihilism is an emotional reaction not a rational one.

Why presume that just because there is no superbeing deciding the meaning of life for others that the lives of others have no meaning?

Let me demonstrate this with a thought experiment. A little furry creature (I like them :)) has a long and fulfilling life, it explores it's environment, it loves, it has baby furry creatures, it writes bad poetry etc. Etc.
One day a latex covered huge hand comes from the sky, picks it up and injects it with a compound that kills it instantly. It was part of a drug trial. Bummer.

We can say that the creature's life had a purpose* (as an experimental subject). Can we way that just because it was one that it had never considered that its' existence had no meaning? Of course not. We can say that that is the cosmic sense of things it was a tiny creature. We can't say that it didn't enjoy its' furry little life.

Nihilism is the reaction of a wounded ego when it discovers that the world is much bigger than it, and that others can be just as important as itself.

This is why nihilism is such a favourite philosophy for teenagers – they spend their childhood being pampered and cared for, then suddenly they are expected to begin to fend for themselves and compete in the big scary world. It takes a fair amount of hubris to be a nihilist "If I am not cosmically important – then nothing is!" [Puts on some bad music]

Nihilism is not only an emotional, arrogant reaction (which is bad enough) it is also intellectually lazy which is dreadful.

*There is a difference between meaning and purpose BTW.

458. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97183 by Corylus on December 11, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Goldy said

Sexist too. Coupling "atheistic 'progressive' woman's movement" with your comments on rape, I think you are dangerous. Josh, get rid of him. He is criminally insane.

I agree Goldy.

I wish I weren't so cynical, but I have to say that I am considering the possibility that Ruht is actually female...

Not getting any. Never getting any. Bitter and twisted - sitting in a back room and hugely fat. Hating other women, for the having the life she never can.

This is the harshest thing I have ever said on this site or any other.

However, I have to say that this person is demonstrably vile.

459. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97160 by Corylus on December 11, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Sigh.

John Gray. He has been spouting this drivel for a while. As Whig rightly pointed out his book Straw Dogs (a critique of humanism) is somewhat irritating (to say the least)

He says that he doesn't like postmodernism but spews out the passe Foucault type "where there is power there is resistance" arguments like nobody's business.

Atheism as a response to christianity. FFS!

Nihilistic, relativistic bollocks.

N.B. He is not a theist: just a f&*kwit.

460. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97149 by Corylus on December 11, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Don_Quix

This is what happens when people form opinions based on beliefs and not on evidence. I doubt we'll see any retractions from the theists who were blaming atheists for the shootings, though ;)

Um. Atheists being blamed for mass shootings. I wonder who encourages that type of thought??

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?101407/101407_ff_links&FOX_Friends&School%2520Shooting%2520Links&School%2520Shooting%2520Links&US&-1&News&236&&&new

461. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96431 by Corylus on December 10, 2007 at 2:19 pm

When there is disagreement and confusion misuse of words is often at the bottom of it. Generally, but not always, this is when different people use the same word in differing ways .

This is why it is so important to sort out your definitions before you start.

Accordingly I looked up 'offence'. (OED)
Offence (US offense)
1. An illegal act; a transgression or misdemeanour.
2. Wounding of the feelings (no offence was meant)
3. Resentment or umbrage.
4. The act of attacking or taking the offensive ; aggressive action

And 'offensive' (adj)
1. Giving or meant or likely to give offence; insulting (offensive language)
2. Disgusting, foul-smelling, nauseous, repulsive
3. a)Aggressive, attacking b)of a weapon (offensive weapon)

Right. In the context of this lets look again at this sign.

First "offence"
1. Is it illegal? Nope.
2. Is wounding of the feelings taking place? (mebbe – but as the definition implies that has nothing to do with culpability)
3. Resentment or umbrage? You bet people are taking it and expressing it, but again this is a separate question to whether offence was meant.
4. Aggressive action? Unless the sign is designed to fall on people, I don't think so.

Second "offensive"
1. Bit one size fits all this definition 'giving or meant or likely to give offence' this could mean anything and is useless as a classification. Insulting? This more useful, but begs the question "To whom?" and, in this case, "How can one insult a concept?"
2. Disgusting, foul-smelling etc? Nope.
3. Aggressive, attacking? The injunction to consider a scenario an attack?? Nope.

