601. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119433 by Richard Morgan on January 31, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Corylus :

I wouldn't call them crazy - "merely" mistaken.

OK.
Point taken.
It was your "merely" that seemed to blur the distinction between neurosis and psychosis.

602. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119410 by Richard Morgan on January 31, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Corylus :

Merely deeply mistaken and giving an internal dialogue the status of an external one.

Merely?
Merely?
Oh well...

603. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119402 by Richard Morgan on January 31, 2008 at 3:01 pm

kardashovel :

And so I proceeded to take a walk around the neighborhood, talking out loud with God.

When I was a Mormon missionary in France (1972-74), after tracting (proselyting door-to-door)under a hot sun all day, a kindly soul took pity on us and invited us in for a glass of fruit juice.
We gave him the "First lesson" J.Smith's revelations and all that.
As missionaries we had recently received new instructions as to how we were to question contacts : give 'em the hard stuff (Joe Smith chatting with God and jesus in the sacred grove) then ask'em straight out "Can you believe that joseph Smith spoke with God the father and Jesus Christ, his son."
Without missing a beat this guy replied, "I most certainly can. I'm a psychiatrist, and in the hosiptal where I work, I have in my care at least thirty people who speak regularly with God, Jesus, The Holy Virgin or Buddy Holly. These people are never lonely."
We did not baptise this man, but his fruit juice was most refreshing!
At least Kardashovel's confession clears up the whole silly business of debating with him.
"Next, please."

604. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118464 by Richard Morgan on January 30, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Blacknad :

I didn't dismiss The God Delusion before giving it a fair try - and I found it contained some excellent points - just not enough, and shot through with much ignorance of the subject matter.

Ignorance of precisely what subject matter?
God?
Not a subject, I'm afraid, since it doesn't exist.
Unless the subject is what people have invented and written and said about non-existent gods?
Well, I have the same problem. In fact, I am scrotum-shrinkingly ignorant of almost all the subtle details of everything that doesn't exist. I don't even know what I don't know!

605. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117816 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 5:53 pm

discipline

http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727

Worrisome..

The only thing that I find slightly worrisome is that discipline should find this review worrisome.
Like several others here, I shall wait to read the book before passing judgement.
But it will remain toilet reading.
And it will be the free DL version.

606. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117551 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 5:11 am

pyota

does anyone have a link to the pdf? I could not find it on his blog.

TIA will be available for download as from February 1st apparently.
Read my comment #117533 also.

607. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117533 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 4:23 am

From Vox Day's Blog :

If you just can't wait, hey, go ahead and order one now and give the second one to a friend or whatever, but I'd really prefer for you to participate in the surge if you're only intending to buy one. Yes, of course I will make some money off these book sales, but that's honestly of tertiary significance because the importance of the surge and the book's ultimate success is directly tied to my ability to publish - not write - more books. Regardless of how TIA is received by the market, I will always continue writing and making my books available electronically, but publishers tend to place a certain priority on actually selling dead tree copies. So, if you want to see more of my work in print, please seriously consider ordering several copies of TIA from Amazon next weekend.

What a nasty-minded person I must be for doubting his sincerity. Shame on me.

608. Belief in Belief

Comment #117528 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 3:58 am

Atheist Aspy :

But what are they emotional about? I still don't get it.

People often weep quite copiously when they pluck up the courage to confess to embarrassing things in public. Mormon "testimony bearing" sessions can actually be quite hilarious - to the non-believer. If you've got a Mormon church near to you, and there's nothing interesting being shown at the local cinema, give it a try.
Less amusing is hearing little kids of 8 or 9 saying "IknowthatJosephSmithisaprophetofgodinthenameofjesuschristamen."
And everybody is sooo proud of them.

609. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117526 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 3:50 am

I will be downloading this book when it becomes available on February 1st. Because I'm one of those millions of men who like to read in the bog (keep both ends busy at the same time) and I have the feeling that this kind of literature would be ideal if ever I am constipated.
Seriously.
It's real sphincter-opening stuff.

610. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117488 by Richard Morgan on January 29, 2008 at 12:22 am

Spinoza :

But it really does scare and annoy me that with larger numbers, atheism will inevitably have to deal with a lack of intellectual rigour amongst the majority its proponents.

You're talking as if atheism is a cause, or a philosophy. Atheism doesn't have to deal with anything at all! In some countries atheists have to deal with other people - I can understand and sympathise. But language like this really does make atheism sound like a sect or worse, a religion.
How can not believing something have proponents?
It's almost like you're saying, "What scares me is the number of stupid people who don't believe in the tooth fairy."


mrjonno

the vast majority of Europeans are irreligious through not necessarily atheist.

According to official figures, in 2006, 50% of the French population claimed to be catholic. And of these people, 50% also claimed to be atheist.
So in France there are probably more than 10,000,000 atheist catholics.
Which is probably one way of handling weddings and mistresses.

611. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #117374 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2008 at 5:10 pm

righton - you urgently need this link!


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

612. Pale Blue Dot

Comment #117373 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Email this video to at least one other person, its your moral duty.

It is.
And I just did.
It's always good to be reminded that the Universe does not revolve around me.

613. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117311 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Artful _Dodger

"Nature abhors a vacuum". Watch this space ...

Is there any difference between the "God of the gaps" and "God, the vacuum-filler"?
(Holy Hoover, these guys, really....)

614. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117308 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Steve Zara :

I did not think that much of this article, and I am surprised it has received so much praise here.

Yep - me too.
But perhaps I am less surprised than you.
Many people are still uneasy with the word "atheist" but accept it as a better-than-nothing solution.
When guys like O'Donnell come along with what looks like a nicely reasoned article, proposing a colourless, cholesterol-free, non-fattening,lite, family-viewing alternative, they have a spontaneous sigh-of-relief reaction.
This is not a criticism of all those who have praised the article. Your enthusiasm is understandable. But it might be personally useful for you to analyse the causes of your enthusiasm. (Again - I am not being snide...this time.)


PS Why is it that women never suffer any semantic angst over the word "faith" when it figures in the adjective "unfaithful"?

615. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #117151 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2008 at 10:33 am

Teratornis :

We probably don't think as much about the unaggressive varieties, because they don't go around looking for trouble.

But you can bet your booties that Dawkins & Co will weed them out!

616. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117138 by Richard Morgan on January 28, 2008 at 10:25 am

terradea

…sex is the door to enlightenment…

Does this mean you're an enlightened fucker? Good for you! (Are there monks in your "religion"? Sort of… happy wankers?)


If I may be permitted to use Dawkinsian language, "spiritual" experiences are a misfiring of the religious experience. Take the time to read a few books that trace the history of religions and you'll see that inventing rituals to placate an angry, invisible sky-monster had much more to do with sacrificing virgins than with personal, transcendental experiences.
But when the human brain is used to try to relate to things that don't exist, it does lots of interesting things, ranging from hallucinations to sensations of oneness with the universe.
So, Harris has got it right, to my mind.


My two sons were born and bred in France, in an "atheist" household. They have a problem with the word "atheist", in the sense that they feel slightly insulted to be "labelled" as not believing in things that don't exist. Since (unlike their father) they are reasonable people, they don't feel the need to be "labelled" anti-dogmatist, libre-penseurs or whatever. Neither at a personal nor a social level do these terms have any useful meaning.
For those of you who live in a different social context, I suppose that in the last analysis, you can call yourself what you like. Or as they say in Saint Martin du Touch, "Whatever fizzes your champagne."
I do honestly believe that the human race is slowly evolving (excuse me for using the E-word) towards an intellectual condition where these words will lose their meaning - except for students of history..
But as long as people need to be distinguished from the believing masses, especially if they write books about it, I feel that "new atheists" is just fine… for a time. One day soon, they'll be the "old atheists" - won't they?

617. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116484 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Sally Luxmoore

Quite apart from the fact that there should be a measure of respect due to such learning, the caller failed to show even common courtesy.
NOT a good advertisement for gentle Christians, meek and mild!

