701. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63799 by Corylus on August 16, 2007 at 12:22 am

Russell

I can see why you want to defend this guy for being playful and I really do take your point.

However, have to disagree with you on this one. It is hard enough to study philosophy without the world and his wife telling you that it is useless waste of time and 'what's the point?' This sort of thing, reported in a paper with a large readership really doesn't help with that.

Anyway, glad the talk went well.

Much, much respect for actually doing something :-)

702. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63798 by Corylus on August 16, 2007 at 12:07 am

BAEOZ

Great! I don't get an upgrade to my life when the designer installs Vista Designer of the Universe edition then! There goes that fantasy!

Probably a good thing Baeoz, you get the Vista upgrade and you sit happy and amazed at how old sections of your life load quickly onto it.

Then when you try to actually run the @$£%ing, "£$"$£$£%£%&ing thing (K'ching into the swear box) your life falls apart.

Eventually, you find yourself in a seedy bar somewhere (none of your old friends know or recognise you anymore) and the rest is a drive into the abyss...

703. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63612 by Corylus on August 15, 2007 at 4:42 am

Mark Steel wrote:

Because it's not ideas that drive actions such as these, it's circumstances.

Actually, it's both.

Yes, it is daft to say that without religion we would all be wandering about in tie-dye fabrics and singing folk songs.

However, it is also daft to say that:

...in a just and fair world, these ideas would be no more harmful than the irrational following people have for football teams.

This is just another version of the simplistic wishful thinking that he is pointing out above.

The fact is that some people, in fact alot of people, simply aren't very nice. Humans are prone to all kind of vile and unforgivable actions like murder, violence, warmongering and leaving their phones on in the cinema.

What religion does is amplify the problem. What is does give the out-group hostility; to which we are all prone; a dreadful intractable legitimacy. N.B. It also divides within groups (e.g. treatment of women and homosexuals).

Bottom line, religion provides a specific and respected basis for (some!) people to make denigrating statements concerning the worth of others.

If religion disappeared overnight, we would doubtless still kill and main each other for a variety of causes, however, we would how one less reason and one less excuse for doing so.

704. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63491 by Corylus on August 14, 2007 at 2:02 pm

If anyone (from the UK) is thinking of following RD's advice, can I point out that it is actually alot easier to write to an MP now than it used to be (you do not have to dig out your old typewriter or delve into your stampbook).

There is now an email service for MPs letters. See:

www.writetothem.com

(This site will also tell you who your local MP is if you are unsure).

705. Saudis to build their own version of Eden Project

Comment #63488 by Corylus on August 14, 2007 at 1:29 pm

I am such a nerd, and apologies for being slightly off thread here, but who else is thinking of Herbert's "Dune" novels?

All that picture needs is a sandworm...

706. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63349 by Corylus on August 14, 2007 at 2:18 am

Oh for pity's sake!!

Brain in a Vat thought experiments are precisely that. Thought experiments.

They are about looking at hypotheticial situations in order to identify, understand and tease out your own presuppositions.

They are Not about postulating possibilities, or for that matter assigning probabilities:

Dr. Bostrom doesn't pretend to know which of these hypotheses is more likely, but he thinks none of them can be ruled out. "My gut feeling, and it's nothing more than that," he says, "is that there's a 20 percent chance we're living in a computer simulation."

This sort of brainless drivel makes me very cross. I will refrain from inflicting you all with my bad language.

However, I must confess that I have just put £2.83 into my swear box...

707. These preachers of hate must be exposed

Comment #63344 by Corylus on August 14, 2007 at 2:01 am

Joan Smith

On any sensible reading of events, .... the programme set out not to slander Islam as such but to investigate the extent of Wahhabi influence in British mosques.

Well said. That was precisely how I read this programme.

N.B. It is important to note that, a significant part of the programme was given to relaying any clarifying statements from the the people who were featured.

BTW. If anyone wants to make up their own minds about this one then the whole programme is available on Google video.

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=2668560761490749816&q=uk


Re the investigation by the Police, well if I were a cynic.... which as a matter of fact I am...

I would suspect that this is due to some high-up trying to advance their career by shamelessly using this to promote their 'PC and 'anti-racist' credentials.

What this does of course is send a signal to any Muslim terrified of the vitriol that these individuals are spouting that no help will be forthcoming from the Police - in fact they might be arrested if they complain.

[Edit: Link does not want to be clickable - works if you copy and paste into browser though]

708. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63131 by Corylus on August 13, 2007 at 7:38 am

Tigerbalm

I was using the term 'constructive' in the sense of 'having a property on which to build upon'.