So, from this we can say that the sign is not "offensive". We can say that people might take 'offence at it". However, we can also say that this offence will have to be taken in an active fashion. The person expressing 'offence' will not have been the victim of an illegal action or an aggressive attack.

This level of offence is impossible to completely guard against because people take active offence at all manner of things. For example, this situation is mirrored when people express horror at, for example, images of prominent prophets , public nudity, etc.

Should we act in a manner that prevents people from being the victims of illegal acts or physical attack? You bet.

Should we act in a manner that prevents people from taking active offence? Impossible, impractical and undesirable in that you would have to stifle all dissent.

So, after giving due thought to this one, I have to say that it is back to comment #9 for me too.

462. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95989 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Ungodlystheist

Send me a picture and I might be willing :-)

You first, sunshine.

463. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95986 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm

RickM

Try "blockquote" :)

464. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95962 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Roger me rigid!

This is getting even more stroppy than the global warming threads.

I was considering writing a thoughtful post about the reasons for my vegetarianism (hippy that I am), but I see that people are getting very wound up so I will wait till Brian says 'Jehovah'.

P.S. Just to show that I do not slavishly follow either crowd I feel constrained to point out that, although vegetarian (for over 20 years now) I have NEVER managed to cultivate a liking for tofu.

I'd rather eat my grandmother's old sofa cushions that her pekinese piddled on - probably taste the same.

465. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95954 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 2:30 pm

ADH

Blimy, you've been posting all over the place with lots of people disagreeing with you. Bet you're knackered. Two things.

1) Nothing wrong with saying 'I'm off to bed now'. Tis OK to sleep and come back to fight another day :)

2) When you type into the little comment box you will see a clickable link above it called 'comment posting guidelines'. Click on that. It will tell you how to put quotes into little boxes and write in bold the names of the people you are responding to. Makes arguments easier to follow for those of us who read more than post.

466. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #95865 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 11:28 am

I am having a very interesting time using the new and exciting "view other comments by" button. Absolutely fascinating. Case in point: I have just looked at the comment by an individual named Peter633 (#43159) held up as an exemplar of the atheist materialist viewpoint by Shromer.

Seems this is someone who posted something unbelievably daft and was never seen again. This sort of thing makes me suspicious not only of the intellect of the poster, but also their motivation... Ho Hum...

Anyway, Shromer.

I wonder whether you will answer a question for me?

I see that you think that:

Dinesh makes a very good point

Needless to say I disagree with that.

However, I am not going to talk about that for the simple reason that the response given to Dinesh by an atheist professor at at Virginia Tech says it all - with an eloquence that I could never hope to match. I do urge you to read it.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,904,Dinesh-DSouza-says-I-dont-exist-an-atheist-at-Virginia-Tech,Mapantsula-Daily-Kos

My question is different. Ok you feel this point is 'a very good' one...

However, I ask you "Do you feel this was the time to make it??"

Do you think that this article was written with any thought or care for any relatives of the beareaved that might be reading it? (Irrespective of their religious views)

Do you think talking about an English biologist (who has made no comment concerning the incident) was relevant? Do you think that the utilisation of the death of teenage students (recipients of their family's pride, hopes and love) merely to make a rhetorical point is acceptable?

Do you think that the article Dinesh wrote was the work of an honourable, man? A humane man?

Personally, I would say that this article has the air of a vulture cackling at the sight of carrion. This disgusting mixture of faux sympathy and opportunism frankly has me suspecting sociopathy by the writer.

Do you not see how the astonishing lack of "Christian charity" shown by one of its' major proponents could lead people to doubt the existence of it?

467. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #95184 by Corylus on December 7, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Duff said.

This guy is simply hustling the Templeton Foundation. He's tired of living in his van and wants the million bucks.

Agreed Duff he is trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. He is using the language of both groups in order to blur the lines, in the hope that neither realise the inconsistency.

In the unlikely event that he is kidding himself and doing this unknowingly he will eventually find himself caught in a snare.

If he is doing this knowingly (I am going for the latter) when pressed he will pull post-modern language out of the hat.

E.g. What is truth? What is a theory? Different paradigms is all.

Sits back and waits...

468. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #95126 by Corylus on December 7, 2007 at 11:59 am

I appreciate the heart of what intelligent design people are trying to do, but it's a dead-end road. It's not science; it's philosophy.

