851. Like any half-decent atheist, I'm fond of a bit of religion

Comment #67815 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Despite my new-found position, I still seem to be on the shifting sands of uncertainty. Is there, I wonder, something called an atheist heretic?

"Atheist heretic" perhaps, but what I'm hearing sounds a lot more like a good dose of nostalgia for form and ritual. This is natural and understandable in somebdy for whom "enlightenment" is recent. Don't worry - this will diminish and pass with time.
Apparently lots of people in Iraq "miss" Saddam Hossein.

852. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67812 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 11:14 pm

BAEOZ:

I don't think I'll do post-grad to become a therapist or such

Good.

853. The God Delusion One-Year Countdown

Comment #67743 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Dr Benway,

At least we don't speak middle English any longer.

In your comment, "middle" is one word too many! But I love you anyway.
Who was it who said that England and the USA were two countries separated by a common language?

854. The God Delusion One-Year Countdown

Comment #67734 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Northern Bright :

Could that be a new collective noun, btw - a frenzy of fundamentalists?

For me, "frenzy" is too positive a word, because it does imply energy and movement, albeit chaotic movement. And I sense the fundamentalist movement as something at best laborious, at worst quagmire-like, muddy thinking, plodding ignorance and blindness. So as a collective noun, I suggest (inviting other suggestions) :
a bilge of fundamentalists, and a star-burst of atheists.
Over to you, my fine young neologians!

855. The God Delusion One-Year Countdown

Comment #67668 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 9:18 am

(#35 is the number it must not drop below!)

It's not gonna stop me lovin' ya, it's not gonna stop me respectin' ya; but fuh crissake !
#35 is the number below which it must not drop.
Geddit?
Uddawise, I gonna have tuh report yawl to Lynne Truss.

856. The New Atheists

Comment #67625 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 4:00 am

"New atheists"? Like the "nouveaux riches", a sociological phenomenon?
I've just had a thought (the second this week) - when everybody is atheist, the word itself will disappear. Since no-one will have any notion about what not to believe in.
So - I'm an atheist! (Just making the most of the word while it still makes sense, if that's OK with you folks?)

857. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67622 by Richard Morgan on September 4, 2007 at 3:36 am

I wish the title of this article had been :

Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians in the USA

I live in France, a country where we have universal health care, and where medical practitioners refer their patients to medical practitioners.
Inasmuch as a religious belief is so obviously a neurotic construct, albeit a socially integrated one, I can't imagine (though I have no statistical proof) a French doctor sending a depressed patient to a professional neurotic (priest/pastor etc) rather than a specialist in psychological problems - a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Though curiously enough, in France, psychiatric treatment is covered by health insurance but NOT treatment by a psychologist.
On the negative side, we do have "homoeopathic" doctors, but I suspect that has more to do with bank accounts than beliefs.

858. In God we doubt

Comment #67312 by Richard Morgan on September 3, 2007 at 3:28 am

Humphrys - OK? Can we at least get the spelling right?
When I read this kind of stuff I am left with several feelings. The first one is "What a lovely chap he probably is, at his kitchen table, in the pub, wherever." The kind of person I'd be proud to have in my garden.
Another feeling here is that his brand of silliness is so desperately sad.
Why doesn't he rejoice in the fact that it is godless science that could have given the Buchanans their longed-for baby, whereas their beliefs/church could only console them in their bitter frustration and privation?
But the real heaviness of heart was brought on by :

there are countless ordinary, decent people who believe in their own version of a benevolent God and wish no harm to anyone. Many of them regard it as their duty to try to make the world a better place.

Make the world a better place? Well, isn't that why Richard Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion"? Isn't that what atheism and rational thought are ALL ABOUT? Of course they are! I often wonder why this aspect of RD's work is barely ever mentioned.
Theists try to make the world a better place by invoking sky entities, and jollying us all along in the hopes of a better world AFTER this one.

Richard Dawkins is genuinely concerned with making this world a better place.
So am I.
Aren't you?

859. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67279 by Richard Morgan on September 3, 2007 at 2:27 am

Science gave them no immunity – they too are infected by the virus of faith. Only, they (atheists) would say, theirs is the only true path, and all other roads lead to damnation. Of course.

So atheists would talk about damnation. Would they? Only a pompous little prat could presume what I would say,and as an atheist I would not talk about damnation.
That kind of presumptuousness makes me damned annoyed!
Oops...

860. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67137 by Richard Morgan on September 2, 2007 at 6:06 am

Northern Bright:
Hahahahahahahahaha - ha - ha
Heheheheheheheheheheheh -
Hohohohohohohohohoh
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Thank heavens for Northern Bright and her ilk (if she has one that hasn't suffered gene invasion).
This is really what it is all about with Salley Vickers - it's a fucking good laugh.
I can't think of another article that has given us all so much of a good time, so much of a good laugh once we'd got our anger out of the way.
She really does bring a whole vast new world of meaning to the expression "coitus interruptus - for pleasure and profit.

861. Fruit fly parasite's gene invasion raises questions over evolution

Comment #67135 by Richard Morgan on September 2, 2007 at 5:28 am

"Gene invasion"? I told they were nasty fascist things.How did they get through security?

862. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67133 by Richard Morgan on September 2, 2007 at 4:53 am

A randy young writer called Russell
With Salley did get in a tussle,
All went quite well
Until she broke the spell:
Asking "Is this a bone or a muscle?"

863. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67131 by Richard Morgan on September 2, 2007 at 4:34 am

Overheard in the gents' toilet in the Toulouse, France branch of the Women's Institute:

X : Do you know Salley Vickers?
Y : Does she really? How much does she charge?

864. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67130 by Richard Morgan on September 2, 2007 at 4:29 am

A darling scots-lady called Paula,
So touched me, I wanted to call her.
I've decided to write
Since altho' she's a Bright
The sound of my voice might appall her.

865. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67105 by Richard Morgan on September 2, 2007 at 1:15 am

Salley Vickers, in speaking of her own book Miss Garnet's Angel makes this revelation:

When one writes a book one shouldn't, I think, have more than the dimmest idea of why one is writing it.

and on the same page

Sales of 'Miss Garnet's Angel' are estimated to be over 350,000.

Excuse me, I feel an attack of cognitive dissonance coming on....I need to go and lie down for a year or two.

866. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #67046 by Richard Morgan on September 1, 2007 at 2:30 pm

My third attempt at posting a comment :

This is modern journalism at its best. Reviewing a book that reviews a book that hasn't even been read by the reviewer of the book that reviews it.
Read it out loud slowly, it does actually make sense, which is more than can be said for Salley Vickers' incoherent ramblings. I don't know whether it is more nauseating or embarrassing to read such dishonest, ill-informed drivel in these august pages. This time I must say to you "A plague o' both your houses". (preferably carbuncles and/or frogs.)

867. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66993 by Richard Morgan on September 1, 2007 at 9:01 am

Looks like the Times is into heavy censoring over this one, or even, as in the case with Véronique's comment, transforming parts of it into hieroglyphics for a fun reading experience. My limerick got blacked anyway. (Boo-hoo, sobs bitterly.)
I have, perhaps, an explanation for all this nonsense. There was a time when, in British journalism, the summer months were called "the silly season" because there was nothing to report on. So almost anything was accepted to fill in a few columns between the ads. Whatever the content, if it fills a space, publish and be damned, and anyway, who's reading? Maybe this is what happened here. At least, since we read it on-line, we have the satisfaction of knowing that we didn't fork out hard cash to pay for the paper version.

868. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66963 by Richard Morgan on September 1, 2007 at 5:50 am

Last year Cornwell wrote an article from the point of view of God

And he so misrepresented Me that I forbade him ever to speak in My name again. Using one of my Angels is a cheap form of revenge.

869. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66944 by Richard Morgan on September 1, 2007 at 4:19 am

There was a reviewer called Vickers
The champion of all cherry-pickers,
Who reviewed a book
Without taking a look -
She must wear pre-twisted knickers.

Just posted at TimesOnline

870. Review of Darwin's Angel: An Angelic Response to the God Delusion

Comment #66934 by Richard Morgan on September 1, 2007 at 3:23 am

"Le chien aboie, la caravane passe."

871. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66862 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 9:31 pm

Thank you AJ Rae for the references and your very useful remarks. I would like to take the time to read Singer and McGinn before replying more fully.
I would also like to ask if anybody has any references concerning the evolutionary usefulness of defining "personhood", since we have already studied the rituals that define becoming "adult" so that "adulthood" becomes a coherent notion within a given social structure.

Just because an infant isn't a person, doesn't mean that suddenly we're going to treat an infant badly or kill them.

Yes it does - if we are to take your example

If given a choice between the death of a person and an infant (potential person), in a fire, morally surely you have to save the person (and kill, or let die the potential person) based on ability to suffer.

In that situation you are perfectly clear - the potential person is condemned!
But, no, I see what you mean. My concern is not over bad treatment as such but rather the attitude that one might have in a real-life situation toward a real-life (non-person) baby, because we now know that even if we have the impression that we are not expressing certain feelings and attitudes, in fact we are doing so all the time, and pre-verbal stage infants are capable of picking them up (parental conflicts, for example) with all the present and future consequences that one could imagine.

872. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66858 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 8:55 pm

I am a Welshman. From North Wales. (Welsh readers will know why I had to point out that detail, and will forgive me for my northern-ness, I trust.)
Apparently as recently as the mid eighteenth century, certain villages maintained the tradition of having an official "sin-eater".

In some part of Wales a very extraordinary rite was observed. "When a person died, the friends sent for the sin-eater of the district, who on his arrival places a piece of salt on the breast of the defunct, and upon the salt a piece of bread. He then muttered an incantation over the bread, which he finally ate; thereby eating up all the sins of the deceased. This done, he received the fee of two shillings and sixpence, and vanished as quickly as possible from the general gaze; for as it was believed that he really appropriated to his own use and behoof the sins of all those over whom he performed the above ceremony, he was utterly detested in the neighbourhood -- regarded as a mere Pariah -- as one irremediably lost."

Sin-eating was not a Bardic idea, it seems to have been a perverted and perverse tradition, probably reaching Wales by an oriental channel, in which the Jewish scape-goat and Christian Eucharistic Sacrifice are blended in disguise and distortion.

-- From Welsh sketches, by Ernest Silvanus Appleyard

At least it avoided brushes with PETA or the RSPCA.
I suppose.

873. The Fear Factor: When the Brain Decides It's Time to Scram

Comment #66856 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 8:37 pm

5. Comment #66838 by roach on August 31, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Richard Morgan,

This was a perfect opportunity to offer some constructive criticism. You could have suggested how 601 reword his argument to make it sound better. But instead you offer only thinly veiled insults. Way to go!

This is an excellent example of activation of the prefrontal cortex by distal, unpredictable threats. And, as the man says: "Dysfunction in these circuits is likely to yield a variety of chronic anxiety disorders."
Way to go?

874. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66854 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 7:36 pm

R.Blackford:

Frankly, I see no point in opposing religion if we are going to go on being irrational about moral issues anyway. I have no intention of refraining from making rational statements about morality in order to conserve my credibility with the irrationalists.