Apart from the fact that John, in being aggressive and arrogant, was clearly just showing off for the benefit of all his fundie pals, was developing a biblical precept "The fool hath said in his heart "There is no God"" - Richard Dawkins says it out loud all over the place, so he must be an even greater "fool".

618. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116470 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Deepthought

If some one were to slowly wean the world of war and violence in gradual stages what would happen?

A lovely idea which does you credit.
I am reading (in French) an interesting book by Alain Bentolilia : Le verbe contre la barbarie (The Word versus Violence) (my poor translation).
The subtitle is: Apprendre à nos enfants à vivre ensemble - teaching our children to live together.
The author believes that the use of language avoids the use of violence. And he develops his idea in a very elegant way.
I would be relieved (and surprised) to see American football replaced by chess. But I'm not holding my breath...
Personally, the closest I've come to participating in a violent sport was queuing to buy a bus ticket in Blida, Algeria. Fortunately, we were all winners, and most survived to actually get on the bus.

619. Launch of 'Atheists in Foxholes' Book Anthology

Comment #116462 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Deepthought :

I find the desire to hurt people so strange

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his" -General S. Patton.

I am non-violent, but I do desire to hurt that person who desires to hurt me or mine, if hurting him will prevent him from hurting us.
If you accept that principle (it's called self defence) then you end up having to accept the military and war.

620. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116392 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 11:42 am

markg

I've been married 7 years, but still consider myself a loner.

Somebody once said, "You don't know what loneliness is until you get married."
Oscar Wilde said : "Bigamy is having one husband or wife too many. Monogamy is the same."
And, to finish for today : "My husband and I divorced over religious differences. He thought he was God and I didn't."

621. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116281 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 6:28 am

Paula

That's what happens when you cross a border collie with a kangaroo.

You've done it again! You've just fucked up all I ever believed about the differentiation of species.
Back to the drawing board for all us biologists, I suppose.
(Talking about dogs - did you know that in the absence of males, bitches can manifest hysterical pregnancies?)

622. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116274 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 5:50 am

An interesting study. It confirms that the human brain really has evolved to do this kind of thing. Another "misfiring".
In my avatar, god is in the triangles. The brain is so good at leaping to conclusions in the absence of other data.
That it should create imaginary people in the absence of real social contact is just "business as usual".

Paula - you seem to be fine at handling difficult life situations. But if ever your dog starts talking to you, I know some good psychiatrists in your part of the world!

623. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116271 by Richard Morgan on January 26, 2008 at 5:38 am

Scary movies scare some people.
This film is not so different from the evangelical rallies that were common christian fodder in the past.
It's what some christians do.
That someone should be producing this kind of film is unsurprising : Calvinism + modern technology.
It's contents will be disowned by most mainstream christians and ridiculed by everybody else.

624. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115986 by Richard Morgan on January 25, 2008 at 7:51 am

You've seen the film - now, read the book.

625. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115826 by Richard Morgan on January 24, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Melomel :

Reason is effective in dealing with the natural world, it's just not very effective in persuading most humans.

You're so right. Until not so long ago, people used to say, "I believe what I see." That was fine until the neurosciences started showing us that it is also true to say, "I see what I believe."
Reason can often appear to be persuasive, or to have actually persuaded somebody to change their beliefs, in reality this actually happens much less frequently than we would like to think.
As Françoise DOLTO pointed out, when we read or hear something for the first time, and we get the "Yes, that's so true, of course it's true...."feeling, it's usually much less of discovery than it is a RECOGNITION of something already assimilated as being known in some part of the mind.
Many atheists (including myself) have discovered that atheism is their natural state, and don't have to be persuaded to relinquish their beliefs. We weren't "persuaded" - we just discovered an explanation for what we already believed.
What do you think, all you "New Atheists"? Your experience would be valuable to all of us.

626. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #115774 by Richard Morgan on January 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm

babrock :

If I wrote 'God says kiss this' on my ass....

Have you stopped taking your pills again, you naughty boy?

627. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115773 by Richard Morgan on January 24, 2008 at 6:33 pm

rod-the-farmer :Well, I've been trying to follow all the discussions here, and when advice is offered, I try to put it into practice.
Keeping the toilet seat down initially seemed a good idea, and certainly makes for more comfortable seating.
The only problem is that after you've done your business you have to scrape it all up off the floor, open the toilet lid and shovel it in manually, taking care not to splash nearby tooth-brushes or reading matter. So my question is this - is one allowed to lift the toilet seat long enough for the time it takes to dump your load?
I personally hardly ever produce fluorescent ca-ca, and what's worse, I never seem to have an ultra-violet lamp with me when I do.
Though I do agree that toilet talk like this raises the level of the discussion when you're talking about WBC.
Do any of you Bible students know what the book of Leviticus has to say about wiping your bum with a tooth-brush? I believe it's allowed as long as you do it with your left hand.
Or am I getting my religions mixed up again?

628. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115609 by Richard Morgan on January 24, 2008 at 11:56 am

Henry Bergson :

My German girlfriend is very proud of her breasts (as proud as I am pleased).

It is good for self esteem "to take pride in the little things."

629. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115527 by Richard Morgan on January 24, 2008 at 9:39 am

Henri Bergson :

If you deny this, you deny there is a substantial difference between Aborigines, Persians, and Inuits.

I would be more than relieved to learn that there is a substantial (genetic) difference between Henri Bergson and me.
But I'm not opening the Champagne just yet....

HEALTH WARNING : This is a morganic ad hominem.

630. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115519 by Richard Morgan on January 24, 2008 at 9:26 am

Apparently, according to an as yet un-published scientific study, an Afro-American with an I.Q. of 128 is just as intelligent as a Hispano-American with an I.Q. of 128, but both have an intelligence superior to that of a Welshman with an I.Q of 92 (forgive my adding personal details here!).
The same remarkable study reveals that there are dickheads amongst Protestants, Catholics AND atheists.(forgive my adding a second personal detail)
Also a close study of the Acts of Apostles shows that Darwin had an unresolved Oedipus complex.
There.
I feel better now.
(I'm trying to climb to the same intellectual heights as Campolo. It's a new sport called Sliding Back Down Mount Vanishingly Improbable.)

631. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115279 by Richard Morgan on January 23, 2008 at 10:44 pm

robotaholic :

I'm tired of just hearing about Origin of the Species. I'm going to read it- make up my OWN mind about the book.

Thank you for your honesty.
But I must confess that I was a little surprised to learn that people who post comments here have NOT read Darwin's original writings.
Sure, it's not "easy reading" like Dawkins or Harris. But I feel we are hardly in a position to defend (neo-)Darwinism if we have not studied the basics.
Please, my fine friends, grab a copy of On the Origin of Species and make it priority reading if you haven't done so already.
(Without forgetting, of course, that often the noisiest Evangelicals have never read the Bible in its entirety....)

632. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #114391 by Richard Morgan on January 22, 2008 at 6:19 am

He was so short, he was always the first to know when there was a flood, but the last to know when it was raining.



A woman should always look up to her husband - even if it's only half an inch.

633. Darwin Day (Feb 12th) E-Cards

Comment #114388 by Richard Morgan on January 22, 2008 at 6:15 am

The ghost of Darwin smiles approvingly at Neil Shubin (in a laboratory setting) who is saying gleefully, "Eureka! I've found the shell-fish gene!"

634. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114101 by Richard Morgan on January 21, 2008 at 11:26 am

Paula Kirby :

...I don't think the institution will last beyond that. And it's probably right that it shouldn't.

I suspect that you have to be a born-and-bred Britisher to understand that: "probably right."
That is so cute.
For most other people, Queens and Lords and Counts and all that aristocraptic stuff belong to history books or fairy tales. It is somewhat difficult to condemn the Indian caste system while defending the social divisiveness inherent in a social system that supports a "Royalty".

635. The New Theology

Comment #113637 by Richard Morgan on January 20, 2008 at 8:43 am

American Godless - thank you! That was a most refreshing read. Excellent, in fact.
Diacanu - the problem we have here is that all existing human societies and civilisations have been built by the "ill-informed" - because until very recently in human history, EVERYBODY was ill-informed, scientifically speaking. Millennia of gap-filling thought processes (seeing triangles where there none, because this is what brains are good at) are going to take a few centuries of education to get cleaned up and straightened out. Thankfully, we're working on it.
And - we are not alone.

636. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113574 by Richard Morgan on January 20, 2008 at 4:29 am

Janus :

Better yet would be to keep its brain from forming at all, thus ensuring it doesn't even begin to become a person.

Well, that's already been done so often - how else do you explain phenomena like Falwell, Ted Haggard and Dinesh D'Souza?

637. The New Theology

Comment #113500 by Richard Morgan on January 19, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Steve-the-Man :

....knowing that there always more to learn; more surprises.

Religion certainly does not have that.

But as this article shows, with religion, there's always more to... invent! Ducking and side-stepping the onward march of science.

638. The New Theology

Comment #113496 by Richard Morgan on January 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Diacanu :

I hate lies with every fiber of my existence, and I can't fathom a mind that doesn't.

Aw, shucks, I was hoping I could hire you as my lawyer one day.
Seriously, I don't know if I am personally acquainted with all that many believers who have the feeling that they might be living a lie. In fact, I think most of them would echo your words!

639. The New Theology

Comment #113490 by Richard Morgan on January 19, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Steve Zara :

I know this may sound trite but, I think there is a kind of meaning in the Universe, which is meaning we decide it should have.

I agree with you. It only sounds trite because it happens to be true (one of the problems with so many truisms!) and has been oft-reiterated on this site and by RD.

Ever since I first opened up a scientific encyclopaedia at age 5, science has been the feel-good thing for me. But perhaps I am just weird.

Not weird - just lucky, perhaps. (Or unlucky since you're going to burn in Hell for eternity.)
May I ask you this question, in all humility - are you an atheist today because science gives you the feel-good feeling?*
I am - because Dawkins' books gave me the final push into absolute atheism, and a wonderful sensation of liberation, a huge relief in fact. But that only means that the way I lived my beliefs did not give me adequate feel-good compensations.
Doesn't it?

* I'm asking you this question publicly, because I sense that your answer could be very helpful to many people.

640. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113487 by Richard Morgan on January 19, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Does anybody know what scootemyc's mother tongue is?
Would his babblings make any more sense if we asked him to write a few paragraphs in a language he can handle?
And then let us work on a translation into English (or French or Welsh or whatever)?
However, I must admit that I can't shake off the feeling that in any language he would come across as an arrogant little shit. Just a feeling, mind you, even though he's already given us loads of evidence to back up the idea.



SCOOTERMYC - PLEASE WRITE A FEW REBUTTALS IN A LANGUAGE THAT IS MORE NATURAL TO YOU THAN ENGLISH. LEAVE US THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TRANSLATING IT INTO ENGLISH.
COULD YOU DO THAT FOR US?
PLEASE?
Pretty please....

641. The New Theology

Comment #113483 by Richard Morgan on January 19, 2008 at 5:55 pm

My wife got fired from her job just before Christmas. She lost her job because she is a person of total integrity and preferred the truth to her pay-check.
For her, and many of us here, the truth is so important that it gives us the ultimate "feel-good" sensation that others find in a belief in vanishingly improbable gods.
Paula Kirby and Steve Zara have said it elsewhere, and better than I can, as long as having "faith" makes people feel good, and as long as the idea of no god makes them feel bad, an unrelenting search for the truth will not be on the agenda.
Inventing a more acceptable idea of god will be, for many people, the easiest and perhaps most effective way of hanging onto the feel-good thing.
Go on - explain it to me : what are the benefits of cold, scientific truth compared to the idea of living happily ever after in Daddy God's eternal Happy Hour?
What can tempt a bereaved mother to relinquish the idea of being re-united with her little baby son one day?
We psychoanalysts know that the pathological fear of becoming mad is, in fact, a primal fear of separation from the mother figure. It is possible to make sense of, and allay this kind of fear.
But the glacial fear of a universe devoid of "meaning" would take more than a few years of psychoanalysis to overcome. And the more science keeps reducing the "gaps", the more people are going to invent a God which has nothing little or nothing to do with "gaps" - except the gaps in the "heart" perhaps.
I will worry about Van Till's god when people start flying airplanes into skyscrapers for him.
Why am I not worried about that happening any day soon?