Is it bollocks.

I appreciate the heart of what intelligent design people are trying to do, but it's a dead-end road. It's not science; it's philosophy theology.

Fixed.

Philosophy is about working forwards: theology is about working backwards. This is why theologians make fuckwitted mistakes like assuming evolution is teleological...

Evolutionary theology talks about evolution in a way that gives people a sense of purpose as part of something infinitely meaningful.

...and philosophers don't.

Sorry to get grumpy, but really.

469. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94740 by Corylus on December 6, 2007 at 11:50 am

This injunction against alcohol in Islam is interesting.

I have wondered whether this is due, not to wanting people to keep their bodies and minds pure so that they may contemplate God, but more to avoid civil unrest and revolution.

Only a teetotaller could react to a wailing call to prayer at a disgustingly early hour of the morning with obedience and equanimity.

470. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94580 by Corylus on December 6, 2007 at 2:16 am

I find myself torn between feeling sorry for her (how awful to be deemed the thickest on daytime TV) angry for her (where were her teachers?) and absolutely astonished at her lack of shame.

If I have made that flat earth faux pas, I would no longer be on TV. I would have changed my identity, had plastic surgery and be hiding out somewhere in South America.

471. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94573 by Corylus on December 6, 2007 at 2:06 am

Had to go for the Bishop of Carlisle.

That he spouted such homophobic drivel needs to be publicised wider. This was not Phelps but an Anglican bishop.

This could be an object lesson is showing how important it is to ask the nice moderates exactly what they believe and who they would consider demeaning and discriminating against in the name of faith.

If the answer is 'no-one' - then fine. However, I do think it is important to routinely ask for this assurance.

I was tempted by Chuck Norris. However, on reflection, I realised that my antipathy was due not to his reasoning skills, but crimes against insomniacs. What's on when you can't sleep? Walker Texas Ranger or the shopping channel.

Not good.

472. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94052 by Corylus on December 4, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Edkabr

Oh come now you bunch of atheists! Nobody is good enough for you, these debates are pointless, who do you want to take on now, Mcgrath? Even if God himself were to come down to earth to argue for his his own existence, you would dismiss him as a fool, "same old arguments" you would say. Why do you spend so much time watching these debates if nothing, absolutely nothing makes you think other than your position?

[Cough.]

McGrath - been done.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

It's a good job I'm a kindly sort, or I would tell you to read the comments on there to see whether 'absolutely nothing makes us think'.

Give some examples of what you want people on here to think about (politely please) and you will find plenty of people happy to chat.

Unless of course, you just want to let off steam and be insulting??

473. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94045 by Corylus on December 4, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Janus said

I'm curious to see if anyone here disagrees with the following statement:

No public institution should use any of its ressources to make accommodations for cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence.

Interesting question Janus :-)

How about psychiatric hospitals where some non-evidentiary beliefs are accommodated in order in give people the time and space to slowly and carefully recover (or learn to live with) whatever ails them?

Another scenario - two vegetarians in adjacent hospital beds. One doesn't want the beef burger because he dislikes the cruelty of the meat trade (evidence based reasoning). Another is a strict Hindu and thinks cows are sacred (non evidential). Who gets the nut cutlet? Neither, both??

I reckon you are demanding a standard of rationality that humans don't possess. Most of us, when tested, have a few psychological glitchs.

How about:

"Public institutions should only make use of any of their resources (to make accommodations for cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence) when doing so is not detrimental to the service provided to other users."

The turning of the beds to Mecca is out for both of these statements.

(Edit: Bugger! Just seen your most recent post - looks like you were ready for someone demanding the above ;)

474. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93717 by Corylus on December 4, 2007 at 1:52 am

ADH

It is great that you are willing to think and question. Yes, I can understand your following comment:

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.

I would make a couple of points about that. I would concede that we have a couple of people on here who can be rude. However,

1) We fight each other too :) I have disagreed with several people on here, but I really don't hold a grudge against any of them*, (and I hope they would say the same of me) because discussion helps you to learn. The trick is to disagree civily.

2) You might want to compare this site to a few others. I know this does not excuse bad manners, but, this is a remarkably polite site compared to the competition. It is also self-moderating. If someone says something completely out of line, they will get told off.

Can I make a suggestion?