A series, of unsubstantiated, miserable assertions (with no sense of historical context or suggestions for improvement) do not fit this criterion... Even if included with them is a poetic quote. This possibly adds cachet, but no real substance.

As for your being 'the only nihilist' not at all. I have met several, they all call themselves realists by the way: when they are not busy picking their spots.

Why did I respond? Very simple, because I get irritated by individuals who sneer when people express concern for others i.e. "bleeding heart".

Grow up.

709. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63122 by Corylus on August 13, 2007 at 6:54 am

Well!

That was refreshing blast of nihilistic self-indulgence.

Tigerbalm, either you are a pimply adolescent or you require psychological help (possibly both).

Do come back when you have something constructive to offer.

710. Interview with Richard Dawkins about 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #63109 by Corylus on August 13, 2007 at 6:08 am

Oh my, that was hilarious...

Good cop / bad cop with Judy as bad cop :)

Hardly 'The Shield' was it?

711. Amnesty to defy Catholic church over rape victims' abortion rights

Comment #63107 by Corylus on August 13, 2007 at 6:04 am

This might well backfire big time on our Ratty. It seems that this is actually the Independent's front page lead - with a very striking visual (you can't see this clearly if you just click on the article).

http://www.independent.co.uk/

Although the Independent does not have the biggest of readerships, people will see this front page loud and clear - and might well buy when they wouldn't normally. Other papers will pick this story up. This has the potential to snowball.

After all, this is quite simply financial blackmail of Amnesty International (there is really no other word for it than blackmail) by the Vatican.

712. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62856 by Corylus on August 12, 2007 at 1:02 am

Gordon Lynch wrote:

Until now, atheism has never held much interest for sociologists of religion such as myself. The numbers of people identifying themselves as atheists in surveys have been a small fraction of the population, and atheist organisations have had relatively little impact on the wider cultural landscape.

What a remarkable statement and a dreadful admission! Surely, when you find consistently occuring (but to your world view anamolous) finding there is an argument that some research should be focussed upon it? For example, said anomology; when properly understood; might augment your worldview. It might also demolish it though, but that is the risk you take.

I was amused by the advert for RDnet however.

Dawkins's website also echoes the ways in which evangelicals have embraced the internet as a way for disseminating ideas and educational resources, providing social networking tools, selling consumer products and appealing for funding.

I notice that Mr Lynch also did not however feel fit to mention that his previous article along the same lines was actually posted on said website, along with many, many others offering criticism of Dawkins' and other atheist writers.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1441,Face-to-faith,Gordon-Lynch

Does this feature also 'echo evangelicals'? Methinks not.

Maybe Mr Lynch is merely smarting over the response to his previous article?

713. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62781 by Corylus on August 11, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Darwin2 said,

If scientists studied religion more seriously, they would conclude that it is possible for one God to exist and for human self-awareness (THE SOUL) to continue after death.

There are some scientists who do study religion seriously (although I admit that most do focus on other things!) You might find the following article of interest - I know I did.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,933,God-Is-in-the-Dendrites,George-Johnson

714. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #62637 by Corylus on August 10, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Paul

Welcome back from your hols :)

Teachers eh? One holiday after another in that profession...

(Ducks)

715. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62624 by Corylus on August 10, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Issuser

However, I think most of the United States spelling bee chanpions go to a home school which teaches these truths.

And how many of these champions then go on to make great contributions in the fields of science, mathematics, philosophy and literature??

Spelling is about route learning and recition (in any event spelling is largely a matter of convention anyway). It is not demonstrative of analytic reasoning or in depth understanding.

If you are right that

private school kids score in the top percentile in national standardized testing comparative to their public school peers.

(And I notice you do not cite any figures to back up this assertion)

Then you might want to consider the possibility that the national standardised testing is merely an indication of route learning and intellectual conformity.

N.B. I do not wish to denigrate teaching children at home. Many good parents do it.

In fact if I were faced with the choice of either sending any future children to one of these establishments and home schooling, I would most assuredly 'home school'.

However, my children would be taught to both spell and think.

716. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62527 by Corylus on August 10, 2007 at 3:22 am

Interesting.

I have to say that this is a very well-written article with a clear structure. This is not always that case with some of the articles on here, so respect where it is due for that.

However there are three glaring omissions in it.

1) An understanding that not all atheists understand ethics in such stark emotivist terms as Ayer.

