551. 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.

552. 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.

553. 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.

554. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #77531 by Corylus on October 9, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Northern Bright

Re: Alister McGrath and Christopher Hitchens...

Sorry. Bit of Schadenfreude slipping in there. But go on, be honest - you feel it too, don't you? ;-)

Oh yes :-)

As someone who also waded through his irritating book on the grounds of being intellectually honest I hear you.

There was one stunner of a line in it though:

The 144,000 are probably Christian aesthetic 'warriors' who are using pacifist means and spiritual warfare to resist secular atheist powers and cosmic evil powers" (p74. End note 26)

(One strongly suspects this is how McGrath views himelf)

On reading this I had this hilarious mental picture of him leaping around the house with a pillowcase over his shoulders (in the fashion of a five year old playing superman) practicing using his 'spiritual warfare' to resist 'cosmic evil powers'.

One almost feels sorry for him...

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

Comment #77307 by Corylus on October 9, 2007 at 2:16 am

Revcort
(Comment 1141) - I am having trouble making your link work. In the meantime though as it appears you are willing to show us pictures of yours tis only fair that we show you pictures of ours :D

Can I ask you to check out the website of the National History Museum in London?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/

I love the dinosaur picture on this page.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/visitor-research/index.html

In fact, their reference materials on dinosaurs are fascinating.

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/nature-online/dino-directory/

You would think that with that amount of the critters about there would be more mention of them in the bible if they had really lived side-by-side with humans?? Oh well.

Oh, and remember what I said earlier about cost? Admission to this museum is free.

CHeard I read your blog entry - very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to write out.

556. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77158 by Corylus on October 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm

There is a flip side to all this worrying about our terminology, in that it is often just as interesting to ask what believers would like to call us.

If, for example, I am chatting with someone who calls me a skeptic or a rationalist then I know precisely what I am dealing with.

If they merely call me an atheist I take no offence (I have no problem with the term and use it myself). I merely try to tease out whether they buy into any (possible) negative connotations.

If they want to call me inherently insulting terms (we all know them, e.g. infidel etc...) Well then... all I can say is that this says infinitely more about them than me.

---

What really pisses me off though is 'fundamentalist atheist' - a certain beloved troll is back and I am resisting the desire to feed him :-(

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

Comment #77093 by Corylus on October 8, 2007 at 12:36 pm

CHeard said

Why are you people so angry?

Okay, I say that tongue in cheek. But there's a speech being given tonight at my university, where the title is, "Why Are Atheists So Angry?" I actually have not seen much evidence that atheists are "so angry," nor do I even know how to make sense of the title without an "about …" attached. So, are you angry? If so, what about?

Blimy CHeard I reckon you are going to get a lot of responses for that one! (I suspect _J_* is sharpening his pencil as we speak:-)

You can only understand anger (if indeed any exists) if you understand the type of anger being discussed, so for that reason I would break it down into sections.

Let's get the red herring out of the way first.

Anger at God.
Atheists are not angry at God. It is impossible to be angry at what does not exist. Believers are often angry at God (generally in response to the problem of evil) they then have a tendency to project this anger upon atheists. We see this anger as irrational and happily give it up to the faithful.

Atheists do get vexed though. Why? Several reasons.

1) Political anger.
This is annoyance at the continual chipping erosion at the ideal of the separation of Church and State (which is well funded and often disgustingly underhand). The ultimate aim of which is to control legislation and thus inflict the views of the (often extreme minority) upon all. This is unfair, undemocratic and unjustified.

N.B. I am not saying that there is something wrong with people with religious affiliations being members of the legislature. Of course not! However, any argument made about legislation, taxation and government must stand or fall on its own merits and not merely be an appeal to faith.

Obviously, not only atheists feel this way - many religious people do also, but it is a common reason for irritation amongst non-believers. This leads me to the next point..

2) Anger at hypocrisy.
Often the legislation that the religious groups wish to enact is related to purely private matters i.e. what you get up to in your own bedroom. What is this obsession with gay marriage about?? You might enjoy this little song...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1054,Defenders-of-Marriage,Roy-Zimmerman

Sigh. Isn't it often the way that the people who have the least to brag about in the morality stakes often claim the most right to dictate to others? When someone wishes to legislate against other people harmlessly enjoying themselves then there are three possible explanations:

a) They are concerned for the immortal souls of others (charitable explanation).
b) They are not having any fun themselves and don't want others to either (uncharitable explanation).
c) They are having lots of fun, but they want the added frisson of doing it illegally (really uncharitable explanation)

Anger when it turns out to be 'c' is, I feel, entirely justified.

3) Anger at lies.
The love of the truth is a virtue. Many believers have this love (I accept this even if I feel that their version of truth is mistaken). Atheists feel this also - so when people push lies upon others (particularly innocent children), they become vexed. The misrepresentation and often out-right denial of scientific evidence is a dreadful thing. (N.B. I have checked out your amazing blog and see you understand this anger well :-) I have huge respect for your position on this)

4. Anger at being insulted.
When you talk about Gods morality, experience of love, or meaning to life etc. all that you are talking about is God. One being (even if she exists) cannot define the morality, experience or meaning of another (at most she can only contribute) - this is an unjustified ascertion.

Accordingly, when an atheist denies/seriously doubts the existence of God then they do not; as a consequence of this; become incapable of acting morally, experiencing love or feeling that their life and the lifes of others have meaning. (This is a sloppy conclusion).
They merely define these things for themselves. Believers do this too; unfortunately, they are often less honest when they do so. (See reason for anger #3).

