Comments by Corylus

Comment #51333 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 11:39 am

A silver ring given out by a church organisation. Yeah right.

What's the betting it's silver plate?

Don't be surprised if it turns your finger green dear...

952. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51221 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 1:51 am

Thanks for that clarification Robert.

As, I said, I'm no physicist...

953. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51212 by Corylus on June 22, 2007 at 1:04 am

Re the article above, I can't improve on Janus' post above. So I am not even going to try.

Biz

Intriguing post, I feel though that I must point out you are flying in the face of most conventional theology...

The Universe and God have very different properties.

Actually no. God, as an omnipresent being, pervades and suffuses the universe, and as such has all the properties of it. This is what is meant by the term immanent. If you think about it he would have to have this property - in order to intervene in physical events.

If you want a more concrete argument re this point, look to the notion that 'God made man in his own image'.

Also

God of course doesn't necessitate a cause. Sure, He cheats. But then, that's what God does isn't it?

Are you implying God tells fibs! Bad Biz. That comment would have got you toasted by the Cardinal mentioned in the article above.

Re: your comment on the second law. I freely admit that I am no physicist so I will leave that to someone else to answer. However, my understanding of this law is that it relates to closed systems, and the universe isn't, um, closed...

954. The courage of their convictions

Comment #50999 by Corylus on June 21, 2007 at 1:44 am

This just made my morning.

The comments on the Guardian are piling up. Lots of people challenging Theo Hobson to call these people 'cowards'. He He.

Hugely encouraging. Now we need the British government to show some guts and invite these people to their next 'inter-faith/community consultation exercise'.

955. The God Delusion - Dawkins Feature

Comment #50804 by Corylus on June 20, 2007 at 3:03 am

OZE2

RD did say that his adjective laden discription of god is meant to be comical although still soundly based.

I have for a while held the theory that many of the objections to this sentence are born not out of shock over the invective used. I suspect instead that many people don't like it because (dozy illiterates that they are) they had to spend time looking up all those hard words...

956. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50799 by Corylus on June 20, 2007 at 2:39 am

Sigh. The Malaysians are at it now:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070620/tts-uk-rushdie-protests-cff01a2.html

Remarkable, how they feel they have the right to dictate to other countries how and in what fashion they honour their citizens. It is not as if this is some dreadful human rights violation that citizens of all countries have a duty to protest against. Like for example,

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1220,Man-to-die-over-insult,Daily-Herald

I never received a reply from the Pakistani High Commission to my polite and respectful letter to them about this. Not even a 'we have received your mail: thank you'. Not that I expected one mind you – violent protest appears to be all that is understood in the Islamic world.

Pewkatchoo

I am not a socialist…

Nah! Get out of town! Never would have guessed ;)

Nevermind mate, I'm fine with honest political disagreement :)

Re: a seat in the Lords. I have actually sat there. Some moons ago on a school trip to the Houses of Parliament. We were told; by some unctuous little weasel; not to go near the seats as they were 'for the Lords'. Down went my rear end. Up the revolution – nothing to lose but our chains!

P.S. Quite comfy – no wonder the old farts doze off.

957. U.S. circumcision rate drops

Comment #50591 by Corylus on June 19, 2007 at 2:08 am

Many major insurance companies still cover it, and many hospitals offer it free for newborns.

If you are paying insurance premiums for this then it isn't free! In fact those that pay their premiums and do not have this carried out are subsidizing those that do. Maybe some pressure needs to be brought to bear against these insurance companies?

958. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50414 by Corylus on June 18, 2007 at 12:51 am

Off thread:

Sounds like this guy has been having a bit of a tough time of it recently: anyone want to send him a message??

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1210,Diary-of-a-Deserter,Brian

959. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #50384 by Corylus on June 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Brian,

Re your slow breaking away, maybe a new job out of town or a college course?? Both can be good things in themselves (and you meet new people in both situations). Plus the people currently around you will understand why you have to leave because of them.