"Rational statements about morality." Yes, well...
I'll let you live with that one.
But before getting over-emotional about this issue (I'm talking about myself here) may I just ask Russell Blackford et al at what point an "infant" becomes a person?
I can already hear Russell exclaiming "I was wondering when he was going to bring that one up...."
Because my indignation has little or nothing to do with the "theory" of morality, and I can't boast of having my ideas published in The Journal of Medical Ethics. My concern is with the attitudes that our "rational moralists" are likely to have towards real live infants. Would they treat/consider them as "sub-persons", "non-persons", "person candidates", "future persons" or what?
When they hold a baby in their arms - what kind of message would they be sending that child? Or do they think it doesn't matter because an infant has a limited or as-yet-undeveloped level of consciousness?
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham once said that when deciding on a being's rights, "The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" What he meant is that if a being can suffer, then that being deserves the right to equal consideration.
(Yes, I know, this quotation is usually trotted out these days by people defending animal's rights - you don't have to remind me of that.)
Thankfully, most mothers don't need to read The Journal of Medical Ethics in order to consider their new-born child as a person, and the way in which the infant is considered and treated during those early months will have a great deal to do with the kind of adult he or she becomes.
That is the point.
If my concerns with the quality of life and the quality of relationships makes me an irrationalist in R.Blackford's eyes then I think that says a lot more about R.Blackford than about me.

EDIT : Dr Benway - once again you're right, darn it. All the same....

875. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66836 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 6:02 pm

roach : thank you for revealing your sources of literary inspiration. Why am I not surprised?

876. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66835 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:58 pm

AJ Rae

That's hilarious

Ideas on infanticide "hilarious"? If you are seriously suggesting that there is the slightest hint of hilarity in this subject, then I suggest you continue your psychotherapy, and meanwhile, stay away from children.

You're seriously saying an infant is a person, with the same level of consciousness we enjoy? I'd like to see you credibly argue that.

From your remarks, it is not clear what level of consciousness you, personally enjoy. And since you are capable of saying things like :" I'd like to see you credibly argue that an infant is a person," I hope you have no plans for having children, because I think that statistically, most children start off as infants.

877. The Fear Factor: When the Brain Decides It's Time to Scram

Comment #66831 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:30 pm

The PAG region contains the "god-exists" notion,

Your dangerous idea sounded good until you made this statement. You may be onto something, but talking about regions of the brain "containing" notions is, I'm afraid, neurological nonsense.
Try again, 601 but re-read your "Brain surgery for Dummies" first.

878. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66828 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:17 pm

R.Blackford

Even infanticide is not the same as killing a person,

Alas, Russell, with one small sentence you have lost all credibility.

879. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66827 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Kentucky Fried Sins!
They're finger-lickin' evil!

880. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66730 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 6:53 am

To think I read all that hoping to discover something about "swinging chicks".
Oh well....

881. The importance of doubt

Comment #66724 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 6:20 am

Inferno :

Why is whenever we hear of a religious person who struggled with their faith, they always seem to return to the faith they started off with?

The key word here is "their" - as in "struggled with their faith". Obviously not struggling with the problems of faith per se. The struggle remains firmly on home ground, so it is of no surprise to anyone that "faith - doubt - struggle - re-faith" all take place in the same context.

As King Solomon so wisely remarks in Proverbs 22:6: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." That's fairly good psychology - you indoctrinate the child first of all; the adolescent or young adult may "struggle" with the ideas inculcated, but if the brainwashing has been carried out effectively, the older adult "will not depart from it."

Here endeth the first lesson. Let us now stand to sing together hymn number 256 "Rock of ages - rock on."
Oops - sorry about that, I was forgetting which board I was on.

882. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66719 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 5:48 am

jayalenik : You profile says :

Username:jayalenik
Location:Florida
Occupation:Thinker
Interests:Motorcycles, rational thought

Your avatar says :
"I have no idea what's going on."

This "thinker's" "rational thoughts" are :

If you could get your gooey eyed nose out of Stags ass long enough you would see the board is so relived you approve of us we are as happy as little girls jay

Need I add anything to that?
Let's get back to something interesting, now that we know what "rational thought" is all about.

883. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66709 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 4:25 am

pewkatishoo :

I have been trying to instil critical thinking as an ideology with him, with limited success.

