501. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #90347 by Corylus on November 24, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Other people have answered this question far better than I can (Spinoza, Russell and others) It is all about evidence. So I won't expand on this.

However, I do feel the need to make a secondary point here.

I am always astonished at the sheer gall and impertinence of people asking and relying upon this question in debates.

I wouldn't quiz someone about the nature of their most personal relationships unless they have indicated a desire to talk about their private life and most certainly not in a public forum. This demonstrates a complete lack of delicacy and respect for others. I am sorry, but this question is bloody rude.

Apparently, atheists are rude and crass because they do not show proper respect for the religious beliefs of others. What about a bit of theistic respect for another person's privacy??

NB. The asking of this question is also deeply ironic, because it presumes "faith" and certainty in an area of life in which many people are frequently and cruelly deceived.

E.g. "So Rev. Haggard, can you prove you love your wife??"

Hmpff! Stomps off in a huff.

502. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #89029 by Corylus on November 19, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Thank you for making these available.

503. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89025 by Corylus on November 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Keith
I enjoyed your post no: 70 . A great attempt to lighten the tone.

Josh
Your work is appreciated. I can't imagine the hours you put in.

Logicel

And some of the comments here sickened me also so much, that I am seriously considering not posting here anymore.

That would be a great pity.
___

N.B. I have no problem with people who politely asked for more information before making up their minds. Fine.

However, I have to say that the 'just the pretty ones' comment was unfeeling, sexist and completely unacceptable. I am glad to see it put into a troll thread. I will be checking this thread for the apology that is, I hope, forthcoming.

504. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88581 by Corylus on November 18, 2007 at 12:07 am

The victim's lawyer was suspended from the case, has had his licence to work confiscated, and faces a disciplinary session.

Below is an interesting article about this particular lawyer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201579.html


No wonder the powers that be want him out of their courtrooms. Sounds like one of the reasons they are torturing (there is no other term for it) this poor girl is to get to him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7098480.stm

So much for justice.

505. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86882 by Corylus on November 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

Flagellant

Alternatively there could be a famous father and son pair of politicians who might be persuaded to help out properly...

Huh? Tony and Hilary Benn? Surely not, they're vegetarians. No sacrificing of goats for them!

... Arrh – not the father and son politicians you meant ;)

506. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86721 by Corylus on November 10, 2007 at 2:57 am

I found the emphasis on 'young atheists' very interesting.

If you are talking about the charitable deeds of the religious vs the non-religious then the age is irrelevant.

(Except that maybe the young as a group don't donote so much for the simply reason they have less money)

So why this focussing on spotty youth? I think I know why. Every generation has a tendency to worry about the one that comes after it. E.g. "The youth of today - no manners - no standards!" People who do this have a tendency to forget some of their own actions and views at this age.

I think the subtext of this article is about fear. Fear of young people, what they get up to generally, and what they might or might not do.

This will be used as justification for drumming religious teaching into the young.

507. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86710 by Corylus on November 10, 2007 at 2:36 am

Well done Kelly

Nothing to add. Sits back and claps.

508. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86551 by Corylus on November 9, 2007 at 2:26 pm

flying goose

ps how do you get an avatar

1) When logged in look at one of your comments. Click on your name.
2) You will be taken onto a blue page with 'Viewing Profile' on it. At the top left hand side you will see 'Board Index' written. Directly below this you will see 'user control panel'. Click on this.
3) On the 'user control panel' page - which is laid out like a card index - you will see a tab with 'profile' on it. Click on this.
4) You will now see a page asking you to 'edit profile'. On the left hand side you will see the option 'edit avatar'. Click on this.
5) On the 'edit avatar' page in the middle is an option to 'upload from your machine' with 'browse' on the side of it.
6) Click on 'browse' you will then be able to download/upload (don't ask me the difference) a presaved picture from your PC's memory.
7) Make sure your file is not too big (the maximum dimensions are given on the page).

N.B. You might want to check the properties of any picture before you try to download - you may have to crop or compress accordingly.

Steve
Lovely to put a face to the name :)

509. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #86153 by Corylus on November 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Free Rorschach inkblot test with every book cover. Mmm.. Rusty dagger?

And

Close - its actually an Italian foil with a cross-bar and a ricasso blade ;-)

No! Always, always say it's a butterfly – no matter what it sodding well looks like.

You will be deemed thick, unimaginative and a dozy hippy, but at least the buggers won't admit you to the ward ;)

510. Washoe, the sign-language chimp dies

Comment #85650 by Corylus on November 6, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Blimy this takes me back. I remember hearing about Washoe as a baby psychology student.

I am not going to comment on the language abilities. Sodding complicated and I am not up on the literature.

However, I will note how animals can become a part of your life and your world. No matter in what way they chose to make their feelings known.

My sympathies to all those who dealt with Washoe. A loss - I'm sure.

511. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85641 by Corylus on November 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Silent Mike. Comment 60.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll respond. I would be really hypocritical of me not to take criticism on the chin when we are expecting Kelly to do the same! (Who BTW – if I didn't mention it before - I think is really brave to throw her work to the wolves on here).

Reading through my post again I can (partly) see how you have come away with the impression you did. This was not my intent.

I agree that should have added a few more provisos. For example, I should have mentioned how, if you find a point in an article that you agree with, you should say so. (In my defence I didn't think of this because there was nothing in D'Souza's article that I agreed with :-) It is always important to be fair – this is why I advocated at the beginning clear and non-partisan exposition.

What I was talking about above was persuasion. The whole point of a piece of writing in this context is about persuading the reader of the validity of a point of view. D'Souza had a bash at persuading people and then Kelly had a go. Like two lawyers pleading a case. Ultimately it is up to the reader to decide who they agree with (or for the jury whether or not to convict). This is both fair and gives the readers the opportunity to make up their minds.

I was not advocating dishonesty (a word I have to say I take an exception to your use of).

If so I would have advised the following:

a) Not bothering to report what your opponent actually said
b) taking quotes out of context,
c) 'fiddling' the figures
d) Repeating commonly held but fallacious viewpoints (e.g. that the founding fathers were Christian – like D'Souza did)
e) Playing on prejudices that you think your readers probably hold
f) Using logical fallacies in your argumentation.

I don't recall doing any of that.

In regard to 'leading your reader' well again I can partly see your point. Yes, I can understand how you think that: -

Pretending you don't have an opinion and then sort of "leading" your reader ("making him feel smart" and the like)... I don't know, I just don't like it.

Yes and no. This can be taken to extreme levels (and I admit that I didn't make myself clear). However, this isn't only about persuasion: which people can take or leave. There is another facet to this. Let me explain.

One reason I write like this is because I always enjoy reading work when I can go along with a writer's thinking process. This is why (unlike some on here) I really enjoy reading philosophy. You get the sensation of being taken on a journey by another mind. You may completely disagree with the starting point – making the whole thing invalid- but it is a trip nonetheless.

You are aware that the writer has spent months (years even) working this thing out. You are not daft enough to think that they are working it out as they go along, but you like to see how they got to where they are. It is like how in mathematics exams you get points not just for the correct answer, but also for demonstrating how you worked things out. Sadly, in relation to mathematics I have to admit that I have a history of getting points for neither:(

A lot of it could work if one adopts an ironic/sarcastic style of writing (where sarcasm resides what would usually be seen as dishonesty is permissible), but when writing a serious article I'm afraid it just won't fly.

Depends on what you mean by a 'serious article'. If you are talking about something that you present for an academic audience – well, of course, keep rhetoric to a minimum and concentrate on dry facts. If you are talking about writing for a newspaper, this is a different matter, if for a blog or a forum post, different again.

Kelly is trying to reach people who will have read D'Souza article and been swayed by it. Unlike you, I am not "feeling a bit on the snide side" today, but I can't resist asking.

Just how smart do you think these people are??

Also, consider for a moment when my strategy above would work and when it wouldn't. It would never work with someone who doesn't make idiotic points, who doesn't give a surfeit of errors to address. Responding to say, Chris Hedges, would be a completely different story than addressing that nasty little low-life Dinesh.

Yes, I agree there is a line between persuasion and propaganda, sophisticated arguments and sophistry. The line always stops with clearly and absolutely with misrepresentation. I don't advocate this and I never will.

In the light of this I thank you for pulling me up and giving me the chance to make myself clear. Honestly.

Sits back and sighs... Thing is, people like Kelly have to deal with people who not only ignore the line of decency, but limbo dance under it.

I don't envy her the job.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

512. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85455 by Corylus on November 6, 2007 at 12:39 am

I glad some people liked my little guide.

I have to make it clear that I am not a professional writer. I would hate to seem to be claiming to be what I am not! My essays are geared towards persuading academics and passing exams. (I do have some stuff I would like to submit for general publication – but dammit it needs work)

I am currently having a break from my serial studying to pay back debts – so I would count myself as an amateur too.

My work is not widely read. Umm. That's not strictly true either! There was that letter to the Beano a couple of years back :)

513. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85370 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I have to say that I would have found D'Souza's really article hard to respond to, not because I would have nothing to say, but because there is just so much fallacious bollocks in it that it is hard to know where to start. It is a tirade with hardly any discernable structure.

The phrases 'silk purses' and 'sows ears' spring to mind :P I wouldn't have known where to start.

So bloody well done to Kelly for giving such a hard job a good bash. Quite a commitment too, to plan to respond in-depth to a variety of people.

Kelly
Can I might make some constructive general points?? This is meant in a good way – it took me a disgustingly long time to learn to write detailed essays. I can be really thick at times. Total trial and error on my part .