You seem like a smart, thoughtful person, I reckon you will will be able to meet lots of new friends. The trick is to be really brave and get out there whenever you get to a new place. (Easier said than done, I know, I can be shy myself!)

Best of luck :)

P.S. Word of advice. Don't join any groups that demand excessive exercise (i.e. hill-walking, lane swimming, jumping about in strange clothing etc) or any that demand excessive concentration (e.g. chess or political debate) that way lies both exhaustion and madness: I've been there - I know.

960. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50286 by Corylus on June 16, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Well, as a good socialist I have absolutely no time for 'hereditary titles and 'honours'. Re titles: I fail to see why I should grovel to some inbred chinless wonder simply because they have a distant ancestor who was a prince's hooker a few centuries ago and got a title for 'services rendered'.

As for 'honours' the simple truth is that some people earn them and some don't. There are some worthies (charity workers in the main), but the vast majority of those getting their nose into the 'Queen's Birthday Honours' are either faceless civil servants or famous 'entertainers' (who are amply rewarded by their huge incomes anyway).

However, I am all in favour of this one, for the simple reason that it will probably p*ss off Prince Charles. I wonder what the 'Defender of Faiths' and 'Friend of Islam' is making of all this? Has he had words with Mummy?? Also, I find myself wondering whether the invitations he and Horseface receive to toady up to the House of Saud will dry up because of this. Shame. Jug-earred cretin!!

Waits to get flamed by a royalist….

961. In the know

Comment #50238 by Corylus on June 16, 2007 at 1:18 am

Take philosophy and Socrates. He is the father of western thought because he realised that the key to wisdom is not how much you know, but how well you understand how little you know.

Yes Mr Vernon, Socrates did famously note that the only thing about which he was truly sure was of his own ignorance. However, this can be read in two ways; either as the humble admission of a great mind faced with an infinity complex world or an arrogant assertion that those who would claim to know more than Socrates are "less than ignorant". (Personally, the more that I learn about Socrates, the more I lean towards the latter explanation).

I smell the same thinly veiled arrogance in the above piece. I could take all this twittering on about 'lack of certainty' and 'non knowing' from a proper card carrying agnostic. I might not be able to resist pointing out that there is no point having a mind if you can't make it up, but I could deal. This man is a different beast entirely, or he wouldn't be talking about his work as an Anglican priest. No fence sitting here!

I find this type of believer unbelievably irritating. They like agnostics, but loathe atheists. Agnostics are fine, because they understand how nothing is certain and also have the good manners not to question the certainty that the believers keep for themselves. Personally I prefer the believer that reckons both groups are going to fry in hell. That position is at least consistent and honest.

962. PBS Revelation: Network's 'Wall Of Separation' Has Religious Right Genesis

Comment #49703 by Corylus on June 13, 2007 at 3:15 am

I believe you Sornord - films are always boring when you know what happens at the end ;)

963. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #49610 by Corylus on June 12, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Rtambree

Who's neutered?

I do believe that it is the vile, venemous, catty little troll that is Spaghetti Monster. N.B. I don't normally insult trolls outright* but this particular individual is something else. Every post it makes it oozes black bile and also, I suspect, deep jealousy. Methinks the internet it's only form of communication and the only way it can get people to respond... sad really.

I do recall in a previous thread s/he/it refusing to be drawn on the subject of gender.

Maybe I am being insensitive to poor SpagMon though, it might he that s/he/it is merely another incarnation of that (obviously sadly troubled individual) on another thread who decided to tell a load of internet strangers about his sex change.

If that is you SpagMon please accept my sincere apologies... I will try to be more PC in future.

*I'm a soft-hearted type and I hate to think of someone in a back room somewhere sobbing over something I have said. I even have time for Bizarro: BTW: lets all be a bit nicer to him guys and help him get himself out of "Liberty" - he's not stupid and its a crying shame he's in there. More recommendations for further reading please, and less gratuitous insults...