---

There are other reasons for anger, of course. It is easy it get cross over the actions performed by many with only 'faith' as a justification. E.g. the dreadful treatment of women, circumcism on non-consenting infants, outdated and inhumane methods of animal slaughter etc. etc.

I could go on, but I don't want to give the impression that I am angry. I have a sunny disposition. Honestly.

Bottom line with all this? Is there one single point that can sum the above up?

I would simply make the point that it is often informative to look at when an atheist is asked the question 'Why are you so angry?' There is a fair bet that this is generally after a considerable amount of time being politically unrepresented, dictated to by the unworthy, lied to and insulted.

Who wouldn't be a little cross??

[Edited for clarity and typo]

*_J_ Not saying that you are angry! Just that I know you love open questions :-)

558. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76970 by Corylus on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 am

Keith

And while we're at it (everybody), what does 'IMO' mean?

I use this site for running through references that others seem to understand and I don't.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

I suspect you will enjoy their definition of 'LOL'

Caution: you can search the most innocuous words on there and discover that there is often someone using them in an unbelievably crude/crass way - but then I'm easily shocked :-)

559. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76862 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Cheers V - glad I didn't imagine it.

SG - That McGinney woman sounds quite the sensation. I must say that I have never heard of her before. (Although I admit that in the mid 70's I was rather preoccupied with sucking on rusks and wailing :-).

Will look her up.

560. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76855 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Perkyjay

I don't think my old tape has A Child's Christmas in Wales on it (still looking for the darned thing - curses!). It is more of a general poetry anthology - i.e an excerpt from the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner and Desiderata and suchlike. (I will keep an eye out in the audiobook section).

Oddly enough - I don't think your limerick is on it either ;-) Although if Burton has made a recording I will happily listen!

561. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76828 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 11:55 am

Bluebird

The power of the human voice to attract/repel is relevant.

Ah, yes, I have to say I am a sucker for perfect diction myself...

(said the actress to the bishop ;-)

... ransacks cupboard to dig out old tape of Richard Burton reading poetry.

562. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76824 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 11:42 am

That is a lovely speech by RD.

I suspect made easier to write because the quotes from Dennett are so inspiring and deserve repetition.

Well done Dan.

563. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76821 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 11:30 am

Am I correct in thinking the Jerry Falwell's spawn have now taken over the running of Liberty University?

(Someone please tell me if I have got the wrong end of the stick)

One hopes that someone is keeping an eye on them...

564. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76612 by Corylus on October 6, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Blackhaw

Just above the little box into which you write your comments is a clickable link called 'comment posting guidelines'. If you click on this you will get instructions on how to put the quotes of others into little boxes and also how to put important things in bold (like the name of the specific poster to whom you are responding).

Doing this makes it alot easier for anyone reading a discussion to get a handle on what is going on.

Thanks.

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

Comment #76568 by Corylus on October 6, 2007 at 10:02 am

Idle curiosity on my part here Revcort.

Can you tell me how much admission costs to the Creation Museum?

Plus just how inflated are the prices in any food outlets attached and the gift shop? ( NB. I say 'just how' because this things are costly in every museum I have ever been in, but I would like some idea of scale.)

Are there lots of collection boxes in prominent points? (i.e. to pay for the upkeep of the museum). Also, are there notices up with the names of benefactors in prominents places or any other psychological incentives to give money?

I would like to be able to calculate how much cash they are making out of this one.

Cheers.

566. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76190 by Corylus on October 5, 2007 at 2:29 am

Mark8
Thanks for the google link - I am listening now.

Tetratornis - very interesting posts - thank you for taking the time to write them out :-)

Also, a little light relief for those annoyed with the format.

Sometimes not being able to answer the question given can be entertaining...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq8ZnQ95cKk

It's bit dated now, but a classic.

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

Comment #75752 by Corylus on October 3, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Revcort, it is very easy to scan read some of the posts on here and gloss over important points and nuances. (I know this because I have often been guilty of this myself - I can be unbelievably daft at times)

Can I make a suggestion? This site provides a function whereby you can print out comments. At the top of this article near the date you will see a little printer icon, click on this and select 'print with comments'. You will get a nice printout with no margins chopped off.

Sit down for a day in a quiet place and re-read, I reckon you will notice points that you didn't pick up on before. Then sleep on it and read again. (I have done this with some of the long threads on here and learnt alot).
---
P.S. I feel for you with the whole fighting the flab thing. On reading the discussion between yourself and Goldy , I realised that I too am not as fit as I was (hitting 30 really is a killer isn't it?) Accordingly, I threw myself into the swimming pool today - it didn't go well. I heard a soft voice in the back of my head. (Don't get excited it wasn't Jesus!) It was an old schoolteacher of mine. Do you know what it said?

"Today children we are going to demonstrate Archimedes' theory of water displacement..."

Sigh.

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

Comment #75746 by Corylus on October 3, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Hip-Priest

I really shouldn't talk about stuff I've learnt about on wikipedia.

I would tell you off for this disgusting,despicable, heinous sin, Hip-Priest. However...

He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone...

Who say's atheists can't learn from the bible ;-)

569. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75438 by Corylus on October 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Religion as the logical path to evil deeds: interesting question. If anyone is interested in my ramblings on this, I will give you my take on it...