On the top right hand side of the home page is a 'search' box for the site. Because new stuff gets added so often, it is easy to miss some amazing material. There are a huge amount of videos, interviews and articles to look at. Search via your interests. (Brian has done several good videos the You-Tube star that he is :)

Also, if you find a poster on here that you like, why not have a look at their other comments? There is a function at the bottom of their posts for doing this.

While there are many people on here that I enjoy reading (too many to name!) I would particularly recommend _J_ for general reading and poetic use of language, Dr Benway for humour, Steve99 and Epeeist for learning about science , Russell Blackford for philosophy and Philip1978 for sheer cheerfulness.

C.

*Actually, there is one that I continue to dislike. Not because of his faith, but because of his lack of humanity, but that's another tale :(

475. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #93375 by Corylus on December 3, 2007 at 1:14 am

Well, she has just been pardoned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7124447.stm

Muslim peers went over there and sprung her because of a "Muslim to Muslim" plea.

Much mealy mouthed noding by the talking heads on the news at the moment saying this was about politics and not religion.

Hmm - Without religion would this have happened?

Of course, I am glad the peers took the action they did and I am glad that this poor lady has been released.

However, I remain digusted by this whole sorry afair.

476. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92885 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Russell
(Re 'fine tuning')

The challenge for atheists is to come up with a response that is cogent ... yet simple and clear enough, and sufficiently independent of other assumptions, to be expressed in real time in a live debate.

I would talk about needles in haystacks.

When people say:
"How likely is it that we are in this given environment with so many things just right?"

I would say:
'Yes. It is almost like looking for a single needle in a million, million haystacks, isn't it?'

[Furious nods]

I would then ask how long it would take to find the needle if we were actually the pointy item in question.

Answer: not very long.

Ok this would need clarification and work, if further questions were asked, and I admit not by me as my understanding of physics is simplistic, at the very best :-)

However, the sudden switch in perspective could elicit the queasy realisation that it is possible to couch questions in inappropriate or simply meaningless terms.

Also, it could also make the point that, in terms of the universe, we are tiny beings indeed.

To automically presume that this is all for us has always struck me as the height of hubris, as well as an error of reasoning.

477. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92854 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

ADH

You say

That is why I accept that the human "person" does not begin with birth.... but with conception.

Presumably you also take the view that with the beginning of human life [at conception] one also gets a soul. I am assuming that for you a defining part of 'human life' is ensoulment (correct me if I am wrong on this).

I would be interested on your view on MZ twins.

Seems to me that either:

1)Ensoulment accurs at conception in which case the identical twins share a soul even though the egg has split in two and two babies are born.

That being the case it doesn't matter how virtuous one twin has been, if the other has been bad they are both heading for the hot place. (An unpalatable conclusion)

Or...

2) One can be given a soul at any given point during gestation or birth (at God's command). That being the case your insistence that 'human life begins at conception' seems to be at varience with God's actual actions.

I don't want to accuse you of deciding God's actions for him, but...

How do you resolve this problem?

478. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92835 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 2:43 pm

RationalThinking

to quote Corylus in the response he posted to etny,

I only quote people when I am personally responding to their views/questions.

If I want to make a point I use my own words.

P.S. Why assume I'm male?

479. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92796 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Ludacrispat26

Thank you for your hard word organising this. I am watching now and it's very interesting.

I thought your intro was fine and well balanced :)

480. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92709 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 9:20 am

Don't try to obfuscate my questions by steering the debate toward issues of gender.

Sigh.

I wasn't trying to obfuscate. It is just that in any given situation; about which it is possible to make a moral judgement; it is informative to ask yourself "What if x,y or z were different?"

That way you can assess what aspects of the situation are eliciting the most response.

And I'm not sure that we would be as offended and prudish as you are pretending to be.

I am not pretending to be prudish - not sure prudish is the right word:)

It is just that respecting other people's privacy is a thing of mine. I don't ask people what their bank balance is either.

481. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92696 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 8:45 am

ADH

You know as well as I do that even kids educated at the most rigorous faith school (at least of the Chritian variety) end up believing what they want.

Fascinating. So faith schools have no effect on belief. Why is then that when people argue schools should be secular institutions the clergy protest so loudly??

Call me a fundamentalist atheist if you wish, but I do feel that the time spent putting kids through compulsory religious services could be better spent on other things.

