801. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90061 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 2:50 pm

There is a level of altruism that really works (works here means that you get back more than you invest)

The evolutionary benefit is to the replicator, not the host.

802. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90055 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 2:10 pm

The problem as I see it is that people are trying to justify feelings. I believe that our sense of morality is fundamentally emotional. We refine and negotiate our emotional responses in order to co-exist with others in society, but there is nothing fundamental or absolute about them.

For me this is crucial. In fact, things go horribly wrong when morality is domgatized (Sorry for the neologism.) Our behaviour "improves" as we better discern hurt to others. This is how most moral progress is made.

803. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90046 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Re: empathy.

I've questioned several of the God-of-Love-and-Niceness Christians on this site and to a man they have always commented that their empathic acts to others have often been disappointing to them [EDIT i.e. met with unkindness in return]. I sometimes wonder if it is this that might set us apart on the "from whence morality?" question?

804. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90041 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Why should he listen to emphaty when that doesn't benefit him while he can listen to the selfish parts of his soul (or brain or whatever)?

Because empathy works. The moment we gave a damn about our fellow ape, the troupe worked better as a team. Millions of years later its still working. The more damns we give the more it works.

805. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89898 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 4:53 am

That other creationist, Dianelos, thinks...


EVERYTHINGDIDIT!


...which is helpful.

806. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89779 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Even if he can't prove evolution wrong, maybe, by his very existence, he can prove it doesn't always culminate in intelligent life.....

807. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89776 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Even Bizarro wasn't this dumb.

808. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89766 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Even J's simple lesson in logic defeats him.

[EDIT]

_J_ thanks for your general notice to all about the radio play Stardust (BBC R4). I've had a sneak preview. Sounds good stuff. Thats my lunchtime filled tomorrow.

809. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89763 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 4:38 pm

"Attempts to provide evidence (such as Behe's irreducible flagellum) have been clearly shown to be wrong."

You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it because you refuse any evidence that contradicts darwinism. You create your so-called 'scientic method' to purposely exclude anything but darwinism even if something is the truth..

And THAT was the evidence? C'mon you must have more. Behe's evidence was that there were no possible viable darwinian evolutionary stepping stones to the flagellum. Behe made the Darwinian argument. He ultimately failed when viable stepping stones were demonstrated.

Now this is the key thing that makes scientists suspicious about IDers claim to be scientific. Behe, in contemplating the lack of viable evolutionary steps to the flagellum, didn't immediately set to work studiously looking for what those steps might be. He simply asserted that he could find no evidence. A scientist, by contrast, wishing to find the truth, rather than merely confirm a prejudice, would construct means by which he could prove himself wrong, imagining, perhaps how other unlikely biological features had been imagined to evolve.

Behe like many unsophisticated thinkers failed to imagine that non-flagella features that merely looked like flagella but without the movement could very simply evolve into a functional flagella.

[EDIT] In fact, a failure of the imagination, I think, is what this is all about. Dismal, dull, unimaginative, crapulent brains.

810. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89723 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Fact is not subject to democracy

As ever Steve's nailed it. but to expand a little

Facts result from corroborated evidence. In a sense, quite a democratic process. The sheer quantity of corroborated evidence for evolution is astonishing. For ID?? One example of corroborated evidence in its favour would be a start...

811. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89399 by phil rimmer on November 20, 2007 at 2:24 pm

#89193 by Dianelos Georgoudis

He claims that cultural evolution has had a profound impact on our individual and collective cognitive capacities.

The idea is (imperfectly!) expressed in Susan Blackmore's book The Meme Machine, where she argues, for instance, that conscious experience is a "memeplex" (multiple meme) mediated experience and that the intense introspective qualities of Western conscious experience is to be contrasted with the more diffuse experience of Far-Eastern cultures. Recent experimental data has shown that presented with the same scene (e.g. a fish in a tank) American observers notice the fish first, Japanese observers notice the setting. Culture affects our saliency landscape, which in turn directs our cognitive capacities and the interior models we form.