This is how I do it - and I have found it works. Take as little or as much as you want from my comments. We all have our own styles.

1) It is always good to start with completely unemotional and non-partisan exposition. Give a brief overview of what someone has written with a few quotes. This is really important because it:

a) shows that you have read it
b) demonstrates to the reader that you are fair.
c) not all readers will have the intellectual honesty to read the article that you are responding to so you won't lose your readers early on.
d) helps you to work out which points are really awful and which points are just the 'junk DNA' of an essay. (Waits to get flamed by the scientists on here for misusing the term!)

2) Then gently coax your readers towards a viewpoint, maybe express 'surprise' or 'bafflement' at some of the really fuckwitted points – all in calm language. Your reader will supply your answers for you. He feels smart and will thus give you credit in return.

3) A bit more exposition (showing up more idiocy) is needed then. A few mild-mannered jokes at the mid-way point never go amiss. Keep those with short attention spans going.

4) Get serious again, become worried even at what you are reading. Pretend to suddenly 'realise' what you knew all along. That the person you are talking about is a total idiot.

5) End game. Supply the reader with all of the points they were thinking of against the original article. Vindicating how they were thinking. Then finish with one or two killer points that 99% of your readership will not have thought of - preferably a really terrifying consequence of your opponent's line of thought. Your reader will be amazed at both your insight and their own in agreeing with you.

6) Finish with an expression of sadness that this process took you so long so needlessly. Express the hope that this resistance is never repeated.

7) Retire victorious.

Above all, remember it is your readers that you want to win over – not the person you are responding to. Cut out any insults put there just because you hope that one person might be reading – it is not him* you want to snare.

Short arguments are like a quick kiss. Longer essays are a seduction – I like to take my time.

*Urh!! Sudden nasty, nasty mental picture concerning d'Souza . Corylus rushes off for her shower. I didn't mean it that way honest!

Bad. Bad.

Bangs head on wall. Scratches out own eyes :P

514. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85291 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Steve

Sorry - I should have indicated irony!

Doh! :-)

Personally I am sitting here amusing myself wondering what handle he is going to use next.

It will have a Scottish slant, I'm sure. Not nice Scottish though like 'Heather Honey', or 'Single Malt' .

More in the line of 'Glasgow Kiss' mebbe...

515. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85290 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Children whose mothers die bearing them; or from complications following childbirth; often have a dreadful time emotionally.

There is a sense of guilt at having 'caused' the death of their mother, a feeling (sometimes real, sometimes imagined) that they father blames them. Sometimes their idea of their mother can become 'perfect'. A saint that (if they are male) no other woman can ever match. Throw in a well of repressed anger and resentment at being 'left' and you have a recipe for a lot of baggage and problems with relationships.

I cannot imagine how knowing that their mother (and their father) could have prevented this situation will impact on this.

Poor scraps.

516. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85259 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 11:31 am

Baron Ochs Comment 87.

I see your point – it depends on what type of academic she is, and precisely who her book is aimed at. I just reckon that mention of the word 'twilight' in this context is too weird to be a co-incidence. I will let you know when I read her book: it's on order. (I will wait for the postie every morning - I have ordered along with a recipe book with nice cakes in it. A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down... la la :)

Wee Flea/Calvin/David Robertson. Comment 125.

I did not say that no one had read them. I did say that no one would recommend that anyone else would read them.

What is offering to post free if not a recommendation to read?? (My comments and 14 and 74.) You have a particular habit of scanning over and ignoring my posts – tis enough to give a poor dormouse a complex :(

Steve99. Comment 129.

You really don't follow this site much, do you?

I very rarely disagree with you Steve, but I think he follows it a great deal – obsessively even.

Evidence? The almost instantaneous response to certain triggers (flea books etc.) – never misses. I had a bet with myself before I went to work today that he would turn up on this thread and "low and behold". Further evidence? He even sent RD a birthday message (snide little git).

http://richarddawkins.net/bdayTextD,page7#664

Not the action of someone who only occasionally looks in.

517. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85097 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 1:15 am

I'm reading that 'Twilight of Reason' phrase as a snide little reference to Nietzsche,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_of_the_idols

Because as all sophisticated, subtle, snide and snarky theologians know... atheists are (at heart) nasty, nihilistic, Nietzschean and no-good.

McGrath pulls this trick too, he has written a book called 'The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World '.

It's a sotto voce aside and a sly wink to the Christian 'intelligentsia' readership.

Condescending, insulting, patronizing little prat! Sure no-one else wants to read his 'delusion' book?? Lovely chrimbo prezzie.

Dr Benway! Welcome back :)

518. Rome playing politics

Comment #84966 by Corylus on November 4, 2007 at 11:27 am

Comment 27. By kaiserkriss

Or is this too simplistic?