Like maybe teaching them some of the practical things that they seem incapable of doing these days like cooking a decent dinner or balancing a budget.

[EDIT]: Groan, just had one of those experiences when you catch yourself talking exactly like your own mother. I must be getting old :(

482. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92685 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 8:14 am

ADH, said

...just as it is very long time since the powers that be (or any other powers) used force to "impose" belief in God on anyone. If you don't want it, forget it.

[Coughs]. Faith schools. Present government.

483. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92683 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 8:07 am

Dear Richard, you have a daughter, I have two. Would you really like or be absolutely indifferent to your daughter.......

[Setting aside the fact that that is a spectacularly impertinent and intrusive question to ask in a public forum, bad enough to ask someone about their private life without prompting: unacceptable to ask them to discuss someone else's]

I must say that I find it interesting that daughters are spoken of in this instance. OK RD has only one child, a girl. However, ETNY do you have any sons? Would this sort of thing it be any more / less of an issue when male offspring are discussed?

Daughters are no more property than wives are.

Adults make their own decisions.

484. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92623 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 1:35 am

ADH

Needless to say I'm sure Dinesh will win, not because he's a better debater but because he has better arguments.

Dear me. You might want to look at one of his 'offerings'

http://richarddawkins.net/article,903,Where-Is-Atheism-When-Bad-Things-Happen,Dinesh-DSouza-Aolcom

and a response to it.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,904,Dinesh-DSouza-says-I-dont-exist-an-atheist-at-Virginia-Tech,Mapantsula-Daily-Kos

Generally I have time for religious people when they are kind and polite and make an argument for their beliefs through their words and actions (I am thinking of the lovely CHeard who posts here sometimes) even if I do think that they give God too much credit and themselves too little.

One of the best arguments for religion being man-made is made when you realise how the God that any individual tends to believe in is a reflection of their own personality.

You might want to compare and contrast the notion of God that some of your friends have. Now look some of the religious people you don't like so much – what are their notions of God like?

I wouldn't like to meet the God of D'Souza, - not only do I doubt his objective existence :) I simply don't think he would be very nice.

I would choose a different champion if I were you.

485. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92531 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Spinoza

EPISTEMOLOGY IS THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT ONTOLOGY!!!

Doesn't ontology come first though?

Sorry - only playing, but you make me smile when you're wound up :)

486. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92525 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Denevius

....if your are talking from a purely evolutionary understanding of why religion survives you might like to check our Dennett's notion of the 'intentional stance'. This concerns how we tend to assign motivations and feelings to things around us.

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

If we do not do this when we should we are at greater risk of being eaten/killed or otherwise misused by prey.

If we do this when we should not, then we rarely suffer adverse consequences.

We survive more when we assign agency.

487. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92518 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 5:10 pm

There is another aspect to this, the central question is:

"Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?"

OK, RD spent some time talking about adultery in this context, but if you are talking in a purely literal sense ALL sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Why is it that we consider adultery a bigger sin than sex before marriage? Neither act is sanctioned by God – tis all about getting down and dirty without His say so. The reason we feel more emotional about adultery it is due to our empathising with other people in a given situation. We wonder about people who might be upset, and feeling that promises to them (either implicit or explicit) are being broken.

This is further evidence that our sense of morality is all about the avoidance of pain and distress to both ourselves and others. God is once again found to be superfluous to our moral judgements.

Objective morality my $%^&!

Watered down Euthyphro, but I think the point is relevant.

488. My life under a fatwa

Comment #92203 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 3:43 am

Thanks for the reply HungarianElephant.

At the moment there is no way to which one of us is right (one of those social experiments yet to be fully tried). I can understand your point that less women about might lead to those that are around being in a better bargaining position...

if the monetary price of a girl goes up, the rational thing for a man to do is to be more attractive in other ways..

Trouble is, sexual desire has a habit of messing with our rational through processes. A shortage of women might just make men more vulnerable to the lure of the 72 virgins. Or willing to consider more desperate measures.

But, like I say, the only way we will know will be when this is tried. It will be if sex selection drugs become available. When people are given the ability to choose the gender of their children they will use it. Eventually, of course, it will even out. Equilibrium and mathematics will rule.

The only question will be whether the temporary disparity will be empowering for women or the cause of their subjugation.

I admire your optimism and I really hope you're right.

489. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91885 by Corylus on November 29, 2007 at 1:58 pm

...love of Chateau Margaux does not preclude love of a fine Hock, and we don't feel unfaithful to the red when we dally with the white...

Glad to hear it's a fine Hock and not a Blue Nun.

490. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91609 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Bluebird

Down the pan is another way of saying flushed down the lavatory/toilet...

:)

491. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91603 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Why are gullible people sinking their money into this?

Even if I had money(I wish!) I wouldn't want any of my pennies going into any church run business.

This is not just because I would be looking to ethical investment. (E.g. secular organizations who, even if they do not actively help people, do not grind them down)

Purely practically, you only need a couple of big payout child abuse cases won against a particular church and your money is down the pan. (Unless the church has some high level insurance - in which case why should you pay their premiums?)

Rather buy lotto tickets.

Oh dear - getting all cynical recently - just in a bad mood today.

Ignore me.

492. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91586 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Don't underestimate Dennett – he's scary when pissed.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,635,Response-to-Orr,Daniel-C-Dennett

The only possible problem will be if Dinesh is too damn stupid to realise when he is being spanked.

493. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91578 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Don't often disagree with you Hungarian Elephant , but I am worried about this one...

The issue of demographics is real, but there is a fairly simple solution, at least insofar as it consists of Islam treating women as breeding machines.

Science is very close to developing sex-choice drugs. Instead of getting sniffy about this, we could actively encourage it, and make it available cheaply. You can guarantee that the nutters will always assume that it is some other family's job to produce seven daughters for marriage to their seven sons. And within twenty years, supply and demand will ensure that women have become immensely valuable. .

I agree that the aim is for women not to be seen as breeding machines, but I reckon this could be a big home goal.

When there is a shortage of women then they viewed even more as commodities and not people. The women that are about will be pressured into marrying younger (often to the much older men who can afford them), there will be kidnappings and forced marriages. Women and young girls will be purchased like chattel (either by their families or criminal gangs). Vulnerable immigrant women will be shipped in to fill the void and will often be dreadfully mistreated.

This is already beginning to happen in China.

http://www.worldchildrensfund.net/default2.asp?active_page_id=116

Sending your female children into further education will be even more seen as a waste of money, in that they can have their pick of men so what's the point? Women will be further encouraged not to study and not to be aware of the possibility of living (if they so choose) either alone or with another woman.

If the disparity becomes really extreme then other worrying factors will come into play – women are more often carriers of genetic disorders than the full blown recipients of them, add that to only a few men reproducing (and those few individuals to excess) and you have a potential problem for the health of the gene pool.

Eventually a women's fecundity will be seen even more as not only a possible part of her life, but the only reason for it.

If you want to encourage societal stability the very, very last thing you want is a shortage of women.

Humans can more often manage to be calm and rational when their biology is making not extreme demands upon them. Part of the problem with Islam and (to a lesser extent) other religious ideologies, is that it fosters sexual repression and division. When this happens we all get a bit jumpy. Jumpy equals more likely to pick a fight.

We can sit here and argue about the level of culpability of the West in terms of Islamic terrorism, we can worry about the difference between secular and religious ideologies and the effects of this on our world view. We can have fights over varying interpretations of texts... we appear to be doing this rather alot of late ;-)

However, if we forget we are animals with some basic desires and drives we miss out a big piece of the puzzle. Sorry to come over all Freudian :) but the facts of life are inescapable.

As a general point though, I must admit that the issue of gender selection is a problem for me in that; as a general principle; I would support any couple's desire to chose the gender of their child (as long as no harm is caused).

However, when the majority of couples would chose males (because of backward ideologies that view males as inherently 'superior') I admit I do worry about the consequences of this practice becoming widespread.

[Edit] Groan!: That link above, is to a charity that on further investigation is affiliated with Liberty University. That's the trouble with doing quick google searchs to back up stuff you have heard from several sources :/

However, Unicef agrees about the problem-

www.unicef.org/china/children_1142.html

494. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91186 by Corylus on November 27, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Nothing wrong with going commando.

OK, no magic spells, but also no VPL in the photoshoot.

...Just sayin'...

495. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90896 by Corylus on November 26, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Different film kaiserkriss :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ

496. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90844 by Corylus on November 26, 2007 at 1:46 pm

kaiserkriss

we are ALL individuals

I'm not ;)

497. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90648 by Corylus on November 26, 2007 at 2:29 am

I can't believe this guy Ross.