One of the reasons I decided to study psychology was because I was fascinated at what made people (especially outwardly normal people) do vile things. (Some people are just sadists of course, and some people have no feeling for others, but there are the minority). What is it about normal 'decent' people that makes them stop caring for others and mistreat them?

I came to the conclusion that it pretty much boils down to the evil twins called 'out-group hostility' and 'conformity'.

Out-group hostility
We are born into a complicated world with a huge amount of sensory imput to process, accordingly we categorise things and place them into sets and subsets. The first categorization that seems to take place is the 'I' and the 'not I' then we move on the 'family' and 'not family' and so on. Finally we get to 'people we know' and 'people we don't know.' This is useful and helps us make sense of the world. We need to organise people and objects into groups (sets and sub-sets) in order to get by.

Trouble is, we overdo it. There is nothing wrong with talking about 'us' and 'them' when it is merely a statement of fact (e.g. born in one country vs born in other). However, it is very, very easy to move from 'us' and 'them' to 'us' and 'only them' . When it is 'only them' then the problems 'they' experience become less pressing and their pain becomes less important. Taken to extremes their pain can be dismissed as irrelevant and eventually glorified in.

Conformity
We like to fit in. We like to be liked, We can't all be shining stars. We are status animals and if we can't be top-dog we can always try for some reflected glory by sucking up and doing what we are told. Young men are particularly prone to this in that being liked gets them laid more often (they tend to be somewhat preoccupied with this). Trouble is, when the top-dog tells you do something bad, then this instruction is hard to ignore.


So what does any of the above have to do with religion? Simple, religion bolsters both of these nasties. Out-group hostility is legitimised because a given member of a religion will assume that a member of another religion is not only 'different;, but 'lesser'. Conformity is encouraged in religion in that there are rules to be followed, goals to be met and people who must be obeyed (these are generally men in strange clothing)

So, while it is simplistic to say that 'religion is the logical path to evil deeds', you can safely say that in many circumstances and situations it makes evil deeds seem rational, understandable and condoned by the group with which people identify. This is when 'good people do evil things'.*

There are other things that prop up these nasties. Of course, religion is not the only route to evil deeds. Of course religious people can perform good actions.

It is however a pretty glaring example. Religion stops being a route to evil deeds when it's practitioners give up on the placing of people into groups (saved/hellbound) and when it stop demanding conformity and blind obedience.

It will stop enabling evil deeds when it's adherents clearly and consistently condemn those who use their religion as a rationale or excuse for evil deeds.

This has not happened yet.

---
*What about those people that are just gits anyway? Religion helps them too in that it gives the sadists and the sociopaths (who cause trouble wherever they are) a generally excepted excuse for brutality and selfishness.
___

Fides_et_ratio (Comment 58) - what have you been doing to your hyphen button to make it break in such a fashion? I can understand the unthinking pounding on the "!" button or even the "?" button, (I have been guilty of the shameless misuse of both) but the hyphen?

Maybe you have just been writing your name alot. Banging onto the hyphen button (whilst simultaneously holding onto the 'shift' button) in a vain attempt to reconcile incompatable concepts.

Devolved you never did tell me about your views on the moon-landings? I believe you have questions unanswered in other threads.

570. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75053 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I hope I'm wrong too, Northern Bright, but I would like Mr Good to make himself clear on this point.

If he does then I will, of course, apologise.

571. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75041 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Janet Factor

I'd like to take a different tack here, and argue that there is something theology can tell us—but not about god. It can tell us about ourselves.

"The organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God" is really an organized body of knowledge about human preferences in fantasy objects."

Interesting analysis Janet. (Sounds like a book/Phd subject - you could do a huge analysis of different conceptualisations of God throughout history and look at how he changes with different epochs) I doubt the theologians would play though :-)

Re: Business studies students - bless 'em. All of their lectures were at 9.00 at my old uni : they were the only ones that could be guarenteed to turn up at that disgusting hour of the morning (practising for the wonderful world of work no doubt). I used to watch them from my bedroom window. Off they would scuttle with their little briefcases in their hands cheerfully discussing how to invest the money from their student loans in the stock market and leave college debt free...

Wankers.

572. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75025 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 11:46 am

Nick Good - South Africa

PS - I have a foreskin

I like learning about the other posters on here and hearing their stories.

However, I don't see how this is is relevant to a discussion on Chomsky or American politics in general.

EDIT: Smacks head! Doh! Is this your way of accusing Dawkins of anti-semitism? That is a serious charge Nick.

573. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #75018 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 11:20 am

RichardM

Just be cool. As an adolescent, the more he sees you getting uptight about it, the more appealing it will seem to him.

Absolutely.

I had some peculiar notions in my early teens (occult phase) I realised it was drivel eventually. I think it would have taken me alot longer if I my parents had told me what to think: I'm stubborn.

Tommcc you can't dictate his religious views to him: bottom line they are his own choice. I wouldn't worry too much though, if he asking questions and reading then he is obviously a smart kid - he will work it through eventually. Just encourage him to read all kinds of different viewpoints and give him some space.

You know, he may simply just get bored - creationism takes alot of energy to maintain because of all of the evidence against it.

574. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74875 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 1:14 am

GSP

To deepen my question then: Can religion be a force for good (in the sense that a democratic regime is better than an authoritarian regime). I think yes. Can religion produce the motivation for others to overcome their authoritarian oppressors and push for democracy?

The motivation for overcoming authoritarian oppressors come from not liking being oppressed. You can express this dissatisfaction in religious terms of course, e.g. "God said - Let my people go". However, this is a side-effect not a cause.