2) An acknowledgement of the Humanist tradition which, IMHO, actually does sit on the 'ethical highground'.

(E.g. Helping people when the prospect of a divine reward is ruled out is superior to helping people because you have been instructed to do so and threatened if you don't. Even if that is only a tiny part of your motivation)

3) Any clarification of whether or not Mr Lawson is a believer himself.

I have my suspicions as to why #3 is missing.

717. Islamic Finance and Its Critics

Comment #62475 by Corylus on August 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm

Rarely in the Western media do I read anything about our food, our culture, our painting or our poetry. I just read how bad we are as Muslims."

Well maybe. However (someone correct me if I'm wrong), I thought painting was not the thing in Saudi style Islam - creating images and all that.

718. Another Flea is Born

Comment #62474 by Corylus on August 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm

See your point Russell. In terms of doing something that might be up to Sam. Sooner or later one of these Flea books are going to cross the border into libel country. (If they haven't already - I admit I haven't read all of them).

If the publisher is so amateur that they print the book with the cover the wrong way around then I doubt that they have the text read by a lawyer or sent to a fact checker.

719. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62388 by Corylus on August 9, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Wow, I was getting depressed about this one but then I took a look at the curriculum and the phrase 'shooting oneself in the foot' came to mind.

Do they have the slightest comprehension of the work of the thinkers that they are actually teaching??

Especially in English... (10th Grade)

The Enlightenment and Revolution literature covered is Tartuffe, the writings of Rousseau, Newton, Descartes, Faust, William Blake, Wordsworth and George Elliot.

Well Blake, although a mystic, was a complete non-conformist and as for George Eliot - near as dammit to an atheist as I have ever read e.g. -

God, immortality, duty -- how inconceivable the first, how unbelievable the second, how peremptory and absolute the third.

(hmm.. maybe they don't even realise that 'George' wasn't a bloke...)

Then later...

The study will include Pygmalion, Cry, the Beloved Country, The Chosen, My Antonia, a Russian writer study, Hemingway and Dylan Thomas.

Bernard Shaw!! Lets look at what he said....

The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

Then Ernest "all thinking men are atheists" Hemingway.

Bugger me! The peasants will revolt...

Smiles.

720. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62178 by Corylus on August 8, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Wow V. Thanks for the 'young'! People tend to assume I'm ancient.

Understandable. I spent a little while recently reading books written by miserable old fossils and I am afraid that the writing style has rubbed off.

For the record though, re my age, I am fluttering around the 30 mark (on a point of principle I refuse to say precisely where). I describe myself in the following terms:

Old enough that people expect me to be sensible: young enough to fight that expectation.

Don't worry. I don't consider you to be an 'old chook' for the simple reason that the above description also appears (happily) to refer to yourself :-)

721. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62057 by Corylus on August 8, 2007 at 3:44 am

Well Done Veronique on sorting the avatar: a top one it is too!

I am looking forward to watching this, but I fear I may be feeling a bit sheepish.

I must confess to an 'occult' phase in my teens. Although over religion, I did manage to believe in some drivel. I justified it with Jung and philosophical idealism. Looking back I suspect this was due to:

a) adolescent rebellion

b) a lack of understanding of the fact that we take in alot of sensory information about the world without realising it and process it unconsciously. Then (often after a good snooze and some dreaming: when our little brains are busy sifting information) we find ourselves just 'knowing' things.

and finally (since I am in a "confessional" mood)

c) a realisation that Goths had the coolest clothes.

Sigh... I'm better now - but I still like wearing black ;)

722. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61733 by Corylus on August 6, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Arrh! Avatar overload! (I know I shouldn't have nibbled on funny looking mushroom the other day...) Scuttles back to dormouse nest to sleep it off.

723. Yellowstone's Wolves Save Its Aspens

Comment #61731 by Corylus on August 6, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Anyone else who thinks wolves are stunningly beautiful, amazing creatures (and wants to learn more about issues concerning their reintroduction into environments that they have previously been hunted out of) of might like to check out the following website.

http://www.wolvesandhumans.org/index.htm

724. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61499 by Corylus on August 5, 2007 at 11:19 am

Interesting debate on tactics.

I would point out that there is a practical reason why this documentary might be a good idea at this time. This is simply publicity. Who hasn't see a documentary, or read a book by someone, enjoyed it, and then gone out to buy the other stuff that this person has produced?

(N.B. I would not be at all surprised if the sales of RD's other books has increased as a consequence of TGD).