Further concepts to consider are the cultural inputs into the early childhood regime of neural apoptosis (cell death). This is a process of neural wiring where "surplus" neurons and their connections are "pruned" away to create a more effective (i.e. more specifically adapted) brain. The process is to be distinguished from the standard Hebbian learning associated with memes (crudely, cells that fire together, wire together), in that it is a truly irreversible process.

The process of apoptosis (or rather its incomplete execution [sic]) is thought to explain phenomena like synaesthesia, where "inappropriate" cross linking of cognitive processes are left intact. Inappropriate (excessive?..insufficient?) apoptosis is thought to have occurred in feral children, devoid of necessary cultural input at the necessary time and now irretrievably wrongly wired and incapable of many normal cognitive tasks.

We might imagine that appropriate cultural input might yield a higher preponderance of synaesthetes or those predisposed to improved topological mental manipulation (like the aborigines of Australia). Indeed they might well be the very people to best imagine Twistor Space.

The force of Plantinga's argument resides precisely in the scientific validity of natural evolution, and studies what its implications are under the assumption of naturalism.

Steve dealt with this perfectly in 502. I simply reiterate, in support, that you have failed to identify what is the recipient of the selective benefits of evolution, to whit the gene / meme. (And the Selfish Gene was one of your favourite books!) The offset nature of this feedback loop produces all manner of "unintended" consequences. The formulation you offer is still bogus.

[EDIT. A slightly less impressive topological capability than the aborigines is evident in the Hebbian only skills of the London Cabbie who's done the Knowledge. Scans show appropriate bulging bits in his brain]

812. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #88981 by phil rimmer on November 19, 2007 at 11:44 am

Irate,

krisking asks good questions. That you know the answers and are impatient is a little unfair. We'll have to tell our story many, many times yet. It'll be a long time before people understand that the ideas in religion, as in advertising, always follow the zeitgeist rather than lead it......

813. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88977 by phil rimmer on November 19, 2007 at 11:02 am

Brian,

Lets be absolutely clear about the "Dianelos Problem". We can have no concerns about his philosophical musings as to whether he is Neo or not. These thoughts follow the general form of the Thursday Liquid Philosophy sessions at my local pub, especially towards chucking out time. No it is the fact that, such musings, fueled by his first person data and the disparaging of ours, seeks to tell us that we are less holy than he, less moral and will remain inferior until we solve for ourselves God's Puzzle of spotting the friday-afternoon-job he did on reality and mend our ways.

This dangerous idea he seeks to clothe in moderation. No, we won't go to hell. Everyone shall have the same reward averaged over this life and the next. (Bit of a bummer when you're on your deathbed after a perfectly lovely life.) These spurious, imperfect and distinctly twenty first century human ideas fail completely to cover the indecency of his primary conclusion-

Atheists can never be completely moral beings.

My good Catholic friend is appalled.

814. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88680 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Comment #88673 by jasminerose

Welcome. I hope you find some useful things here.

I think hitting the delete button to free up all that lovely space is a great, liberating feeling. Spring cleaning the mind is something we should do at every available opportunity and not just every spring.

Having said that it does tend to fill up again rather quickly, and, darn it, some of the stuff that fills it turns out to be useful. Like knowing how to create vaccines or understanding why people have amygdalas and are therefore "wired", despite their best efforts and intentions, to be xenophobic. These insights come from knowing that life is an evolved phenomenon.

True knowledge of this sort helps us better care for our children and helps us learn how to be better people, in spite of our evolutionary inheritance.

How do we choose what not to delete? Look for corroborative evidence. Look for evidence from all sorts of different people and people who have little to gain personally from it. Pause just a little when you come across that stuff....

815. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88665 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Scooter,

Fantastic Dershowitz link! Thank you so much.

It is he, the good judge and the honest folk of Dover (those prepared to stand up for truth at great personal cost) that remind me why I fell in love with the US decades ago.