No it's not too simplistic: it's a very interesting point :)

519. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #84958 by Corylus on November 4, 2007 at 10:46 am

Utterly heartbreaking when a philosopher's mind goes.

As for the people exploiting him, they take the epithet "Liars for Jesus" to a new level. Maybe "Vultures for Jesus" would be more appropriate.

Dishonourable and despicable.

520. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84954 by Corylus on November 4, 2007 at 10:35 am

I haven't read all of the flea books, but out of intellectual honesty I have read some. I think I will read this one and post a review.

Just, looked this book up on Amazon: the blurb reads

... In this lively and provocative contribution to the debate the leading British feminist theologian, Tina Beattie, argues that the threat of religious fanaticism is mirrored by a no less virulent and ignorant secular fanaticism which has taken hold of the intellectual classes in Britain and America. Its High Priest is Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, but its disciples and acolytes include well-known public figures such as philosophers Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and A C Grayling, journalists Christopher Hitchens and Polly Toynbee, and novelists Martin Amis and Ian McEwan. Theologians such as Alister McGrath and Keith Ward have defended the rationality of Christian beliefs about God, but both sides neglect wider questions about faith, science, power and justice in a postmodern world, which impinge deeply on all our lives. The New Atheists calls for a more wide-ranging and creative dialogue across religious and cultural boundaries. It will intrigue every open-minded reader, believer or non-believer.

It does appear to be the same old thing (i.e. atheists are fundamentalists too), an utter inability to move outside of a theist frame of reference ("disciples and acolytes" FFS!) with an added dose of postmodern drivel. The unique selling point looks to be the 'feminist' theologian line.

Sigh, I expect I will get cross, but someone's got to do it.

BTW – Does anyone want to read the McGrath book "The Dawkins Delusion", but not want to buy it? I will post free to UK or Europe (it's lightweight!) on the understanding that the recipient does to same when they are done. Send me a PM if you are interested.

521. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #84578 by Corylus on November 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Comment # 191. by Dianelos

... thanks for that link

Thank you for reading and engaging with it DG.

I agree that being an apologist is not an easy job: I wouldn't care to try it. ;-)

522. The truth in religion

Comment #84206 by Corylus on November 1, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Rev. Polkinghorne

Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it.

Jeepyjay

But unfortunately It's rather to convoluted for me to follow. Can anyone translate it?

Charitable translation:
The world makes sense when purpose is assumed - when a goal is considered. I think in this fashion - therefore (as God made me in his image!) I consider to reasonable to assume that God does also.

Uncharitable translation:
I believe it cos I want to. So there.

523. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84036 by Corylus on November 1, 2007 at 3:35 am

Atticus

But why should any text or even any idea be "sacred"? Genuine question here.

Personal theory:
This is because people often use the word "sacred" not in its proper fashion as describing that which comes from God, but in a different (but related) way.

The use it to describe not what is special, precious and inviolate to God, but what is special etc. to them. (They assume they and God are in perfect agreement :))

What they deem as sacred then becomes inextricably part not only of their worldview, but also their self-view. A person's religion is a part of themselves, a manner in which they can define and identify themselves in relation to, and contra to, others.

Accordingly, when a person questions the theoretical basis of a particular religion they do not just question the religion. They also bring into the cold light of day the self-image of its adherents.

This questioning becomes then not merely questioning – it is an attack upon the integrity of the self. What is rudeness if not a personal affront?

Evidence for this is shown in how those who use their religion as their primary method of self-definition (as opposed to nationality or race say) are much, much, easier to offend.

I think this is large part of the thinking behind the muslim protests over something as trifling as a cartoon.

524. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #84019 by Corylus on November 1, 2007 at 2:54 am

Comment #84001 by Dianelos

There are at least two book length cases: "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and "Does God Exist" by J.P.Moreland and Kai Nielsen.

As yes, Lane Craig, I wondered if you were going to recommend him again. Might I suggest you read a recent bit of moral "philosophy" from this man before you push his work.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

This man is not a proponent of virtue ethics (as you sometimes seem to be) or Kant (as PaulE said he was) his is not a utilitarian or any other respectable form of moral philosophy. He is a full blown proponent of divine command theory: one of the most nauseating, inhumane barbaric and cowardly forms of moral understanding.

You might want to try to argue that his theist views are superior and the 'logical path to good action'. However, I doubt it.

525. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83031 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Break a leg Dr B.

Hope the hysterectomy leaves your enormous cock intact. The world would be a lesser place without it :-)

Love, Hazel.

526. Face to faith

Comment #83026 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

I am always amazed at how those who talk so blithely about the importance of emotional experience understand their own so very little. There is a very simple emotion at work here. (Clue: it is our most basic, instinctive and pervasive feeling).

This emotion is called fear.

The proof lurks in the etymology of the word "awe" (A word Mr Vernon is fond of)

What does "awe" mean? It means:

1. A feeling of fear and reverence. (my emphasis)
2. A feeling of amazement.

Theists tend to use the word in relation to meaning #1 (N.B. I don't swallow that "I'm an agnostic now" line of Mr Vernon's for a moment).