TGD is still on the bestseller lists, and easy to find in shops. This documentary could keep the momentum of sales going before it is relegated to the science or religion (or wherever else the booksellers choose to file it!) section of the bookshop. Just a thought.

725. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61404 by Corylus on August 5, 2007 at 3:49 am

Re Comment 6. By Veronique

I have sent you a pm with instructions as to how to sort out an avatar: took me a while to work it out myself.

726. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61373 by Corylus on August 5, 2007 at 1:31 am

But the real scorn, and I can almost detect a tinge of repressed involuntary hatred beneath his unfailingly polite exterior, falls on spirit mediums, whom Dawkins clearly believes to be little better than confidence tricksters feeding on the emotionally insecure or damaged.

I hear this one. I once accompanied by mother and her friend, one of those people with a life filled with an utterly unfair amount of bereavement (several dead children) to a show given by a well known British medium. The entire theatre in which it was held was packed - a sellout.

The atmosphere was awful. There was this mixture of a simple desire to see someone "from the telly" in the flesh, the hope for a good 'show', ghoulish curiosity, and (worst of all) underneath all of it a dreadful sense of desperation.

N.B. My mother's friend was not picked out, but one man was made very happy by being 'visited' by his dead dog.

727. The Out Campaign

Comment #61309 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 2:24 pm

stevencarrwork

You are terrifyingly well read. Hereby making a note to self never to get into a scrap with you...

728. The Out Campaign

Comment #61273 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Thank you bls :)

729. The Out Campaign

Comment #61246 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 10:36 am

Wee Flea wrote

Could someone please explain why some people have this deep need to psychoanalyse me?

I don't know David, maybe it is because some of us like to make predictions based upon the evidence of previous data and then wait to see if said predictions come to pass.

Like for instance, my comment no187 or #60027.

I predict he will reply on this thread again (despite saying he is off to Bulgaria). I also predict that he will misrepresent every comment addressed to him, make out that he is being verbally flayed and sorely persecuted, subject to all manner of incivility and generally is a poor battered pup. He will ignore every kind comment and dismiss any evidence of common humanity...

Just a thought...

P.S. Enjoy Bulgaria and well done for learning to blockquote.

730. The Out Campaign

Comment #61178 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 3:29 am

Veronique

Hi. It seems that Wee Flea has taken my advice and packed his bags without reposting. I'm glad about that, not only does he shamelessly hijack threads, but I really don't think he is doing himself any favours emotionally by coming on here to get told off.

Re, Henri, well I have suspected from some time that he might well take on board Nietzsche's misogyny as well as his other views: seems I was right. (I would dearly love to introduce him to my old sensei: 5ft 2", 8 stone and terrifyingly capable of beating the living crap out of anyone who annoyed her, but I digress).

I am not going to let him get me wound up (I have already told one person off on this thread for sexist assumptions - I really haven't the energy to do it twice): I am just pleased that he takes on Nietzsche's misogyny rather than his philosophical predecessor that miserable old prick Schopenhauer...

You might enjoy his essay "On Women". Classic!

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter7.html

Try not to spit your tea out. NB It was Q who prescribed tea and Bach BTW. I tend to advise stronger beverages and Metallica ;)

731. In Games, an Insight Into the Rules of Evolution

Comment #61089 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I'm puzzled - happens alot :(

The way I see it the Prisoner's Dilemma is a thought experiment, with purely arbitrary rules. As with all thought experiments it is simplistic and divorced from the complicated thing that we call reality. Sure you can look at it mathematically: but it is a thought experiment nonetheless.

To say the following may be justified...

The Prisoner's Dilemma may be abstract, but that's why Dr. Nowak likes it. It helps him understand fundamental rules of evolution, just as Isaac Newton discovered that objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

However, to say the following seems to be an unsubstantiated leap from here..

In recent papers, Dr. Nowak has argued that cooperation is one of the three basic principles of evolution. The other two are mutation and selection.

Sounds suspiciously like group selection to me ( a rose by any other name would smell as sweet), but maybe I'm reading too much into this..

Next:

But cooperation is essential for life to evolve to a new level of organization. Single-celled protozoa had to cooperate to give rise to the first multicellular animals. Humans had to cooperate for complex societies to emerge.

Careful, lets not attribute agency to protozoa...

Subsequently,

Cancer is a breakdown of cooperation,

Huh?? So now cancer has agency. I see.

Finally,

Evolution describes the fundamental laws of nature according to which God chose to unfold life.

Oh for pity's sake!!