You can argue that religion helps in terms of political lobbying in that people are already in groups. Fine. However, I would say this effect is more than cancelled out by the facts that:-

a) It is perfectly possible to form non-religious lobby groups.

b) Often the teachings of religion are at variance with political freedom (i.e. arguing that a caliphate is a good thing and that democracy is bad).

c) Because the separation of church and state is a relatively new concept you often find that religious organisations are actually either the ones doing the oppressing or symbiotically linked to an oppressive government.

575. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74872 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 12:48 am

GSP

To answer your question I have added a few words to what you have said.

I am just curious, Can an atheist have a positive belief [about fairies]?

If yes, could not this atheist, as long as that belief [about fairies] coincided with their action, theoretically act upon that action, potentially producing negative consequences which would in turn be the result of their atheism [view on fairies]?

I'm being a bit playful here, but can you see my point? :-)

Not believing in something merely means that it is no longer a factor in any analysis. Can atheists act negatively? Absolutely - they are human too! However, is their disbelief in fairies a cause for this? Nah.

N.B. Possibly a helpful way of looking at this is to think about agnostics. They do not base their actions on a belief in God, because they feel this is an unanswerable question.
Ask yourself whether you think agnostics can act badly because of said scepticism?

576. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74865 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 12:08 am

GSP

When you ask your yourself the interesting question of 'Can religion be a force for good?' you need to realise that this question is open ended and imprecise. In order to analyse the issue properly you need to add the sub-questions of 'For whom?' and 'Are these actions good in themselves?

Let's look at a concrete example. I know, the emphasis that religion puts on charity.

At first sight you say 'Great!' However, look deeper...

1) For whom? If there is an emphasis on charitable giving only to members of your own community then is that really charity? You could argue that this is merely a form of self-interest and a legitimisation of out-group hostily.

2) 'Are these actions good in themselves?' Is the unthinking acceptance of people being poor a good thing? Tthe ultimate and proper aim of charity is to eliminate the need for it's own existence. Maybe it would be better to concentrate on why people are poor and tackle those issues instead? For example, maybe the women have no access to contraception and thus have more children than they can comfortably suport. Does religion help to eliminate this cause of poverty or instead encourage it?

The question of whether 'religion poisons everything' is a difficult and complicated issue - which needs cool-headed analysis

However, to give you some idea of where I sit on this one - consider the possible answers to the following questions...

1) In the public sphere is the separation of church and state a good thing? (i.e. are secular governments freer than theocratic ones? Compare and contrast notable examples)

2) In the private sphere does the assumption that you have a hotline to God and are thus qualified to prosletyse to your neighbours a good thing? (Or is it patronising, irritating and a damned impertinance?)

577. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74812 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Billy

As you are online at the moment - I think you might be way better at helping this guy than me...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1690,There-Go-The-Dinosaurs,Jack-T-Chick#74804

578. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74802 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

SharonMcT and_J_

Re Benway I have reading him for a while now and it is not just that he is smart (which he obviously is) other people on here are smart too. I reckon it boils down to the fact that he learns new things quicky and assimilates them.

Case in point: you can post a link and think no bugger has bothered to look at it. Then sod me a couple of weeks later you realise that Benway has looked at it, thought it over, and understood what you took months to 'grok'.

N.B. He is impossible to lie to as well: I'm never going anyway near his couch.

Mind you though, I have to disagree with _J_'s point here.

Whilst using his magic lately, Dr Benway noted what a good idea it would be if you could search the comment threads by commenter ID. I agree (of course).

That is a bloody awful idea! This would mean that all of my posts could be read at once! Including my really early posts where I sounded an arrogant idiot because I didn't understand that a depressing proportion of the people on here are smarter than me.

No. Please!!! :-(

579. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74736 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

Pewkatchoo

Does anyone here really imagine for two bloody seconds that the Flea's 'just come back from the hospital scenario' has a grain of fact in it?

I been considering that possibility too. However, the mention of the age of the parent seemed to be a detail that didn't need making up: so I expect they exist.

Also, he is aware that some of the members of his Church's message board look here too.

If has made this up as debating point (to distract people from the fact that he was spectacularly losing an argument and without the guts to admit it).

Then he is not only a despicable individual, he has made a huge tactical error as well.

580. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74572 by Corylus on September 29, 2007 at 3:05 pm

WeeFlea

Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.

Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.

Seems to be that you have been reading the posts of a certain Dianelos. That's good - I have learnt a fair bit from him too.

(Incidentally this confirms my theory that you spend a fair amount of time visiting this site and not posting). In light of that I am surprised at your assertion that:

No attempt to made to engage at all with any religious people – because they are de facto deluded, stupid or hypocritical.

Oh for pity's sake David! There are over 2400 posts on the McGrath thread with us engaging with Dianelos. Pretty much every regular commentator on here has spoken to him. What's that? A fucking mirage?

Other people can reply to your statements in the middle of your post. However, your penultimate paragraph is truly reprehensible. (Even accounting for your being upset today)

I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'

Is that truly what you think atheists believe? That simply because we believe in no gods, that we also conclude that people are no more than 'throwaway survival machines'?

How. Dare. You.

To quote you back at yourself.

Such thinking will have severe consequences.

P.S. My deepest sympathies to the couple that have lost their child.

581. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74460 by Corylus on September 29, 2007 at 1:37 am

Russell

I also think there's room for refined, gentle COFFEE HOUSE PHILOSOPHER ATHEISTS , like me and anyone else who posts here and meets the description maybe we should form a club).

I would go for that Russell. Must say though, that I like to do some of my philosophising in pubs as well. (If everyone could be kind enough to pretend not to notice the lush in the corner spiking her mocha with brandy - that would be great).

Yorker
Fair enough. ( I have to say though that one defence for rudeness I won't accept is relative youth : I happen to be the same age as Sapient).

Otherwise, can see where you are coming from :-)

582. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74417 by Corylus on September 28, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Personally, I can see both sides of this one.... Yes I know fence sitting can be uncomfortable at times! (Shifts uncomfortably and winces.)

For RRS.

1) Energy and optimism.

2) I like that respond in the title. To react to irrationality is a good thing - to seek it out for the pure sake of it is a different thing entirely.

3) They are dealing with people who not only have irrational beliefs but the desire to act apon them. (In order to ensure that everyone else is forced into either sharing or respecting said beliefs).

4) I think they should be cut some slack due to the fact that they are dealing with the American religious lobby. This lobby scares the living crap out of me in terms of its' funding, connections and ambitions. If they have to be blunt and 'in-your-face' when dealing with this then so be it.

5) When assessing whether any lobby is being effective it is always informative to look at where they meet the most resistence. RRS have been the victim of organised, underhand, dishonourable creationist attacks (e.g. that copyright business). This indicates to me that what they are saying is getting through and worrying people. Good.

Against RRS.

1) When reading Sapient's or (to a lesser extent Kelly's) posts on here I have been frankly shocked at how rude and overly emotional they seem. (Maybe this is just due to my British social conditioning, but I have to say neither attribute impresses me much)

2) I don't like the way they pounce on criticism and attempt to pound it into submission. The person they hung out to dry on their YouTube video (Sablechicken) was unbelievably irritating, but I happen to think that she might well have mental health issues. There are ways to deal with people.

3) I agree that their dress and language has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of their arguments. However, the people who they are trying to reach do not think in these abstract terms. Common sense, please.

----

Accordingly, may I make a suggestion that might appeal to both sides on this debate?

I notice on their website that they have a Amazon Wishlist. They have listed some remarkable books on there. If you feel that their arguments are lacking in subtlety why not pick them out something that lays out philosophical arguments? If you think they don't explain science properly, buy them a book that does!

Who hasn't got the odd Amazon Voucher for Crimbo and not bothered to cash it in?

Go on :-)

(Waits to get flamed by both sides on this thread...)

P.S. I am also sitting on the fence about that word 'fucktard' I can't work out whether I find it crude and offensive or marvellously evocative. Hmm, maybe both :P

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

Comment #74192 by Corylus on September 27, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Revcort

I have been a little terse with you in this thread. However, I have to say I am now admiring your persistence and honesty :-) So well done.

BTW - don't get all wound up assuming that everyone on here is supersmart. Case in point, my studies are mainly in the arts and humanities/soft sciences. I got all peeved a couple of months ago at all the hard science talk going over my head. "I'll show em!! I said. So I went out and got myself some books.

That Fabric of Reality book they are raving about on here was one of them. (Well, just between you and me ;- ) I gave up about of a third of the way in. Didn't understand a word. Not one.. well, that's not strictly true.. there were some 'the' and 'therefores' in there :P

In relation to books to read, I understand the limited budget and not wanting to read fiction. Can I make one teeny suggestion? There is a book that came out about a year ago called The Book of Lost Things, by an author called John Connolly. It is a modern day fairytale about a young boy who ends up in a different world. Some reviewers have likened it to CS Lewis and given it a mystical explanation. So you can read it with a clear conscience. (I didn't read it that way, of course because I am a miserable heathen)

However, it has some of the most beautiful prose in it that I have ever read and it full of moral and human insights. I do think that you will like it.

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

Comment #74186 by Corylus on September 27, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Brother John, we haven't chatted before so Hi.

Thank you for your interesting post. I appreciate your addressing both sides of an argument in one go. I think this shows admirable fairness. I am also impressed at your statement that you are "a christian and a priest of 70 years". I find myself wondering whether :

a) You have been a christian for 70 years
b) You have been a priest for 70 years
c) You are simply 70 years old and both a christian and a priest.
Or maybe
d) You actually have been both a christian and a priest for 70 years (indicating that you started your training for the priesthood before you became a christian) which I have to say shows remarkable forward planning :P

In any event, (forgive my playfulness above) all of the answers indicate that you have considerably more life experience than me, which I have the good sense to respect. However, you could hear that 'however' coming couldn't you? Re: your summary:

* God wants us to follow our consciences: those feelings about right and wrong that we have in us. It is our moral duty to do this.

* It is on that that He will judge us: on how well we have followed that inner light - even if it leads us to say: I can't believe in God.

You state that God wants us to follow our consciences concerning what is right and wrong. The implication is that he wants us to do the right thing.

I have to ask:

i) Is this the right thing because God says it is the right thing or
ii) Is this the right thing because God recognises this is the right thing.

I am sure that you recognise this argument, but hey, the old ones are the best.
My apologies for jumping on the morality argument here, but I have been debating with a believer on another thread about morality for some considerable time now and I simply can't let this pass. This is because I have noticed when believers talk about morality they fall (broadly) into one of two camps.