Don't you see that to the adolescent mind "trying to instil critical thinking" is a glaring oxymoron!! Because what HE considers "critical thinking" will cause him to reject ANYTHING that you "try to instil" in him!
Which also partly explains the lack of success of "critical thinking" school programmes. For most normal, healthy adolescents, virtually anything that their parents/teachers/elders wish for them is at best highly suspect, and at worst to be avoided at all costs.
And there are probably some very good evolutionary reasons for that.
(Also when I read some of the stuff that we, the parents, write here on this board, I am often tempted to think - "It's no wonder the kids are screwed up - just look at the parents!! (Starting with myself - yep!)")

"vain hope"? It you believed it was really vain, you wouldn't persevere, would you? You would? Aw, c'mon.....don't start talking like Ma Teresa!!!

884. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66704 by Richard Morgan on August 31, 2007 at 3:30 am

Véronique :

I hear this shit when I walk through my town and hear what these kids are talking about. It frightens the shit out of me. There seems to be no introspection. Just what band is de rigueur; what drug is available. What doof to go to. How to get out of it.
I despair. I really do. Is this what we have come to? I will be devastated if this is true!!

Teenagers have always caused their elders to despair. That's what teenagers do, that's what adolescence is about, and there seem to be some good evolutionary explanations for that. (Yep, evolution really is everywhere!!)
Critical thinking is taught in the French education system and, believe it or not, generally speaking the kids hate it! In the last year of high school there is an obligatory Philosophy course with an exam that counts for high school graduation (le baccalauréat)
I'm afraid there's no escaping the fact that critical thinking will be part of an attitude picked up at home from the parents, or developed later on in adult life as a situational necessity in answer to the question - "WTF is going on here?"

885. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66675 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 10:18 pm

poppythinks :

-but how many people actually write well and with
meaning, on this planet - very few in my book.

That is beautiful! It is quite wonderful to come across gems like that after wading through all the sanctimonious crap that always finds its way onto these boards. (I should know - I write half of it myself!)

"Very few people write well... in my book." My, oh, my - have you got any more like that? Reading such comments makes being an atheist FUN.
Thank you. Diolch. Merci beaucoup. Obrigado.

886. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66598 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Do the crime, do the time.

I love these americanisms!! Does anybody have any more? Such as

Children don't care how much you know,
Until they know how much you care.
(This one is for teachers, mainly.)

And of course the legendary :
"Ya tok the tok,
But do ya wok the wok?"
And things like : "He was one short of a six-pack." or "The lights are on but the house is empty."
I'm quite serious here, folks, we don't have this kind of expression in British English.
Just found another one : Quitcher bitchin'.

887. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66586 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Dr Benway :

But telling people they ought not produce them is going a bit too far.

You're right...again.
I do...too often.
The problem is, I'm so frightened of silly people harming a cause that is so vitally important to me, that I end up, well, harming the cause, in reaction.
Thank Heavens for the Dr Benways and the Veroniques of this world.

dazzjazz :

I don't have the time to rabbit on at length.

Well, that's a bit of good news. Thank you, dazzjazz, for Keeping It Short and Simple.

888. Gene regulation in humans is closer than expected to simple organisms

Comment #66540 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 10:54 am

pewkatchoo! Shame on you! You mean you didn't notice the "d" word in this article?

It will generate progress in establishing the design principles used by the transcription process in high organism, and allow a more focused search for the origins of their complexity.

Not to mention "origins" and "complexity". OK, I didn't really understand this article, but these are words that make me very, very suspicious.
We must be vigilant - they're getting in everywhere!!!
(And we gits must stick together!)

889. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66497 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 6:13 am

Keith : I find it a completely normal thing to say.

You would. I understand that.
But thanks anyway for confirming the need to explain certain things about journalese to our more naïve readers.

By the way, getting in before others and admitting to being 'pompous and supercilious' doesn't make you any less so or make it alright.

I'll take you word for it, since you clearly have more experience than I do.

890. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66472 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 4:33 am

keith :

I just don't see the 'cheap verbal trick' you are accusing him of here.