By this analysis the following is true:

Protozoa act in accordance to the fundamental laws by which God choose to unfold life.
Co-operation is evidence of agency
Single-celled protozoa co-operate.
Single-celled protozoa therefore have agency.
God must have thus given cells agency.
Breakdown of co-operation leads to cancer.
Therefore God causes cancer.

Not the most tightly argued set of logical statements I have ever produced, but it is late and I have had some wine...I am also conscious that I know more about philosophy than science.

Have I got the science of this completly arse-upwards? If so could some friendly scientist tell me what I have missed??

732. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61034 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 11:37 am

Hmm, I admit my first comment was a bit flippant and thoughtless - rightfully chastized BAEOZ! Hangs head.

However, on further reflection, I am actually seeing opportunity here. As I understand it these books are bought by people who actually wish to learn things, but are willing to be self-depreciating about their current state of knowledge. (E.g. 80 year olds buying Computing for Dummies because they want to know how to research their family tree online).

What easily accessible books can you currently recommend to people (those with really short attention spans), when you want to show them that atheists are not necessarily miserable buggers or immoral slugs?

I presently go for Julian Baggini's - Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (From the Very Short Introductions range). However, this hasn't even been reviewed by anyone on Amazon yet and it has been out for a couple of years now. Books by philosophers aren't known for being best sellers.

Maybe if anyone is going to write "Atheism for Dummies" it should be RDF?? There is enough material on this site for several such books. There could be nice friendly pictures of happy atheists. Little text boxes with arguments about Hilter and atheism. That sort of thing.

This could be a moneyspinner for RDF, and show that atheists can have a sense of humour as well (rather than sitting in cafes, dressed in black, looking miserable, and smoking French cigarettes).

Another point. It may be that someone is already planning such a book, which badly done could be an absolute disaster...

Thoughts anyone?

1) Good Idea?
2) Neutral Idea?
3) Bad Idea?
4) Dreadful Idea?
5) Corylus talking out of her furry little butt?

733. The Out Campaign

Comment #60854 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 2:28 am

Sigh, one last bash...

David, I repeat my advice to you that I gave earlier, in the same spirit:

(I'm not being patronising here, I simply don't like seeing anyone really upset).

I really do feel that you need to take some time out to calm down. Look at what causes you stress and try to avoid trigger situations (like maybe this site :)) Enjoy the company of people you like talking to, and being with, and relax. Possibly see your doctor if you think things are getting on top of you.

You now fighting a battle on two different threads on here. This cannot be pleasant. Forget about having the last word. Go to your Bulgaria conference (Sophistry in Sofia or whatever it's called...)

Take some time out. Chill.

734. The Out Campaign

Comment #60825 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 12:37 am

Post 441 by Veronique

I just lost it, sorry everyone.

Don't sweat it : we all get frustrated sometimes :)

BTW. I don't agree with Wee Flea that your vocabularly is 'inadequate' - I actually thought it was quite wide ranging ;)

735. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #60820 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 12:22 am

I looked to see if there was a 'complete idiot's guide to atheism'. Couldn't find one.

736. The Out Campaign

Comment #60662 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Interesting links Goldy :)

737. The Out Campaign

Comment #60644 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Wee Flea wrote:

I believe the Bibles teaching about human sexuality. Therefore sex should take place in the context of marriage between one man and one woman

I am actually interested in breaking this down, looking at the definintions you use and seeing which points are primary and which are secondary. (Tedious philosophical habit: bear with me).

First "marriage"

a) Do you see this as a merely a contractual thing aka Kant? "Marriage (matrimonium), which is the Union of two Persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties"

b)Or is it a covenant between individuals and God, and witnessed by society: Classic:
"... we are gathered here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony....."

What was it the Princess Di said? "There were three people in that marriage" (Opps!)

c) Or is it a promise between two people witnessed by God (in fact you could say that all promises are witnessed by God if you see God as omnipresent).

Secondly, "one man and one woman".

Well, prima facie, this is pretty clear: polygamy and polyandry are out, however, this contract ends at death. Arh, but you appear to believe in life after death so even that is not so easy. Plus we have the whole question of what constitutes 'man' and what constitutes 'woman'.

E.g. We know enough about genetics now to say that simple XX and XY aren't always the case. Also what about gender realignment?

(BTW: You are always moaning that none of Dawkins' "acolytes" disagree with him, I will give you an example here. He seems to think that there is no difference between sex and gender; and that gender is merely a PC term; I actually think that this is a tad simplistic - but I digress).