Marcus Ross, meanwhile, is thriving in his teaching job at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.... Each semester, Ross teaches a huge, mandatory survey course called History of Life. Most kids in the class are creationists, but Ross finds gaps in their world-view. His aim is to make their creationist logic more consistent, and his surveys show that he succeeds. At the beginning of the class, only 54 percent of students say the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years. By the end, it's 87 percent. The biggest shift? Did dinosaurs and man live at the same time? That one moves to 80 percent from 40.

I see, and how does he feel about what he is teaching??

At the conference I asked Ross whether he still believes what he wrote in his graduate thesis... "Within the context of old age and evolutionary theory, yes. But if the parameter is different, portions of it could be completely in error."

Someone else put it way better than me...

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.
Thomas Paine

Utterly shameful.

If I were a Christian I would be furious reading this. What about 'The truth will set you free?'

It's heartbreaking, there are so many young minds at Liberty working to get a degree and paying fees to do so (if there is one thing I am willing to bet on about Liberty, it's that studying there isn't free). There is a possibility that some of these minds have the potential to advance knowledge for all of us.

What happens? Dishonesty and indoctrination. Minds polluted and potential squashed. I don't know if Bizarro is reading this (sounds like his kind of thing). This article demonstrates why; although I often find his comments annoying; I spend much more time being angry for him that at him.

498. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90567 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Jeepyjay

But he may indeed be after another!

Not an unreasonable aim – tis indeed a great deal of pennies :)

Generally,I think the thing that I dislike most about whole Templeton prize business is how the amount won is 'adjusted to be more than the Nobel prize'.

This IMHO seems to be a crass and vulgar assumption that:

a) People will want to win because of the monetary value alone and

b) Advances in "divinity" are more intrinsically (and maybe objectively?) valuable than those in medicine, physics etc.

A strange mixture of intellectual snobbery and self-interest.

If I were a religious person winning this prize (pretty unlikely, I admit, but I like to think of myself in different roles :) then I believe I would feel quite insulted by the assumption that I could be entirely motivated; or even partly swayed; by filthy lucre.

In response I would calculate the amount that it exceeds the Nobel prize, add one pound and very publicly give this amount of money to the first needy person I met.

I would accept the rest of the money though. My overactive superego causes me to do peculiar things at times, but I am not a complete idiot :P

499. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90553 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Goldy

I think it is a glitch that happens after you have logged in and commented.

Try logging out and looking again.

500. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90549 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Interesting

"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith ...it is something they respond to quite naturally...You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter."

I really don't think that it is as clear cut as that though. I don't think the majority of Brits think that religious faith is 'nutty' per se. There are a couple of other factors at work here.

1)Without reducing to crude stereotypes, I have noticed that we appear to be a little more cynical in Britain and Europe as a whole. When someone brings God into a political speech, we do consider the possibility that they might be fibbing in order to get into power. [Gasps]

2)Also, there is the social convention that religious matters are private matters. In certain circles (especially in the middle and upper classes) you would no more discuss your religious convictions with all and sundry than you would regale a total stranger with tales of your recent haemorrhoid operation.

When people start talking about religion - against this sort of social conditioning – the assumption is that the person concerned is under the grip of extreme emotions. Not a good character trait in a leader with a great deal of power.

So it is not the holding of religious opinions that is treated with suspicion it is the expression of them in public that is problematic

(N.B. I find myself wondering whether this might also account for Northern Bright's point that the public would not be comfortable with an openly atheist Prime Minister?? E.g. Don't ask: don't tell??)

In ignoring this distinction (which he is smart enough to understand) I find myself wondering whether Mr Blair is typing to paint himself as an 'oppressed' type in order to deal with the flak he gets from people who disagree with some of his policies and the aftermath of them.

Passive/aggressive self-justification is a great emotional coping strategy.

Maybe I am over-analysing here, but I have to say I have always found Blair a difficult person to get a handle on.

EDIT: radagast7
I have just noticed your post. So nice to have an honest nutter on here :) We have more than our share of dishonest ones I'm afraid.

Generally though, most people are a little nutty: it's the human condition. Although, I have met a few people who would be deemed completely sane and normal... dear me, they were boring.