For example,

Think of our primitive ancestors on the savannah, watching a thunderstorm approaching across the plain. As the dark sky splits with light, and the turbulent atmosphere howls with thunder, they feel fear.

And

In the scientific age … We no longer interpret the thunder; we understand it - as massive discharges of electricity. It is still spectacular but no longer mysterious, let alone portentous. The world is a little less awesome, if also less fearsome, as a result.

Atheists tend to use definition #2.

This is for the simple reason that while being amazed, astounded and humbled in response to the vast and overwhelming universe they do not automatically attribute agency to it. The universe is not a person: it is much, much bigger than that.

What does this mean in relation to this article? Merely a simple change of emphasis. The question becomes not 'Do atheists feel less?" the question becomes "Why assume this is a bad thing?"

Do atheists feel less emotion in the face of the marvellous, beautiful, massive, simultaneously complex and simple place in which we find ourselves? No… and yes.

I don't think the reaction of an atheist in the face of the universe is any less intensly powerful; any less likely to invoke laughter or tears; any less worthy of expression than that of any theist.

However, I am willing to consider the possibility that within that maelstrom of feeling and passion there is one particular emotion less.

Fear.

When agency disappears, so does special pleading, so does prayer, so does fear.

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

Marie Curie

Some loss. Some deficit.

527. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82883 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 5:56 am

They are depicted as short and dark-skinned people. This offended some black teachers. They said that evolution was a racist theory. It "terribly undermines black people, everything bad gets a black colour. It means blacks were apes," they said.

I see. By that analysis the article below is a dreadful example of "ginger prejudice"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7062415.stm

528. AAI 07

Comment #82798 by Corylus on October 27, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Notsobad

Nor do the homeless who have healthy limbs but cannot bother to work.

and

Someone with healthy limbs should not become homeless in the first place!

You might want to actually take a look a homeless people. Interestingly, there are several types.

1) The teenagers and those in their early twenties (warning sometimes life can make people look older than they actually are). I wonder what sort of home they have left?

2) Those in their forties (who sit still and say little) - isn't it interesting that these are generally male? Maybe men are tougher and better able to cope on the streets? Or maybe these are ex-servicemen with mental health problems who have left the army after 20 years of being housed and fed (in exchange for getting shot at) and find themselves ill-equipped to look after themselves.

3) Those (of all ages and both sexes who wander along muttering to themselves). Well, according to you as they have arms and legs and should be working. Screw the schizophrenia - get a job!

4) There are the drunks and the addicts as well, and yes, they could help themselves and maybe they will always be about.

However, there are less of them when iniatives are in place to help those that want to get off the streets. This involves spending a little money. (Well spent if you ask me, we all suffer from the crime committed by those feeding addictions).

5) The really old ones. Oh no, silly me! These don't exist because life expectancy is not exactly helped by being on the streets.

You appear to see these people as a waste. I happen to see their treatment as a waste. Who knows what these people could be if they were helped instead of stepped over?

I'm going to bed. I am sick of this thread and some of the people on it.

529. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #82791 by Corylus on October 27, 2007 at 3:25 pm

CHeard.

The news reports on this were just awful.

Obviously, an unbelievably stressful and distressing time for so many people.

Best wishes.
C.

530. AAI 07

Comment #82783 by Corylus on October 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm

I don't often get in political scraps on here, but this is unbelievable.

Jack Rawlinson comment 54.

Bloody well said.

OBC I think Bonzai was quite polite.

If someone called me a bigot and a racist without a shread of evidence then I would have been considerably less restrained.

Scooter I am going to be so blunt here, but you are being unbelievably simplistic.

While going to your doctors for a physical is a good thing - it doesn't stop you getting sick.

You are completely failing to see that we are all economically and yes socially connected.

If one person gets sick it is not merely their problem - it is also their family's problem, and thereby society's problem (because it is not only them that stops earning).

As someone who spent a couple of years in a part time job because of being a carer I happen to know a little bit about this.

I couldn't afford things then - and no I wasn't a "cry baby" about it. I could have said "own it" it's your problem and got a higher paid job and contributed more to the economy. However, what sort of a person would that have made me?

N.B. This was in the left-wing UK - I dread to think what my position would have been in the US.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that it is actually you that needs to "grow up".

531. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #82022 by Corylus on October 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Dr. Jacobson ran a search for his name on Google.

Woah - googling your own name (especially if you have an unusual one) always terrifying!

That moment of sheer dread and the 'Do I really want to be doing this??' before you hit the search button...

You've got guts Doc - and well done for dealing with the results and getting pissed.

532. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81906 by Corylus on October 25, 2007 at 11:31 am

Comment #15 by Fanusi Khiyal:

That was insulting, unjustified and uncalled for, Fanusi.