642. The New Theology

Comment #113255 by Richard Morgan on January 19, 2008 at 5:24 am

This is homeopathy applied to God! He's getting diluted out of existence. But, applying our good ol' Hahnemann's principles, the greater the degree of dilution, the more effective the remedy.
"the consequence of infinite mystery contracting itself - doesn't that sound like homoeopathic magical disappearing tricks? There are no more gaps? That means God is everywhere!
Frankly, I found this article a lot fun. Sure, it's just telling us what we already knew about human nature, but for me it's just as harmless as a handful of homoeopathic pills. And sadly, perhaps, just as insidious as well. The problem isn't the pills - it's what people believe about them.

Frédéric Dard said it before me : "Sometimes I gaze out at the universe and think - if God could create all that without even existing, that truly is a miracle."
Theologians as the Emperor's tailors - yes, I can go for that.

643. The New Theology

Comment #113181 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 7:49 pm

All this is perfectly predictable. What could be more logical than re-writing God? Or re-inventing God, if you prefer.
God is a human creation, so why shouldn't we humans be allowed to up-date our creation?

What keeps him from dropping his belief is an overpowering feeling....

"Feeling" - get it?
When you have to choose between feelings and facts, people usually end up choosing the facts that fit the feelings. That's what people do.

644. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #113076 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Other finds have included car-sized armadillos,

And Smart invented the armadillo-sized car!
No room for a creator-god in all that, I'm afraid. (Though I sometimes wonder what supernatural force could have created the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano...)

645. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112787 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 4:56 am

BAEOZ : "Rem acu tetigisti" is the equivalent of "Hitting the nail on the head"!
Back to Latin Expressions 101!

646. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112784 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 4:50 am

Paula Kirby :

I suspect such simplistic interpretations of other people's problems are necessary in order to be able to immure yourself to them as you seem to aspire to do.

You've done it again!
Rem acu tetigisti!
This observation goes straight to the heart of scooter's problem. And, perhaps, most people's problem. I can empathise with him on that one.

BAEOZ :

But if you live your life assuming every person is out to take from you, well, you're not living.

In the music industry, this is the only way to live your (professional) life. Unless, of course, you happen to specialise in producing music that nobody wants to listen to...
;-)

647. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112767 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 4:10 am

BAEOZ :

Scooter. I'm a bit lazy. So can you tell me the gist of the discussion you're having?

You're asking scooter to give you a gist?
If he replies to your request, that should be a fun read!

648. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112753 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 3:35 am

scooternyc :

Well, Richard, then why don't you answer the question ...

Oh dear, my fine young friend, this is an old debating trick, but I'm afraid I am too old to fall for it. On television politicians bully each other, trying to force the other into committing himself when the terms of reference have not been clearly defined, saying things like, "Don't beat around the bush, just answer the question!"
Sounds so reasonable ( to the young, the gullible and the uninformed masses) but in fact it's just bullying.
Scooternyc - have you studied the brain chemistry of empathy?

Try this test before posting again.

http://www.questionwriter.com/samples/eyesquiz/

When you start using a more scientific approach to this whole question, I think you'll find that Steve will be able to enter more fully into what is becoming a sterile debate.


EDIT : I am not wont TO descending to this level of petulant silliness.

649. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112750 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 3:24 am

scooternyc :

Steve, you keep wont of distraction.

Er... what language is this, please? (Did you manage to parse this one, Steve?)

650. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112748 by Richard Morgan on January 18, 2008 at 3:21 am

This discussion between Steve Zara and scooternyc is starting to look like a mini-debate between an intelligent Christian and an intelligent Rationalist. Seen from the outside, one can understand what both of you are getting at, while it is patently clear that you do not use the same terms of reference.
Steve is patiently trying to unravel the rather confused use of language by scooternyc, whereas the latter keeps getting carried away by all those things which seem obvious to him.
This happens so often, doesn't it? And usually, alas, the two parties end up having to agree to differ when all along it's just a problem of language.