On to Hitchens now (I think he fell in love too)....

816. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88630 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 5:16 am

Veronique,

Whilst I applaud your metaphorical bullets aimed at this thread, I fear there are ideas here that may produce the real thing.

theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things. Which is obviously dangerous.

I'm sure that Dianelos wouldn't take us Atheists out the back and put an end to the suffering we cause, but we know exactly who might.

817. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88629 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 5:05 am

DG's premises in 88603 are extremely rickety. I think they're in serious danger of falling down without the helpful Puff from the "big, bad" wolves outside.

1. If naturalism is true and natural evolution is true then all our cognitive capacities are the result of natural evolution alone. (premise)

Excludes cultural evolution which appears to have quite distinct processes from genetic evolution. If you intend "natural evolution" as a catchall then it is disingenuous. And, yes, cultural evolution has had profound impacts on our individual (and collective!) cognitive capacities.

2. Through natural evolution we can only possess such cognitive capacities that offer some competitive advantage. (premise)

...that offer some competitive advantage to the replicating entity. What we "hosts" gain from it is quite another matter.

4. If naturalism is true then the cognitive faculty for deciding the truth of ontological propositions offers no competitive advantage. (premise)

But this is the bare-bones version of the truth you wish to derive! Shoving it in as a premise here is...well...disingenuous.

D.G. One day you'll get the message and build a brick house.

818. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88525 by phil rimmer on November 17, 2007 at 11:08 am

theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

I'm sure Bin Laden thinks precisely this.

Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous drivel.

819. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #88501 by phil rimmer on November 17, 2007 at 6:35 am

I am deeply shocked at the levity on display here. Clearly most are ignorant of the deep truth embodied in the very Durum of our Lord's body. As he offers himself, freely, to nourish our bodies at our evening worship around the Supper Table, he shows us the very fabric of the whole of Existence. Our scientists, even now, are only just beginning to untangle the ineffable mysteries of String Theory. His nourishment is total. It is as if He is saying to us, "Be at Peace. The Universe is too knotty a problem for your darling little minds. I am here, on your plate. Only eat me and you shall know all ye need."

Its true, we Pastafarians have a dirty little secret- those heretics the Brane theorists and their odious Prophet Garfield. I warn you now, have nothing to do with the "Lord" Lasagne. I, for one, believe these mere sheets to be feeble impersonations of the wafers from that other failed religion. No, cast your Parmesan on richer pastures....

820. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88444 by phil rimmer on November 16, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Judge John Jones.



The man done good.

821. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88412 by phil rimmer on November 16, 2007 at 2:06 pm

My PE teacher, scornful of my attempt to get out of games with a headache and a poorly finger, announced to the rest of the class, "I always know a boy is lying to me when he gives me two excuses."

A related issue is why life's troubles are distributed so unjustly. The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death, and we shall all continue to experience both joy and pain and agonize over ethical decisions for a long time to come – and on average all people will get about the same deal. Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too.

Dianelos knows neither excuse is up to the job...

Did I just experience a little frisson of schadenfreude at his possible discomfort? You know, I think I did.

822. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87613 by phil rimmer on November 12, 2007 at 3:22 pm

krisking:In the end, I don't believe it is my responsibility to convince them.

Is it no one's responsibility?

823. Excerpt from 'The Portable Atheist'

Comment #87588 by phil rimmer on November 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Verily, the man turns wine into wisdom.

824. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87579 by phil rimmer on November 12, 2007 at 2:12 pm

I'm just guessing, but the "Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War" looks like the typical zero-sum outcome of a resource limited system.

We might imagine that for a brief while we are at a point of least resource pressure, where the definition of parochial might reach its most extensive. Now might be our only chance of jumping out of our biology.

825. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87389 by phil rimmer on November 12, 2007 at 2:39 am

One of my favourite jokes of his from "Beyond the Fringe" was-

I'm not so much a Jew as Jew-ish. I don't go the whole hog.