Brian is a big boy and capable of speaking for himself. However, I have to say I really think you need to learn some manners.

533. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81321 by Corylus on October 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm

"We live in a post-modern world now. Atheists are being dreadfully old-fashioned to make truth claims at all.

God / religon all that stuff, well, it's just another paradigm, another worldview, another route to individual and cultural truth.

No given worldview is any better or worse than any other."

534. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #81306 by Corylus on October 24, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I flatter myself that I am a fair-minded type so before commenting I took a minute to look up the various uses of carbolic acid (I figured there was a slight possibility that the Padre was merely using it to shift those stubborn kitchen stains that other cleaners can't reach).

Basically:-

1) Can be used as an anti-septic, but not often as on contact with the skin causes severe irritation (redness, burns etc). Tricky stuff too see too because it is colourless.

2) If injected into the heart can cause instantaneous death.

3) Used in research for DNA purification

4) Used in surgery for ingrown toenails.

Well, 2, 3, and 4 seem unlikely (especially more than once).

So looks like #1 seems to be our boy.

I admit my source was only wikipedia so if anyone else wants to posit an alternative explanation for the padre's pharmacy* visit then I am all ears.

Until then well... Liar, liar pants on fire.

*Wasted opportunity too, there are lots of other wonderful things that you might want to purchase from a pharmacy in secret. For example,

1) Athletes foot powder (I have some of this in my bathroom - apparently good for dhobi itch too - whatever that is ;-)
2) Preparation H
3) Lavender bath balls (why choose to smell like your ancient aunt??)
3) Those magical nasal inhalers than clear the nostrils of stubborn snot.

The list is endless.

535. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #80925 by Corylus on October 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Posieden and Barbara

It irritates me that the "religious" can ignore most of the nonsense written in the buy-bull, but not for some strange reason when it comes to sexuality, they cling on to this homophobic religious bullshit like a drowning man would cling to a piece of driftwood. I wonder why that is?

Personal theory. I think that this is because homosexuality is a minority position (and is apt to remain that way - unlike outdated dietary restrictions or injunctions concerning the mixing of fibres or crops).

We are status animals - if we can't be top dog we like to be part of the accepted majority. Lack of status becomes bearable, as long as there is some available 'other' to look down upon.

Homosexuality is a convenient, and statistically stable, other.

For 90% (give or take) of people, no matter how low on your luck they are, what vile acts they may have committed or how many people they may have hurt, they can always boost their fragile self esteem by saying "Well at least that's not me!"

If "God" agrees then this cowardly position is given validation.

Auden (a gay man) nailed it:

...Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone...

Not all religious people are homophobes, of course, but it is infuriatingly common.

536. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80919 by Corylus on October 23, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Bluejway

I have read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, and I have also read all of "God is Not Great." I think understand atheism well enough. And I am more than happy to let you help me improve my understanding of it.

It is great that you are willing to read these books - may a make a teeny suggestion?? Check out the philosopher Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction.

It is a great little book and sets out the arguments in a completely non-emotional way. (You seem to be a philosophically inclined type - so I think you will enjoy this approach).

V - Morning sweetie :-)

537. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79642 by Corylus on October 18, 2007 at 3:27 am

I've had to answer questions about having a girl's name all my life, which is always fun.

Don't worry Rev

Could have been worse :-)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M89c3hWx3RQ

538. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79528 by Corylus on October 17, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Intriguing - I'm interested in just who the "1st year philosophy Professor / ex graduate student of a very famous atheist" was. The one who was so embarrassed at having never read a "good, solid, rational, academic" work of Christian theology.

Not Harris, because as a student himself he wouldn't have a graduate student. Hitchens is a journalist so ditto. Dawkins would have biology grad students so that's out. Dennett? Can't conceive of him putting up with anyone not reading all sides of an argument. Grayling? Doubtful - I believe the man wrote a book on Berkeley. (To my shame another on my 'to read' list - maybe the references in this are lacking, but I doubt it) Onfray? Students would be French - does he still teach anyway?

You know I find myself wondering whether this person was merely a friend. The type of friend people talk to their doctors about when they are worried that their friend might have a STD....

539. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79344 by Corylus on October 17, 2007 at 2:11 am

Sorry to butt in here, Dianelos, but I think you might be stretching the concept of 'intentionality' a bit far. At heart intentionality is merely the understanding that thoughts, beliefs, desires etc. are all 'about' things - i.e. refer to them.

When you start talking about 'will' then you are running the risk of using the word 'intentional' in terms of its common everyday usage (rather than its philosophical fashion) i.e. an action performed with the goal of bring about a specific end.

These are not the same thing.

540. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79341 by Corylus on October 17, 2007 at 1:50 am

That was quite fascinating.