Right! That's the whole point. You don't see it.
You're not alone!
Most people don't either, which is why I need to point it out!
(Yeah - that sounds horribly pompous and supercilious, I know, but there again I am all that, so that's OK, no cognitive dissonance here.)
Let's back-track a little here. Christopher wrote this article initially for the readers of Newsweek which I understand has a fairly broad readership world-wide. But as he was penning this article, he knew full well that it would be picked up by all sorts of media - including the honorable R.D.Net.
But, surprise, surprise, the faith (or absence of) of mother Teresa becomes almost a secondary issue for the comments posters. All because of six words in brackets :

(and, if it matters, I concur).

In brackets, that means I suppose, incidental to the main subject and thus not particularly relevant.
In fact, so irrelevant to the main subject that posters have been getting their knickers in a twist over it all day!!
Does anybody believe that the Hitch himself would be surprised by this "topic drift"? ( a beautiful expression that I discovered here, if it matters, and which reminds me so much of my ex-wife...)
No? Me neither. But if not, why not?
Because C.H. is a very experienced and often talented writer and speaker, or, as we used to say in North Wales, a fine wordsmith.
He knew what he was doing when he "threw in" those six words. As a professional, he wants to get people talking, and preferably, talking about him. There's nothing wrong with that. And in these pages he has succeeded in getting himself talked about.
It's not his doing what journalists do that gets up my nostril, it's the naïvety of certain readers who should know better. Because like most of you, truth, reason and beauty are what matter to me most of all, not skill with words, or marking points in debates. And yes, I'm a little sad that we have allowed ourselves to get side-tracked by six bracketed words, which most readers will henceforth remember more vividly than the main points of the article.
Do you remember?
Mother Teresa's lack of faith?
Yeah - that Mother Teresa, well done.
Mark Twain once said : "Wagner's music is not as bad as it sounds."
And in fact, I'm not as nasty as I sound. It just that sometimes.....

891. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66454 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 3:03 am

pewkatchoo :

Veronique
Marry me and have my babies, I am sure my wife won't mind.

She won't. In fact, she told me last night she'd be quite relieved.

892. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66440 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:19 am

stag :

For my money, Harris' arguments have this unsettling tendency to segue into hyperbole. Religion is a shit, we get the picture Sam!

Hahahahahaha! Thank you, stag. There is hope for this board after all!!

893. The importance of doubt

Comment #66433 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 2:09 am

I really loved this article and the comments it has provoked.
It's all so silly, isn't it?
Imagine this sort of discussion a few centuries ago, ok?
There is a symbolic, poetic, metaphorical sense in which the sun really does revolve around the earth. And this is very meaningful and comforting to millions of people.
But Galilawkins nourishes a disturbing contempt for geocentrists.
He asserts: "I do everything in my power to warn people against geocentricism itself, not just against so-called 'extremist' geocentricism."

Need I continue...?
Don't worry folks, it will take time and education. The Emperor's "New suit of clothes" won't keep him warm for long when the cruel winds of reason and reality start howling around his goolies. And even then, some will refuse to see his hairy bum!
But that's the way it happens, I guess.

894. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66424 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 1:28 am

roach :

Your posts tend to confuse me.

Hum. That probably means my posts are confusing. Which is worrying to me, since most of my posts are concerned with the clarity of (verbal) expression in order to avoid confusion. And often I am accused of being "petty" or a "jerk" (the character, not the dance or the verb) for insisting on certain details.
Remarks like

(and, if it matters, I concur).

are cheap verbal tricks which offend me when I come across them in otherwise serious articles.
I shouldn't need to say this, but the Hitch knew perfectly well that expressing his opinion would matter to lots of folk. Do you really believe he would be surprised by the reactions here on this board? Do you think he is so naïve as to imagine that his readers would not pick up this remark?
Also this verbal construct is a very silly one, in the sense that saying "If it matters to you, the reader, I concur," implies that there is the option of it not mattering to the reader. In which case....er, what?
And having said that, I have the horrible impression that I've added even more confusion.
Oh well, I'll just fetch my coat...

895. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66416 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 1:05 am

roach :

I believe BAEOZ was referring to himself with the "ducks and runs away!" remark.

Oh shit, I misunderstood again! Thank you for that clarification, roach!

896. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66409 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 12:23 am

Veronique : you're right, of course. Thank you for being there. (It's just that coming down off my "high horse" seems like a long fall...)
BAEOZ : Ducks and runs away? Not any more. I was a theist until the age of 40 and had to do a lot of ducking and running away. Atheism gives me solid ground to stand on so that I need never duck and run away again.
And why would Richard Dawkins' comment make gooey-eyed hero-worship any less demeaning?
If it matters, I just happen to concur that the sort of things that Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens are saying and writing represent perhaps some of the most valuable and important ideas being expressed on planet EARTH today. And I believe history will remember their names. (Well, Richard Dawkins, at least.)

897. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66406 by Richard Morgan on August 30, 2007 at 12:03 am

Every Catholic is supposed to regard abortion as an abomination (and, if it matters, I concur).

Mister Hitchens, if you really thought it didn't matter you wouldn't have bothered adding the two words "I concur" to your article. You can't make us believe that you are so naïve as to imagine that "I concur" is just a throw-away! Aw come on, Hitch!

...and then makes them feel abject and guilty when their innate reason rebels.

Whilst recent research seems to be acquiring evidence that some aspects of the "reasoning" faculty could well be "innate" (i.e. genetically transmitted) I feel that it this is an unfortunate choice of adjective. Not wishing to go back to the nature/nurture debate, it is still far from clear that "reason" is "innate".

898. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66392 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 11:21 pm

Dr Benway :

There's dignity in saying what you honestly feel. And so long as you take it on the chin if someone laughs or looks down a nose (i.e., no whining), you'll never lose your dignity.

Absolutely right - again. Thank you for that observation.
However I should explain that I find gooey-eyed hero-worship demeaning to the debate itself, and that's what hurts and disappoints me. But maybe that's what discussion boards are for..also. Yep - maybe I need to learn that.
USA_Limey : thank you for giving people a second chance to read my comments! The "Jerk" at the end, I presume, is Modern American English at its best. Is it a noun here, or the imperative form of the verb?

899. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66322 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 5:27 pm

BAEOZ:

Sam is a seriously good article writer. Loved those last sentences, as Janus said, so do I.

Jiten :

Sam is just tireless! And I always learn something new.

dazzjazz :

Gosh, Sam's final sentence is so HEAVY! He really says it all right there.

roach :

Sam is so cool. His writing style is so simple and powerful..... Awesome.

Do you remember how teen-age girls would shriek and weep and faint and wet themselves when they were able to catch a glimpse of The Beatles - The Fab Four - back in the sixties?
Frankly the asinine adulation that I find expressed in these columns for our "fab four" (D,D,H & H) strikes me as equally excessive and on the way to becoming just as hysterical.
When I read stuff like that, I find it so embarrassing I hardly dare recommend this site to other acquaintances.
How undignified!

900. Shop targets U.S. hunters with camo Bibles

Comment #66153 by Richard Morgan on August 29, 2007 at 4:31 am

hungarian elephant : Don't be so stroppy! I wasn't mocking at all! It was just so cute to see it written like that, I couldn't resist taking it a bit further. OF course I know you're right. At sixty-one I've probably known it for longer than you've been alive.
Haven't you noticed that among all the heavy crap that sometimes gets thrown around on this board, I occasionally try to lighten things a little. You know, just a little chuckle here and there to help us not get bogged down in taking ourselves too seriously.
Heck, who can get serious about somebody who calls himself "hungarianelephant"?
Excuse me, I have to leave you there. We're having a barbecue next week, a real méchoui and I need to take the sheep for it's penultimate session of psychoanalysis. (Apparently an unresolved Oedipus complex gives the meat a slightly bitter flavour.)