601. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294453 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 4:45 am

Comment #294452 by Titania

Excellent! I'll have one of your virtual Cuban cigars, and will raise a toast in real Guinness to the Goldys tomorrow!

The sense of community amongst us atheists is, I agree, a phenomenal and inspirational thing. When we meet in Dublin, I'm gonna give you and Steve Zara the biggest hugs you've ever had!

602. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294448 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 4:30 am

Will do, Quetz. I think Goldy was going to announce the birth on his facebook site as soon as he could. But if he emails me, I'll put the news straight up on RD.net.

603. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294446 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 4:28 am

Comment #294443 by Steve Zara

Steve - "fucking awesome", if you don't mind.

604. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294440 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 4:22 am

Steve - I certainly shall, and will let you know as soon as news comes to hand.

Mike - thanks. That really clears up some of the problems I had with Kim. I am still somewhat bemused by his allowance of epiphenomenalism, but am heartened that his reductionist model allows for, at least, the weakly emergent properties of consciousness - a philosophy to which I also subscribe. I am, unlike Dianelos, completely baffled by the tedious concept of "naturalism", which explains nothing, as far as I am concerned. I prefer "physicalism", in that every object of consciousness can be explained by the supervenience motif. The structures of consciousness, created at every level, and increasingly attested to by neuro-scientific examination and technology, I think support a "physical brain only" position. Does Kim allow for epiphenomenalism simply because he can't allow the idea of unadulterated physicalism? Why not?

605. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294424 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:57 am

irate - "the will to 'tard". Man, that's pure philosophy.

Titania - you'll be the first to know when he sends me an email. Isn't it funny - here we are, a bunch of people who have never met face to face, and yet I am sitting here tonight "praying" (excuse the expression) that all goes well for the Goldys tomorrow. And what was someone saying about atheists having no moral or communal "centre"?

P.S. Has that book come yet, T?

606. How to sell science to the Big Brother generation

Comment #294420 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:52 am

I'm trying to keep an open mind on du Sautoy for the time being. After Richard's sterling work, it would be a difficult task for anyone to follow. I don't mind if he concentrates his efforts on "the public understanding of science" without getting too involved in belting up religious 'tards; however, I'll be looking askance if he deliberately avoids the fight when it's put to him.

607. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294409 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:39 am

Steve, with Bernstein around, I would go flagrantly gay!

608. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294406 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:37 am

Titania - Goldy facebooked me a little while ago. Poor guy's starting to get the jitters :)

609. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294400 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:32 am

I'm not afraid of you two. Bernstein is apparently the conversion expert.

610. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294396 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:29 am

Am I the only one who experiences nausea when reading Dianelos's posts?

611. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294393 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:26 am

MPhil - too right it's self-defeating. I would even say that Kim does not even put up a reasonable argument for the reductionism/epiphenomenalism split. As far as I can make out, this is an argument that turns on semantics more than praxis, or do you think there's more to it?

612. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294385 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:20 am

Vaal - he has this very odd idea that we're not serious. Hee hee hee....

613. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294379 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:15 am

Chin up, Quetz - he's gotta run out of ink soon.

614. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294375 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:13 am

Too right, Decius - come on, irate, it's your duty to give DG the drum. Have you lost your 'tard button?

615. 'Atheist bus' more like a bandwagon on highway to hell

Comment #294372 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #294237 by mblarson323

Absolutely brilliant. I applaud you, Madam/Sir.

616. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #294368 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:06 am

Comment #294361 by Vaal

"Gay" as in really overjoyed that a couple of mates are going to take him to Lords to watch Australia thrash the Poms, Vaal.

617. God No!

Comment #294271 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Comment #294265 by aflacgirl84

Go to the contact menu, then submit in the article submissions section.

618. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294128 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I think the pills are in the top cupboard, Diacanu :-)

619. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294119 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm

Comment #294114 by Goldy

Great choice - that's my daughter's name, and Tia's middle name :)

620. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294111 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 4:05 pm

December 2, 1804: Napoleon Bonaparte crowned emperor of France in Paris by Pope Pius VII

There you go, Goldy - a name for new tacker: Bony.

621. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294099 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm

I already gave you the definition in my last post, Goldy.

622. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294093 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm

The appropriate concept to use in this context is "hypostasis" not "person".

623. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294083 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Goldy - breathe in through the nose, out through the mouth, in through the......

624. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294076 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Tomorrow! Ah, well, mate - I'm sure I can speak on behalf of all the comrades of RD.net when I wish you, Mrs Goldy and new Goldy every good thing for tomorrow. Just make sure you get a chance to invade a hospital computer and give us a quick update, so we can all grab a guinness and toast you.

625. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294067 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Goldy - any action on the baby front? What's the due date?

626. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294063 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Decius - the language of philosophy is handy, in that certain words and expressions compress meaning that might otherwise take a while to express. DG's philosophical spewage, on the other hand, is designed to intimidate. Unfortunately for him, there are quite enough of us on this site who have such sound training in philosophy that we are not fooled. I can see, though, how he'd go down a treat on Answers in Genesis, or another of those nut-job sites.

627. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294052 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Comment #294045 by Steve Zara

I think I made that point a couple of days ago, Steve - he uses a philosophy thesaurus, has some program similar to the postmodern essay generator, and knocks up clever-sounding sentences that are, once deconstructed, in fact complete shite.

628. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294046 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Might be a while, Brian - anyone know of a good recipe for growing back damaged neurones?

629. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294042 by Laurie Fraser on November 30, 2008 at 2:27 pm

My IQ fluctuates between 50 and 200, depending on a number of factors. It's usually at about 50, though. (Especially after last night.)

630. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293645 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm

to stonk - bombard with concentrated artillery fire.

(1940s) British colloquialism

Yep, that just about sums it up.

631. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293639 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 2:43 pm

That's a great word, Phil - "stonking". And you're right - both Steve and Decius nailed poor old Dianelos to the jagged remains of his pathetic little cross.

Next!

632. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293557 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 8:18 am

Absolutely, Alan. Great post which underlies why so many of us are here - the fact that we were lucky enough to use reason to escape the chains of what is, essentially, infantilism institutionalised.

633. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293548 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 8:04 am

Mark- you're kidding. You've got one of the busiest brains around. One of things that Dianelos does is to use the language of philosophy and science to attempt to create an aura of intellectual respectability. His posts, when deconstructed, though, are as pointless as any other god-bothering wooter around. The fact that he will not directly respond to direct questions about evidence, etc., demonstrates this perfectly.

Edited for atrocious punctuation.

634. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293540 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 7:46 am

Oh, they're more than "mere" rhetoric, Quetz. They are cholera dressed in roses.

635. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293533 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 7:35 am

And the failure of ontological naturalism's method of reifying science's models is increasingly difficult to overlook.

636. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293527 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 7:16 am

Decius - I haven't bothered with that one, because it is such a flagrant mish-mash of neo-Hegelianism I didn't think it worth the effort - all of that ontological naturalism vs metaphysics rubbish was dead and buried a hundred and fifty years ago.

637. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293518 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 6:54 am

As I recall, Alan, Godot never showed up.

638. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293514 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 6:49 am

Dianelos - you can probably understand why philosophers such as myself, MPhil and others find your "arguments" poor; in your previous post you deliberately skirted around my question and came up with a "politician's wonder" - a common tactic by those who feel that if they answer the question truthfully, somehow their credibility is suspect. Nothing could be further from the truth. To maintain credibility, you must answer direct questions. Mine was: where is the empirical evidence for god? Now, if you cannot supply that, you must admit it. Do you admit it? If you do, then we can move on to other, rational arguments.

639. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293507 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 6:36 am

Hey, Frankus - I'm waiting with baited breath for Dianelos's proof of god. I want to believe - I can think of nothing better than my soul winging its way through the universe forever on a voyage of discovery. I want that real bad. So come on, DG, let's have it. There are eager souls awaiting.

640. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293502 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 6:26 am

Don't be so ridiculously facile, Dianelos. If you're any sort of philosopher at all you'll know that your comment is designed simply to divert attention from one very large, glaring hole in your argument: the fact that you have no evidence to back up your assertion. So, answer the question: where's your evidence? You've been comprehensively dudded on every single piece of rationalist clap-trap you've come up with. Now it's time to lay out the scientific evidence for a being that most of us, quite rightly, reject as a chimera. Believe me, if you can, I will instantly become a theist.

641. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #293442 by Laurie Fraser on November 29, 2008 at 12:29 am

Very nice, Dianelos. Now, do you have any empirical evidence for the existence of this "god"?

642. Vatican thanks Muslims for returning God to Europe

Comment #293403 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Comment #293385 by mordacious1

Where's irate when we need him, Mord?

643. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293400 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Diacanu - funny thing is, their fan base is middle-aged women. One of them happens to be the nephew of a good friend of mine, so I'd better not slag them off too much. But they are execrable.

644. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293394 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Sharon

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9boOm2O__Fw

Have a bucket handy.

645. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293389 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Oh, they're bad, Sharon, they're really bad. A "boy band" of the ickiest calibre.

646. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293383 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Stop press. All terrorists in Mumbai have been killed.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/all-terrorists-killed/2008/11/29/1227491868873.html

647. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293379 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Comment #293376 by Diacanu

Nice.

Sharon - yeah, we'll have her, but you get Human Nature.

648. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293375 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Alanis Morissette is a god! She wrote a song called "Ironic" that had no ironies, but simply a list unfortunate coincidences. Now that's ironic!

649. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293363 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Lightweights, Sharon. *Lobs Rolf Harris across the Pacific* There - cop THAT for offensive!

650. Anti-terror law requires God be acknowledged

Comment #293359 by Laurie Fraser on November 28, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Now THAT is really, really, really, really stupid.