Anyone doubting that an atheist could experience life at its fullest should look at the riches that this man has produced.

826. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #87281 by phil rimmer on November 11, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Bit like sex: takes at least two. If there's only one, it's not sex.

But you do get your own way....

827. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87190 by phil rimmer on November 11, 2007 at 12:21 pm

For me the prospect of the eternal is like the kiss of death.

Which is more beautiful, a perfect copy of a rose or a real rose in your garden? The transient, I contend, is more astonishing by far than the deathless.

To me, the spectre of eternal life, seems like the offer of no life at all, indeed no time at all. It is the chiaroscuro of our lived lives that we surely crave.

828. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86427 by phil rimmer on November 9, 2007 at 7:41 am

Cut and paste job

ADH

I'm sorry. I must ask again. Why would you not wish for (pray for) your children to find the truth, rather than to find faith?

Surely you wish for them to find the very best thing, not the very best thing that you have imagined so far. In praying for Truth, in your mind you have opened that door for them a little bit wider, imagined a finer outcome for them than you might have so far managed for yourself. This least little speck of humility, opens the door for you too.

Faith or Truth, which is the greater?

If faith is the greater (Only Believe!)then we have to accept that it is our mental condition and not our mental content that is the most desirable.

"Pretend to be a Christian. Go through the motions every day and you will wake up one morning and find you are no longer pretending" This is what the the idea of faith invites us to do. It is a fantastically successful transfiguring meme and it is the way humans change themselves from anything to anything...going through the motions until you get it right. And thats the point. The idea of faith as a mental conditioner works just as well for any mental content, Christianity, Judaism, National Socialism...

Finish cut and paste job.

You were in fact clear to point out later that FAITH had to be Christian faith (of course) but then admitted for some Christians this had gone wrong. I propose the concept of truth is self-correcting. "But is it true?" the only true guide. How can you lose with a concept like that?

Oh and (Look away now Coretemprising) Thanks.

829. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86406 by phil rimmer on November 9, 2007 at 6:49 am

Coretemprising.

Why should I want to debate with you? I agree with you, at least on all the important stuff. I want to debate with someone I disagree with. (If they'd only bloody answer my questions.)

Being polite? Just comes natural I 'spose.

If you feel all icky, look away.

Maybe we could post some kind of warning flag when whacky views are being voiced?

830. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #86351 by phil rimmer on November 9, 2007 at 3:13 am

You know what? I am going to call Dianelos a full-on creationist.

Hurrah!

This is the only explanation for why a seemingly intelligent man should believe positing a universal consciousness as a terminating point for the questions posed by science is in any way satisfying.

The man needs closure and quick. Stultifying!

His subjective data- "This is great!"
Our subjective data- "Its pants!"

His mantra- "My explanation is much more satisfying etc." never has the common human decency to add (because of the sheer evidence of the dissenting views) the words "to me".

831. On Being Not Muslim Enough

Comment #86342 by phil rimmer on November 9, 2007 at 2:36 am

Nick

I don't quite get this woman. The article above is about her feeling non Muslim. But her role in her work is ALL about being Muslim and looking at the world through a Muslim lens. What is she saying...that there is huge amounts of Islamic fundamentalism in the UK...she doesn't say that, it's hinted at only. So what's her point, she's not accepted by Islamo nutters - fine, find other friends or become an Islamo nutter to fit in....simple!

I may be putting words in her mouth, but what she is saying is that amongst moderate Muslims (in a social but not religious or political context) there is still much "tribalism", demanding high levels of conformity.

This is bad news for us because if liberally inclined Muslims tend to be excluded from social Muslim situations, a reformation or opening-up of the faith seems a complete non-starter.

Her Guardian efforts have been (as far as I can see)about just such an opening up. The article represents a reversal in her optimism.