Now what is more important the "context of marriage" or the "one man and one woman bit"? You can assume:

a) that you need both equally: OK. However, one problem: there is a particularly charming practise in Arabic Countries of 'one night marriages'. They fit the bill 'marriage' & 'man and woman' plus witnessed by God, 'cos he's everywhere. Trouble is something stinks doesn't it?

b) You could say that the 'context of marriage' is the most important bit. OK, this means that no sex before marriage for any of us, no "trying before you buy, children". However, this does mean that the ceremony is everything. You can shag your poodle as long as you say the right words...

c) You could say that the 'man and woman' bit is the most important bit. However, this means that the ceremony is merely window dressing.

I know this may sound like linguistic hair-spliting. However, I use this to make the following point..... It's not that simple David.

It never is.

738. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #60606 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 12:02 pm

IQHQ

Apologies for not responding earlier (a certain distracting Flea... sigh). N.B. I admire your coming back to play on this thread. Gutsy.

I am afraid I am not going to be able to make as long and detailed response to you as I would like (and your post deserves) because:

1) New Atheist has made some of my points for me (particularly the quote from RD) and

2) I have been thoroughly told off recently for spending too long 'addicted' to this site. I fear a 'tough love' intervention soon...NO!! Don't take away my Modem...PLEASE - sobs, I can give up whenever I like ... whimpers.. ;-)

I would like to make a couple of points though:

Firstly, I would say is that I think that your labouring under a false assumption to wit:

Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

I really think that this whole 'God makes people moral' is one of those oft-quoted lies that get believed merely because people say it often enough. My evidence for this? Look at that episode of the Colbert report where an American politican lauding the importance of the 10 commandments is totally stumped after being asked to name them. In fact, ask a religious person of your choice to name the first 5 books of the bible, in order. Buggers can't do it!

What they do is use God as a justification for their actions (whatever action it is that they want to take) this is not the same thing as a reason. There is a huge difference between an excuse and an explantion.

Secondly, you seem to take on Hitchen's view that religion will never die as self-evident. Well, to be honest I simply don't know the question to that one. Same as I don't know the question to whether science will ever answer the ultimate questions. I don't have a crystal ball. What I would say though, is that is makes good methological sense to assume that there are no limits - if there are limits to human development and understanding then we will find them soon enough - let's not go assuming they are there before we do.

Thirdly, you seem to feel that there is a alot of misplaced social idealism going around here. ( E.g. people assuming that if you just educate people enough then everyone will be well adjusted happy secularists).Well maybe and maybe not. I do not think that universal education will cure all of the ills of society. However, you also have to remember that knowledge is cumulative. Dennett makes the point that the education of Muslim women is key. These are the ones that teach their young sons, these are the one who can change things from within. They won't all turn into Hirsi Ali, but they might just stop their boys from being total idiots and blowing themselves up. Five generations later you might get some observable progress. This is a long term business.

Also, religion isn't the only thing to consider, what about education for it's own sake? Social initiatives for their own sake? This is the best way (through example) of showing that atheists aren't immoral slugs. Asking people to give up religion before seeking to help them is not better than making a hungry person say a prayer before giving them a bowl of soup (I know you will get this reference).

Oh bugger, I appear to have whittered on longer than I intended to! Five more minutes with the modem... Please!

Last point: bit of friendly advice. I am a verbose type myself, I love words: I think you are the same. Trouble is that is very easy to sound pompous without meaning to. I have done this myself. I find it helps to throw in the odd emoticon now and then. Yes, I know it looks naff, but they can make the difference between people enjoying eloquence and calling you a *&^$%$.

Best

C.

P.S :)

739. The Out Campaign

Comment #60457 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 1:58 am

Wow!

I got an apology. Considering framing it.

At least I didn't get completely ignored.

It's a start David, but I do feel that there are others on here that you owe an apology to as well.

740. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60339 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Huh! "The Unholy Trinity". What about dear old Dennett? When is he going to get some fleas? They could live and die in that beard.

Take on Sophoclaus if you dare!

Why is he less read and responded to? Maybe because he is so measured that it is totally impossible to accuse him of being an atheist fundamentalist?

Or maybe because some dozy reviewers read him and do not understand a soddding word that he says??

If Wee Flea wrote a book on Dennett I would rush to buy with cash money. Please David, hell anyone, read Dennett and give it a bash...

741. The Out Campaign

Comment #60312 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Never mind Yorker! Life is like that.