I was so glad Hitchens started out on the attack about morality - theists seem to assume that atheists must be on the defensive about this one. It was quite telling that this was the first question from the audience. I'm astonished at how often this 'objective moraliy' card is played. E.g. "Ah, but atheists don't have objective morality"... and you think you do, sunshine??

Re McGrath's mannerisms - he didn't jump about in that fashion (what my grandmother used to refer to as 'ants in your pants') in the interview with RD, so I don't think this is a constant habit with him.

I suspect instead that this was a displacement activity: I would bet cash money the man was terrified.

541. God Hates the World

Comment #79186 by Corylus on October 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Welcome, Nate.

(I'll leave it there, because I'm not into platitudes. I can't imagine what your childhood was like, or how you felt watching that video - so I won't comment).

Just... welcome.

542. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78973 by Corylus on October 15, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Very interesting comment Ravy.

As far as one can tell from words on a page - you come across as a very open and honest person. I would like to respond in detail, but you have caught me at my bedtime and I have a long day at work tomorrow so I will leave that to others.

Can I make a suggestion? If you want to read a book by Dawkins I would go for Unweaving the Rainbow first (and then read the God Delusion). It is a lovely book talking about how we feel wonder in the face of the universe. It is actually my favourite of his books because it is lyrical and full of poems, which appeals to the hippy in me. I think you will enjoy it. (It may well answer some of your questions)

I have to quickly answer one of your points though. Why do you assume that you need God in order to notice beauty and feel wonder? I think maybe you are giving God too much credit and yourself too little. This is not an arrogant atheistic assertion by the way. This is a compliment.

A commentator or here called Bluebird linked to this page a little while ago (and I have taken to looking at it every morning)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

you get a new astronomy picture every day - some of them are quite remarkable: check out the archives.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

Try looking at these pictures assuming that a grand cosmic agency is behind them - then look again assuming that they merely are. Is your sense of wonder any less when you view them the second time? Are they any less beautiful?

God doesn't define our experience of beauty and wonder: we do that all by ourselves.

543. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78836 by Corylus on October 15, 2007 at 3:42 am

Yep

Fox news just keeps on giving....

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

544. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #78645 by Corylus on October 14, 2007 at 3:33 am

Thowes26 Apology accepted :-)

I don't often get riled on here - my response to you had as much to do with my dislike and mistrust of Lane Craig than your comments.

For a start his association with the Discovery Institute demonstrates a great deal...

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

I personally would not want to be associated with any organisation that took money from Howard Ahmanson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson%2C_Jr

Oddly enough Lane Craig has just been mentioned in another thread - I have been reading an article by him linked by a poster called Steven Carrwork see below

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

I have to say I find his defence of genocide frankly nauseating.

I share your dislike of christian fundamentalists, however, there are times when I appreciate their honesty. Moderates can be lovely people, but it can be frustrating trying to get them to state precisely what they mean.

Lane Craig is the worst of both worlds - he is a fundamentalist who pretends to be a moderate. I suggest you do further research on him. This man talks about 'reasonable faith' in one breath and makes unjustifiable and frankly peculiar assertions in another. He has spent money on dentistry and a shiny suit, but I feel I know what manner of man he is.

N.B I am not ignoring your questions BTW - they are interesting, but many of them are discussed in great length on the thread I mentioned - do check it out.

Also, I find myself wondering whether you are also a fan of Plantinga? His reveiw of TGD is posted on here too. (Nice that dissenting articles are put up isn't it?)

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,676,The-Dawkins-Confusion-Naturalism-ad-absurdum,Alvin-Plantinga,page1#comments

Many people commented on it. Some just expressed a dislike for philosophy - which may irritate you, however, some people took the time out to thoroughly engage with what he said. I think you might find their comments interesting.

In fact lots to read, listen too and watch in the archives of this site. There is a search function on the top left of the home page. Why don't you just read for a bit?

Best, C.

545. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78566 by Corylus on October 13, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Mark

As someone who hasn't read a bible since their very early teens (and remembers little) I have only been reading this thread - and not commenting.

It is obvious that you have spent a great deal of time writing out your comments. I have to say that I have learnt a lot from you and the other posters on here.

Please accept a complete stranger's best wishes.

Billy

Then I'm going to make mice with boobs on their backs - but that's another story.

What the F&%K?? I'm quite happy with mine where they are thank you very much!!

Scampers off... speedily.

546. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #78560 by Corylus on October 13, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Thowes26

Interesting comment. You start with an insult - why do I suspect that you are a christian: this tends to be an opening salvo with many on here.

I wish an atheist with half a brain would come in to settle this ridicliousness. I suppose if you're an atheist with half a brain, you wouldn't be on Richard Dawkins' site, as the good atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said, "The God Delusion made me feel ashamed to be an atheist."

I see...

You then go on to make some factual assertions. The first one I agree with:-

The "Brain in Vat" argument is not being used as a proof...