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

Comment #86160 by phil rimmer on November 8, 2007 at 1:05 pm

167. Comment #85501 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Don't know how I missed this one. Disagree.

In post 96 I describe how moral progress is made, from, for instance, a particular moral precept, concern over causing harm to others. Progress is made by extending the definition of harmable others. No new precepts are required. No other standards need be referenced. (And the precautionary principle of over inclusion is not immoral per se.)

Your concept of TRANSCENDING standards is, as ever, a meaningless hurdle thrown in the way of the atheist. Moral standards evolve.

833. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85981 by phil rimmer on November 7, 2007 at 4:54 pm

ADH

I'm sorry. I must ask again. Why would you not wish for (pray for) your children to find the truth, rather than to find faith?

Surely you wish for them to find the very best thing, not the very best thing that you have imagined so far. In praying for Truth, in your mind you have opened that door for them a little bit wider, imagined a finer outcome for them than you might have so far managed for yourself. This least little speck of humility, opens the door for you too.

Faith or Truth, which is the greater?

If faith is the greater (Only Believe!)then we have to accept that it is our mental condition and not our mental content that is the most desirable.

"Pretend to be a Christian. Go through the motions every day and you will wake up one morning and find you are no longer pretending" This is what the the idea of faith invites us to do. It is a fantastically successful transfiguring meme and it is the way humans change themselves from anything to anything...going through the motions until you get it right. And thats the point. The idea of faith as a mental conditioner works just as well for any mental content, Christianity, Judaism, National Socialism...

834. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85644 by phil rimmer on November 6, 2007 at 3:00 pm

ADH

I am hoping and praying that they come to faith.

Maybe the terrible risks your children run (in being roasted for getting it wrong) could be reduced if, in fact, you prayed that they come to Truth rather than faith. A little personal humility about the certainty about exactly what you know, cannot be bad.

Truth must surely tower over faiths.

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

Comment #85381 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 4:15 pm

There's cheese in a can!!!

Sick, sick, sick world.

I'll console myself with the Sociopath Next Door.

'night

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

Comment #85322 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Dawkins couldn't function at the high level we enjoy if he didn't have several people keeping an eye out for trouble.

But, Dammit, Dr B, how are we newbies ever going to learn to hunt if the prey don't come near us? We're big boys...and girls, and we've got our mates round us....

Maybe he's just done awful things I haven't seen. I'll shut up.

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

Comment #85275 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:53 am

epeeist

I have to agree with your (and Corylus's) analysis.

But the harm is??

As for the humour bypass, its his flock I feel sorry for....

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

Comment #85270 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:43 am

Flea,

So, John Lennox's 'God's Undertaker, it is. I hope you haven't sold me a pup. The McGrath met a sticky end.... (see post 27 in this thread.)

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

Comment #85253 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:15 am

Josh,

The banning is too bad. You cannot do this. I have stuff I want to say to the man.

Please reconsider. Fleas are ultimately harmless.

840. AAI 07

Comment #85249 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 11:03 am

notsobad

why? Can't he have a different opinion from others, especially the majority? Isn't that what atheism is - at least outside the EU - still about?

Like Brian I want the discussion to continue. I think there's a bunch of missing pieces from the Libertarian argument that I need to hear about, like how people actually function psychologically. (B.F.Skinner showed how positive reinforcement trains us far more effectively than negative, and his sentiments were far from liberal)

What pisses me off is we're stuck in top level stuff when we could be examining real data and figuring out how to do things better.

I actually believe Chapman is right about fear (alright call it fear of responsibility if you wish, the problem is the same) driving Americans to the "Insurer of Last Resort". How do Libertarians solve the problem of fear? Its great when we are all Howard Roarks, or Scooters or Notsobads, but me? I screwed up. Society's safety net caught me.

Dogma died in UK politics when "New Labour" got in and occupied what by (European) consensus is the centre ground. Conservatives recently mirrored the move, abandoning scrupulously free-enterprise policies for the pragmatic mix and match ones that might get them re-elected. (Even their own followers wanted public health insurance, it being free of small-print denying you the right to life on a technicality.)