Happy birthday for the other day BTW :)

742. The Out Campaign

Comment #60271 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Well! I come back from a hard day at the coalface and sit down with a nice hot cup of gin (bugger that tea lark!) and suddenly my gordon's and tonic is spat upon the screen as I wee wee my knickers laughing.

No David I am not a transvestite or one of those disgusting hell bound h-o-m-o-sexuals: I'm all girl.

What on earth possessed you to write the following?

Of course Ellie, Corylus can not trust you to read it for himself (maybe its because he is an inherent sexist?).

and then a bit later:

Yawn. I wish you people could read.

You might want to read my post immediately above your first one: No. 68 or #59859

This where I wax lyrical about my magnificent chest. I don't like to bragg, but I happen to be very proud of them :)

Why assume I'm male? Maybe, because I can obviously string a sentence together and have studied a bit. You might want to think seriously about your own assumptions. Yes Elli is obviously a really pretty girl and men might want to chat to her accordingly. However (no offense Elli!) she really doesn't float my boat...

If you still don't believe me you might actually want to look up the term "Corylus" ... It contains a dirty great clue to my real name and hence my gender: I use it as an in-joke to anyone else on the board into gardening.

Warning: anyone wanting to keep the mystery of not knowing one of Corylus' little secrets: do NOT click.

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

'Cuse me David, I feel I cannot continue on this board any longer, all this talk of hard philosophy and science. I simply can't go on... damm oestrogen!! clogging my neural tissue as we speak...

and anyway I need to change my knickers...

743. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60108 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 2:54 am

Top rant V!

Asking Biz and Wee Flea to pay subs...

Classic :)

744. The Out Campaign

Comment #60027 by Corylus on July 31, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Elli

Just have to say that I think you have made really excellent posts recently. As for being 'young and green', I think from your picture that you are a bit younger than me, but not by much, don't do yourself down :)

Re David Robertson. Can I refer you to an article he actually wrote? I won't ask you to read all the comments. (There's over 900 and that would be mean!) Just his article is enough.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson

Try for a moment to set aside the fact that the 'letter' in question is dreadfully argued and completely unstructured, ignore the arguments written and, instead think about the kind of person that would actually write this.

I actually find David interesting from a psychological viewpoint. E.g. There are references to him not 'being an Oxford Don' or 'part of the establishment' (conveniently ignoring the fact that he uses the title 'Reverend' to get himself published in all manner of newspapers) juxtaposed with this are snide denigrating statements about 'even the darkest mind'.

Say what you want about David, but that guy is a black belt passive/aggressive. His position appears not to be "I'm Ok, You're Ok" but rather "I'm dammed, but so are you... SINNER!".

I predict he will reply on this thread again (despite saying he is off to Bulgaria). I also predict that he will misrepresent every comment addressed to him, make out that he is being verbally flayed and sorely persecuted, subject to all manner of incivility and generally is a poor battered pup. He will ignore every kind comment and dismiss any evidence of common humanity (in particular he will ignore Philip, because he will not have the ability or guts to answer his points or enough compassion to want to try).

I suspect this behaviour is about:

1) Seeking opportunities for quote mining and misrepresentation.(SG is right his website is suffused with references to RD) http://www.freechurch.org/
2) Affirmation of his self-inflicted martyr complex.
3) Confirmation of how 'nasty' atheists are - when really they are just irritated by his insulting insinuations.
4) Feeding the flames of a tedious self-perpetuating obsession - which I have to say is really beginning to worry me a bit. (Hence my comment above. I really do feel concerned for David mentally, and I hope he can get himself some help)
5) Finally, (I admit this one is pure speculation, but I think I'm right) finding comments and slights to relay to his poor wife, ad nauseum, and thus boring her witless.

I understand that you would be interested in engaging with someone of dissenting views in reasoned debate - that is one of the reasons that this site is so addictive. However, I tried that once with David and it ended badly - with him completely misrepresenting my statement and me getting vexed.

If you want to chat to him, please do, (your choice) but don't expect him to be as polite and thoughtful as some of the other believers on here like Dianelos, Mark or Paul

N.B. I only, talk past people on here when I really feel that they have crossed the line (it is dreadfully rude otherwise), but I have been reading David's comments for some time now. I have to say, sadly, that he is simply not kind.

745. The Out Campaign

Comment #59961 by Corylus on July 31, 2007 at 8:33 am

Sigh, that's what I get for being concerned about someone else - very possibly my charity wasn't "Christian" enough. Oh well.

746. The Out Campaign

Comment #59945 by Corylus on July 31, 2007 at 8:00 am

Blimy!