No. It is not being used as a proof, for the simple reason that it is not a proof.

however

its being used to show the necessity for faith.

No. What it is being used as is a shameless ploy to create a sense of nausea and uncertainty with those unfamiliar with philosophical arguments.

Dr. Craig doesn't believe he's a brain in a vat, but he admits that he holds to that truth with faith.

If so then he is completely misusing the term 'faith'. Justifed knowledge might be a better description for his position - not so snappy though is it?

Don't be misled to say all philosophical arguments for God's existence have been formerly refuted, because the jury is still out. I don't know how many times I've heard bad atheists say things like "Hume refuted that," well no Hume didn't refute that, but his argument may have been persuasive.

Not a problem - one does not have to refute an argument postulating God's existence, one merely has to show that they are inadequate. However, I would be interested to learn precisely what you mean by the term 'bad atheist'?

The teleological argument in its inductive form has not been refuted, but with all probabalistic arguments, it needs to be weighed with other evidence.

Maybe I am being stupid here, but I simply do not understand your reasoning. Could you please spell out precisely what you mean. Are you saying that:

a) It is impossible to refute the telelogical argument?
b) That induction is a route to knowledge / is not a route to knowledge?
c) That the telelogical argument is in some fashion 'probabalistic?

Or are you merely babbling?

I'm not trying to argue you out of atheism, but simply into rational discussion. Its really difficult to have rational discussions with fundamentalists, wither they be atheist or theist fundamentalists.

Kindly explain what you mean by the term 'atheist fundamentalist'.

In fact, scrub that - why don't you just check out the following thread:-

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

It is a little long a tedious at times, but there is lots of discussion on there on the issues that appear to interest you. I do believe that there are even examples of 'rational discussions' on there! (Believe it or not people on here are capable of this - even if they are dreadfully handicapped by only having 'half a brain')

I would be interested in your views on this thread.

Come back when you have read it and learnt some manners.

P.S. "Scientism"...please. When did you stop beating your wife?

P.P.S. "ridicliousness" is this a word?

547. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78162 by Corylus on October 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

RichardM

I love your style and all your comments, but I'm not sure that you're quite ready for the diplomatic corps.

Now what was the phrase concerning pots and kettles heard recently??

Richard - not getting at you, cariad, but I have to say you do make me smile at times :-)

P.S. What's was with the flashing backside?

548. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78047 by Corylus on October 11, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Comment 77283 by Epeeist

3. You should now be able to determine how much 40K has decayed and hence how much energy has been released
4. Now work out what happens to the temperature of the earth when you release that much energy over a 6000 year period rather than a 4.5 billion year period

How interesting - I hadn't thought of decay in terms of energy release before.

I suppose there would have to be energy involved: by definition.

Epeeist - excuse me if I come across as an arts type asking a unbelievably daft question, but is this a 1st Law thing? (I am willing to risk asking silly questions on a public forum whilst attempting to learn things).

----

Devolved - buggered if I can work it out either. However, my gut tells me that we would be fucked.

I'm not entirely sure whether we also would be fried or frozen, but I get the feeling at least one 'f' word would probably apply.

549. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78008 by Corylus on October 11, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I am sorry I am going to briefly rant. I am also sorry for posting on this thread, but as we have been discussing anger, I feel this is appropriate. I need to get something off my chest before I punch the wall.

I have just been flicking through the news channels as is my wont. I stopped at Fox News and am now utterly appalled.

It was reporting on a story concerning a recent school shooting in America (Ohio I believe). Reason enough for being appalled, (and also depressed and tearful at the waste of life), but this is not the whole story. Oh no.

Their resident religious pundit on there "Father Jonathan" I believe his name is (a baby faced individual who just looks so damn nice) just came on. I expected a brief homily on how we should all get along and be kind in the face of tradegy. Not a bit of it.

The problem is because these kids (aka kids who shoot up schools) 'have atheism in their lives'. Not that that some children have mental health problems that are not picked up on quickly. Not that they have access to guns. Not that widespread bullying seems to be tolerated.

No. Atheism is the problem.

If anyone is capable of making a video of this sanctimonious, slimy, cretinous carrion-eater and posting it - then please do so.

I am not capable of relaying precisely what this individual just said because the blood was pounding through my ears at the time and I like to be very clear about exactly what I am accusing people of.

I am hoping that I misheard. I am hoping that I misunderstood. I am hoping that the brief piece of a news story I heard was totally unrepresentative. If so I will post a full and grovelling apology for my intemperate language.

Anyone wanting to know why atheists are angry need only switch on Fox News.

Rant over. Thank you for listening.

550. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #77879 by Corylus on October 11, 2007 at 1:56 am

Tries to imagine what it would be like to be able to respond so swiftly, clearly and lucidly to verbal questions....

Fails abysmally!

Very interesting article (even if it did make me feel thick) - lots to think about in it.