1) There are some believers that make the assumption that atheists by denying the existence of God (in their view the source of morality) automatically become immoral and subject to all manner of temptations and depravities. (I am not for a moment saying that you are one of them!)

and

2) There are other believers who; after looking about the world and seeing that atheists seem to manage to behave morally thank you very much; assume that God is really talking to the atheists and they simply don't have the sense to realise it.

Number 1. Demonstrates a rather depressing view of human nature and actually insulting. Worse than that though, it is based on an unsubstantiated assertion. Namely, that God is the source of morality. (See my questions to you above).

Number 2 on the face of it seems better, however, it still paints a pretty low picture of the the human race. Also, it appears at varience with the notion of free will which is always trotted out by a believer when the question of theodicy rises it's ugly head.

Furthermore, it is ... searches for the right word.... unsporting.

It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it. The possession of a conscience is neither a proof of God nor an argument for the teaching of his existence.

Of course, I can agree with your statement below that:

Those moral principles that we accept as our personal code must reflect, as best we know how, love, fairness, compassion, mutual respect, the inalienable right to freedom, commitment to truth and peaceful coexistence etc.

However, I fail to see why you need to bring God into the question at all. Anyway, thanks again for the interesting post :-)

_J_ That pink eye is the most disturbing thing I have seen all day, and I had to babysit today and watch kids TV.

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

Comment #73913 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Comment by Revcort

Also I found that this falling away must be open, even in the view of the world, so as to put Christ "to an open shame" (Hebrews 6:6).

Ok, but by that analysis didn't the apostle Peter commit the ultimate, unpardonable sin? I seem to recall that there was some serious falling away and denial going on at some point, i.e. just before the crucifiction. N.B. Any biblical scholars feel free to correct - tis a while since I read that particular tome.

Come to think of it though, that might explain something! You always hear about St Peter at the gates of heaven, no mention of him going in though . Must be tough.

....In the distance he can hear all the partying going down, the joy and the shaking of funky stuff etc, and there he is... Condemned to eternity as little more than a celestial bouncer.

Bummer.

Vinelectric - glad to please ;-)

586. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #73905 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Paul

God designed the world and intended reasoning beings to inhabit it. Things were made in such a way that, through reason, we could discover ethical principles that would enable us to live fulfilled, moral lives.

Don't take this amiss, but your notion of God is somewhat Victorian. Morality and design - the orderly nature of universe. Yours is an enlightenment, lawgiver God. This is not a criticism BTW - I infinitely prefer this to the Calvinistic, judgemental God being argued for on another thread. (The leprecology thread: man don't go there!)

1) Let's take morality first:

Moral philosophy is a swine isn't it? I am sorry we have not given you responses that satisfy you. As I have suggested to you before, part of the problem is because the only thing we (atheists) have in common is the belief in no gods... or is it no belief in gods ;-).

Accordingly there are differing views on moral theory.

The position you are defending (moral realism) seems on the face of it to be the common sense position "Of course some actions are objectively wrong! There are such things as moral 'facts'" Unfortunately, when you get into philosophy 'common sense' means precisely bugger all. Please read the fair and balanced outline of moral realism below. Don't worry, there are plus and minus points in there.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

There is a list of books at the end some of which you might like to read. I am sorry if this seems like homework, but hey, you dish it out, you should be able to take it :-)

2) OK design,

Lots of words written on this site about this one. I don't know whether you know, but Dianelos is now arguing on another thread. As you know, no crass creationist he. Can I point you to a post refuting his theistic view of evolution. It is,I think, is one of the clearest and smartest posts I have read on this site. It was written by a poster called Janus, (Yes the two-headed God. Who is way cleverer than me - curse his/her four eyes!) I recommend reading, it is comment number 192 or #73571. You will have to read the whole thread to get a handle on it, but hey, if you waded through this thread then you can deal.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1667,Why-Christians-should-take-Richard-Dawkins-seriously,Richard-Skinner-Ekklesia

3) Generally,

It seems to be that what you are really, really want are answers that fit your worldview.

Unfortunately, all that you are receiving on this site are answers. I don't wish to project or be patronising, but I find myself wondering whether you are having a bit of a crisis with this whole 'faith' business.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe your discussions with us heathens on here have only served to strengthen your faith. Your views are your own: I won't pry.

Take your time, Paul. Eventually, you will just simply have to resolve any conflicts you may or may not have in your own way.
----

N.B. Unless you ask me a specific question, I don't think I will post to you again: I get the impression that you don't want to listen to me. That's fine, I won't take it personally. I am amazingly stubborn, but eventually I have to go with W.C. Fields. who said:

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

Take care :-)

C.

587. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73742 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 3:53 am

No worries RichardM - have a break if you think best. I suspect you will find that it is hard to resist posting though.

Feel free to comment on any of my posts in the future - I welcome all feedback... Even if it is only some bugger correcting my spelling :-))

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

Comment #73739 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 3:34 am

Robert Maynard

>Revcort
Of course I realize this- but you must realize that IF God can stop the earth from rotating, He can stop the cataclysmic events that might normally happen from happening too. The Scripture teaches that by Him all things consist. (are held together) In other words, it is by the very grace of God that this planet is still in one piece. If He removed His protective control, it would literally begin to fall apart. (oh, by the way, that's the very thing He is doing- He is gradually letting go and the world is gradually falling apart)

....On that note, "gradually falling apart"? In what sense?

I have a nasty feeling that Revcort is 'Rapture Ready' Robert.

WB Yeats - The Second Coming
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Revcort, if I have misinterpreted you in this regard, please say.