I tend to get grumpy when I come back from my hols, but not to that extent...

Joking aside, I'm actually getting a bit concerned for Wee Flea, his last two major posts (this one and the long one regarding the WBC video) have been have been extremely emotional and show a lack of receptiveness to reasoned explanations.

David, (I'm not being patronising here, I simply don't like seeing anyone really upset).

I really do feel that you need to take some time out to calm down. Look at what causes you stress and try to avoid trigger situations (like maybe this site :)) Enjoy the company of people you like talking to, and being with, and relax. Possibly see your doctor if you think things are getting on top of you.

747. The Out Campaign

Comment #59859 by Corylus on July 30, 2007 at 11:47 pm

It's been really interesting to hear everybody's stories: thanks for sharing everyone :)

I really like the T-Shirts myself, my only minor quibble is the sizing. Women's size 36 = XLarge. Huh? That's not extra large, that's normal.

So female atheists are not only cold and unnatural, it appears that they are flat-chested also. Sigh, yet another slur ;)

Guess I'll just have to buy a bloke's one...

748. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59520 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 10:47 am

IQHQ wrote:

That I have been accused of "wanker pretentiousness" is blatantly absurd, not to mention slanderous.

Since it was me that originally accused IQHQ of writing 'pretentious wank', and I am thus accused of slander, I feel constrained to put the record straight. My irritation was in response to his following comment:

See the following thread for context:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1321,His-word-Attacking-religion-can-seem-like-breaking-a-butterfly-on-a-wheel,David-Baddiel

For a species which shares circa 97% of our DNA with chimps, there will always be those who veer towards the chimp side of the intelligence variant, and whose inferior intellect dispose them towards the fake securities and easy answers provided by religions. Since this is so, I bid Professor Dawkins (or, indeed, any of you) to explain the roots of his argument's vehemence. There is no doubt that you are CORRECT. Everyone on this site can see that this is so, but that is surely because we are collectively quite an intelligent bunch. Not everyone will be able or prepared to accept the consequences of your arguments.. do you just respond "so what"? shouldn't we be compassionate to those who NEED religion in a similar way that we are compassionate to less intelligent animals? (Apologies faith-heads!) Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?

Another related point refers to your dismissal of religion's "carrot and stick" approach to coercing people into behaving in conformity with a certain moral code. You say, "isn't that a pretty abyssmal reason to be moral? I accept this point and also agree that morality has an evolutionary origin. Yet, my point centres not on how you and I (relatively intelligent men) respond morally to shedding our religion, but rather upon how less educated men and women may. We live in an age where we are surrounded by an anti-intellectualism of philistine proportions. Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to such people losing faith? Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

I considered calling him a sexist, condesending, patronising prat also, but gave him the benefit of the doubt of using the term 'men' to refer to all people. I wouldn't want to be accused of slander after all.

I'm pretty easy going, I rarely get into scraps on here, but I really do not like this assumption that atheism is not a position one takes on the absence of dieties, but a select social club for 'relatively intelligent men' who can use this position as a vantage point from which to look down upon the hoi polloi.

The reality of course is that if people are given access to the educational and social advantages that people IQHQ and myself have obviously enjoyed then they are more likely to be atheists. Intelligence is merely one of a whole variety of possible factors. To assume otherwise is elitist and patronising. Plus, it's pretentious wank.
-----
N.B. Re the IQ debate. I once received a similiar score to IQHQ's on a Mensa test - I just don't feel the need to refer to it in my name.

749. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59464 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 6:36 am

I was going to try for a really thoughful post.

I was planning to try to get to the bottom of this one by talking about:

a)group mentality (they prop each other up)

b)externalised self-loathing (deep down they know they aren't worthy, but constantly tell themselves they will be chosen, they thus have to denigrate everyone else in order to feel 'special' themselves)

c)repressed and twisted sexuality (E.G. the guy with the "gays are worse than animals T-Shirt" - We are all animals sweetie: deal with it)

d) the desire to be dominated by God and the desire to dominate in turn. (Sick S&M shit. N.B. I have long suspected that the terms 'rapture' and 'passion' when used in a relgious fashion both have pleasure and pain connotations for a specific reason)

But, sod it! No. Stuff the nuanced psychological analysis...

They are INSANE, completely batshit barking MAD.

750. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59439 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 4:06 am

Loved the thong SG!

However, if you do have a "burning bush" problem of this nature, might I suggest consulting with a medical professional?

Dr Benway, you about?