This acknowledgment that the populace wanted free-market wealth creation AND a modest safety net is the output of quite an extended social experiment. It is the experiment being urged by us seeming lefties on you seeming righties. The last thing it is, is based on DOGMA.

Don't call us DOGMATIC and we'll return the compliment. Tell us how the experiment could be changed to get a better result. Listen when we suggest that fear of falling off the tightrope without a safety net slows you down.

People are complicated. Society more so. Don't be fooled into thinking there is an elegant solution to creating a successful one.

And please keep talking. We have to get this right.

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

Comment #85180 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 8:41 am

101. Comment #85167 by Calvin

What flummoxes me, Flea, is that the theist material above seems so poor. I've read a few of these books and despaired. I always make a point of reading reviews or blog commentaries of these things in the religious press or on religious websites, (Commonweal.com is my favourite.) and despaired again.

Tell me, Flea, which one is the good one? I promise I'll read it and get back to you here.

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

Comment #85143 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 5:32 am

if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them. I wonder how an atheist not stuck in a loop might answer this question.

Appealing to standards IS loopy behaviour(sic).

I can't answer simply, and I suspect I can't answer completely. I know that the progress I hope I have made in my personal ethical standards, as I continue to grow up, is related to my improving ability to discern harm to others, and perhaps a growing carelessness for myself. (I've had a hell of a lot of fun, but vicarious pleasures are coming to dominate now.)

Society grows up too, it seems. The franchise of sentient, harmable beings grows apace. (Goodness, first peasants and now women and other higher primates. Even foreigners!) As our list of friends grows, so do our responsibilities. We naturally treasure wealth after all.

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

Comment #85125 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 3:49 am

Of course we could be the subject of a wind up...

I agree. My personal theory is that the near super-human mix of wit and wisdom points to us being the subject of the ultimate Turing test. (Hence his smiling visage.)

I suspect the CIA of funding the Benway Computer Program (designed to "fuck with the minds" of their adversaries).

But why do they test it on this site you ask? Well, its obvious. If they can fool a bunch of Atheists, they can fool anyone!

You have been warned.

[EDIT Sadly their "Dianelos Reloaded" Program seems to be stuck in a loop at present...]

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

Comment #85108 by phil rimmer on November 5, 2007 at 2:12 am

Great news. The Doc is back!

Welcome back, Dr B. We've missed that mischievous smile.

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

Comment #85039 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Diacanu

You do know that Matthew Chapman is only on loan??

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

Comment #84977 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:53 am

A Beattie quote about her book-

The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion - from the Introduction: In its war on religion, scientific rationalism constitutes the latest phase in the West's long history of domination by which it has sought to defeat every form of difference, including religious difference. The vast majority of the world's religious believers belong among non-Western cultures, and they include many millions of women whose views are seldom represented by their scholarly elites. This means that we need to cultivate a much greater awareness of both the limits and the oppressive effects of a debate dominated by the opinions of a small clique of white English-speaking men staging a mock battle about rationality and God, which fails to address the most significant humanitarian questions of our time. This includes the many different roles played by religion in sustaining and generating hope, meaning and creativity, without which we would be less than the humans we are.

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

Comment #84974 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:43 am

I keep my Flea books in the loo. They don't last very long.

I used to prefer to move with the Times, (I hate Rupert Murdoch), but this new material comes in a much handier size.

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

Comment #84971 by phil rimmer on November 4, 2007 at 11:39 am

Diacanu

Polly Toynbee and Martin Amis.

849. AAI 07

Comment #84728 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 11:05 am

The term used in the UK is

"Health care, free at the point of delivery."

Its personal cost is clearly written on our wage slips.

850. AAI 07

Comment #84725 by phil rimmer on November 3, 2007 at 10:45 am

NMcC

I'm a capitalist and I don't see a tax problem per se.