Also your comment earlier (Is it Isaiah?? I admit no biblical scholar :)

All glory and honor and dominion belong to God and one day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

I have to say that this smells of eschatology to me.

589. Polygamist Leader Convicted in Utah

Comment #73719 by Corylus on September 26, 2007 at 12:58 am

"Everyone should now know that no one is above the law, religion is not an excuse for abuse and every victim has a right to be heard," said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who had endorsed the prosecution in Washington County.

Absolutely. Let justice be done, though the heavens fall...

590. Root and Branch

Comment #73709 by Corylus on September 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Fair enough Russell.

I'll put the Kitcher book on my 'to read' list.

It's a long list - maybe I'll finish it before I die :-)

591. Root and Branch

Comment #73599 by Corylus on September 25, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Well. Very interesting, some new facts learned.

However:

1) Not particularly well structured. In a piece this long there is nothing wrong with sub-headings, especially if different parts of the piece relate to different books. (Not all of us have superextended attention spans)

2) This "anti-darwinism" term. I can see why it is being used...

This is because Behe says, in effect, "Sure, I believe in evolution by natural selection--it just doesn't do all it is supposed to." In his capacity as a biologist he does not officially argue for special acts of creation. So you cannot call him antievolution or creationist But he is undeniably anti-Darwin. ... The label "anti-Darwin" seems the right umbrella term for creationism, antievolutionism--and Behe.

but,... BUT (I admit I do want to think about this more) at first glance I don't like it.

Couple of reasons:

a) By using an individual's name the implication is that the "anti-darwinists" are fighting merely against the views of one person (who is long dead) rather than a huge body of evidence. This is not the impression that needs to be given.

b) By lumping Behe in with the creationists aren't you just giving them credability by default? Ok, I know it is not alot of credability, but nonetheless...

3) There is room for misunderstanding in relation to what is science and what is not.

There is no one philosophy of science that fully accounts for the evolving body of practices we call the sciences.

Well ok, but...

Unfortunately, anti-Darwinism keeps playing minor variations on the same negative themes and adds nothing to our understanding of life. Many scientists who are upset by the ongoing lobbying insist that it is bad science or pseudo-science. Living With Darwin, Philip Kitcher's brief and cogent manifesto, very rightly disagrees. Anti-Darwinism is, he says, dead science, recapitulating old stuff long abandoned. I prefer to call it degenerating.

By calling it degenerating Hacking seems to be giving it the status of a research program.* The first question needs to be not "Is it 'bad science' or 'pseudo-science'? The question needs to be 'Is it science at all'?

Why concede this point without a fight, or at the very least a huge amount of thought?
This seems to be to be akin to spending so long fortifying your battlements that you forget that you drawbridge is down...

4) One bit really made me growl.

That part of the American population that believes God made man in His own image has a heartfelt contempt for know-it-alls. I am inclined to say, God bless the people, even when they get it wrong.

I'm sorry but this is utter bollocks. Why glorify anti-intellectionism? I am inclined to say 'Where are their teachers?' not 'Bless their ignorant little cotton socks'.

Overall interesting, but I have to say irritating in parts.

---

*EDIT: Or at least having had that status at one point.

592. Why are we Muslims so self-destructive?

Comment #73531 by Corylus on September 25, 2007 at 7:50 am

Hmm. Maybe a forum thread on psuedonyms might be a good plan??

Personally I like them because they give out little clues about people's personalities. There might be little jokes in them like references to literary characters i.e. Dr Benway. (Maybe there is a reference to T.S. Eliot somewhere on this thread?) Puzzles please me. Same with avatars - what a giveaway some of them are ;-)

I also like being able to chat to people when I have no idea of their age or gender - leads to an unprejudiced discussion.

My main reason for using one is practical. When I signed up I was looking for a job - employers nowdays have a habit of googling names (and my surname is very unusual). I am not one for saying vile things or defaming people (I admit I do swear a bit sometimes though), so I doubt that anything I say, or have said here would have had an effect. Nevertheless, I very much like to keep the work side of my life separate from everything else.

However, I do understand why people like Richard like to use their own name. So in the spirit of compromise, and if anyone gives a rat's arse, here is half of mine :)

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

593. Religion advances despite science (and thanks to Dawkins)

Comment #73388 by Corylus on September 24, 2007 at 11:38 pm

WeeFlea

And yes - I have read The God Delusion (several times) and yes it does claim that religious moderates are the ones to blame because they are the ones who allow religious fundamentalists. That is almost as ridiculous as saying we are to blame for the atheist fundamentalists!

Interesting statement David, it strongly implies that you consider yourself a religious moderate. Cool :-)

However, can I ask you to read rather than posting insults all over he place. There is a fascinating thread on here. There is a new poster on here who I have to say is pretty bat@&*^ insane called Revcort. There is another poster on here called Cheard who is a biblical scholar and amazing smart and well read. They have a chat.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent

Can I ask you to read thier discussion and list where you agree with Revcort and where you agree with CHeard? (I know these subjects get raised every time you are on here,) but Revcort has some interesting views on both homosexuality and the Catholic Church.

Thanks.

594. Out of Thin Air

Comment #73066 by Corylus on September 24, 2007 at 3:18 am

Comment #5 by _J_

(BTW, for British users: not such a flashy design, if they're stealing their backgrounds from Blockbusters.)

Whoa - flashback!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-880uWIk_hI

595. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72791 by Corylus on September 23, 2007 at 1:47 am

Capt. Underpants

I completely share your anger at biblical literalists and agree with your analysis of most of them - they are indeed spineless wankers!

However, I find Devolved very interesting in that he appears to have picked creationism for himself (rather than being brought up in an environment where people don't point and laugh). Such people fascinate me.

Yorker

Even Devolved isn't going to get these wrong is he?

It's very easy to overestimate the ability of others to engage in evidence based reasoning, but for the sake of completeness... :-)

Devolved

What do you think about the McGann's? Are they:-

a) Innocent
b) Guilty
c) Not enough evidence to say either way.

596. Crisis of faith in first secular school

Comment #72785 by Corylus on September 23, 2007 at 1:16 am

I don't have kids and I don't live in Tyneside, but if I did...

The schools, says Kelley, 'directly or indirectly influence children into a belief that a particular faith is preferable either to other faiths or to a lack of faith'. He adds: 'That is not, in my view, fair to a child and it is not offering them the opportunity to choose freely.

Absolutely - let them make up their own minds. 'Daily act of worship' what a waste of valuable school time. Time better spent teaching the kids something useful, like maybe learning how to read.

597. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72743 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Captain Underpants

I've always tended to assume that my thought processes don't differ radically from those of anybody else, but I find the Bible basher mentality utterly incomprehensible.

It is important to realise that there are many different types of religious believer. There are some moderate intelligent believers on here that I will happily chat to. I don't think that they are daft or reason in a manner much different from my own. They are perfectly rational in many areas. However, I don't think they are rational in one specific area. They cling to religion for all manner of reasons. E.g. comfort, habit, a love of ritual etc..

N.B. I am willing to be convinced by any of them. Each time I talk to a believer I put myself on the line - if they can give me a consistent, evidence based argument for believing I will change my view. People like WeeFlea are not prepared to countenance the notion that atheists might think like this, which is why he often comes on here to call us all fundamentalists :-(

Devolved however, is in a class of his own. (Which is why I am talking past him here - I think this is generally rude and I don't often do it)

I find myself wondering whether is he argues in such an blinkered fashion not because he is believer, or because he has been indoctrinated into creationism, like poor Bizarro. (He appears more British than American) I wonder instead whether he is a loon who has latched onto an extreme creationist version of belief because it bolsters his own idea of who he is. Evolution puts the average human in their place (insecurity shown - ouch) creation elevates the individual (arrogance reinforced). E.g. "I'm no monkey - dammit".

I suspect he has lots of theories on all manner of subjects (the truth about which he has priviledged access). Lets test that.

Devolved

Do you believe:-

1) That the moon landings were real?
2) That islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11?
3) That Diana's death was ordered by the Royal family?

Simple questions - no nasty biology involved :-)

598. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #72728 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 1:29 pm

What is disrespectful is to treat any individual differently from the next

Well said Robert.

599. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #72717 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 12:30 pm

The problem with putting "mind your own business" or some such thing is that people of no faith will be under-represented and we'll continue to be perceived as a puny, whiny, insufferable minority.

I can really see where you are coming from here Oxytocin.

This why I think it is important to put "none" on census forms, because polticians get data from them (I really don't know how I feel about the campaign to put 'Jedi Knight' on those).

Everyday data mining I object to though. Not just about religion either - all superfluous questions get the same treatment.

600. Row Brews Over DUP Call for Schools to Teach Creationism

Comment #72709 by Corylus on September 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Captain Underpants (loved your anagrams!)

One can't help wondering what Devolved and his Merry Men hope to achieve by posting here. Surely they don't seriously entertain the notion they can convince anyone here with their non-arguments.

Personally, I don't think that it is that rational. I have a theory that it is about self-justification and the protection of cherished notions.

E.g. They see evidence of other people doing fine with a perfectly consistent and widely held worldview (in this case evolution). Trouble is, this view is at variance with many of their assumptions. This makes them feel bad and (I hesitate to use the word inferior) outcast. How to reconcile this and still retain self-esteem? The answer, of course, is to presume that the vast majority are wrong and they themselves have access to a 'truth' that others don't.

This is, obviously, a truth that they themselves have gleaned via their own intellect and data-gathering skills. No tedious formal studying for them. No turning up at college after being the smartest in your small town only to discover that you are actually relatively thick. Such dents to the ego are not to be born. It is impossible to be wrong, one is merely misunderstood. In fact after a time they start to glorify in having a minority view. "How much smarter am I to understand the truth". (Conspiracy nut thinking). "In fact maybe I dropped out because I'm so smart no-one understood me. Cool!"

However, when they see a glaring and in-your-face threat to their cherished view: like maybe a respected academic's website with some smart people posting on it (maybe with the odd thicko dormouse thrown in ;-) That's when the problems start. Hear the inner dialogue..."These people are so wrong... I should ignore it and instead enjoy feeling superior... But, they're wrong... (then a tiny small voice in the back of the head starts with the dreaded words "What if I'm wrong) No, No, NO! I must show them, I MUST".

They just can't help themselves. Bit like picking a scab really. Part of you knows that it is going to end badly and you really shouldn't, but dammit it itches. So you scratch it and for a while it feels good. However, at a certain point comes the blood and the pus. You leave it alone and let it heal: try not to think about it. Trouble is when it is heals you find yourself with an even bigger scab and dammit that itches too...

EDIT: Wow Capt - looks like you have two answers for the price of one! Northern Bright you type fast :-)