Say what you want about Spaghetti Monster though...

964. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49312 by Corylus on June 11, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Temporary Aura wrote

Doubtful these guys have ever read Rudyard Kipling's 'If'.

Yep: I doubt whether they have read another of his famous poems either "The Female of the Species"

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male….

I tell you, those guys will leave the toilet seat up just one too many times.

BTW – why is this such a hard thing to do?? Huh? Huh? Well?

Sheer bloody laziness!! That's what it is.

These men need to experience the following...

Imagine going on an agreeable night out. You come back somewhat tipsy and pleasantly tired from shaking your funky stuff (maybe you are getting a bit old for such things now and don't have the stamina you once had). Now you sit down unthinkingly in your powder room. Just for a moment you understand; in order take off your dancing boots. Suddenly you find yourselves sitting way further down the lavatory than is natural and with your face next to a toilet seat with yellow stains on it.

Not nice is it? Put the seat down gents. I tell you this for your own good.

965. Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America

Comment #49018 by Corylus on June 10, 2007 at 2:52 am

Dobson and John MacArthur fantasize about the downfall of America.

Huh? Why would fine, upstanding male preachers talking about lesbian sex involve an element of fantasy??

Josh, you're a bad boy, and you deserve to be punished… In whichever fashion you most enjoy ;)

966. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48870 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 9:12 am

Well, I have to 'fess up here. I love Harry Potter and I feel no shame. RDnet is getting no comments out of me for a few days when that last book comes out. I'm reading!

I do take peoples point, though that we should take this opportunity to lobby for children to have a wide range of pagan/wiccan/ subversive literature to hand, rather than just Rowling. Variety is the key.

I myself am voting for Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising sequence and Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea books.

967. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48800 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 4:53 am

Thanks for the feedback Logicel and Pewkatchoo

Pewkatchoo - feel free to quote :)

968. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48765 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 2:44 am

The real battle, and it applies to secular and religious alike, is: can we love, not hate, the people not like us?

An honest question in response to world conflict, but I believe the heart of the problem is illuminated in the very words he uses.

"People not like us". Define, "not like us" please!

Are these differences racial? Well no one has given me a satisfactory explanation what as exactly 'race' constitutes – the whole business seems to be more of a continuum than a divide.

Are these differences geographical? Partly, but as the Rabbi points out the world is different now, people are mingling and the media means that we can view events from far away as soon as they happen.

Are these differences ideological/religious? Certainly, but ideological and religious differences are in the main the product of upbringing. Ideologies can be changed, or why would we bother with debate? Conversions happen every day. This is not then an essential difference.

In fact, I do not think that there are any intrinsic differences: we are all the same. Therein lies the problem.

The rabbi is aware of the danger out-group hostility, but persists in using the language of difference all the while. When people of faith start talking about 'bridging gaps' and 'finding common ground' they are doubtless sincere; and I admire the effort made; but it often ends badly.

For example, they may start talking about having more in common with those that believe and those that don't. Great move! Or they may band together to protest that being told not to discriminate against homosexuals is 'against their conscience'. That's nice: "Lets band together in mutual solidarity and love: and decide who we both hate".

They need to give up this notion of 'difference'. However, in order to do this they must give up the idea of having exclusive access to truth's provided by God, the notion of "God's chosen people" has to go and the idea that some of us are hell bound and others saved really has to go.

This is not an easy thing to give up. The rabbi rightly states that we are tribal animals, but we are status animals too. 'Not like us' is a line we feed ourselves when we are feeling so insignificant and weak that we desire to look down upon others. We might be low, we say, but at least we are not them! We like to think that we are special, chosen, different. Nice daydream: give it up.

We can learn to love people who are not like us, but only when we realise that the differences we see are of our own making, and that in turn involves seeing that God is a creation of man and not the other way round. Until that realisation is made I am afraid that the Rabbi and his like are doomed to failure. Maybe, they will prove me wrong and bring the world together. Sometimes I like to be proved wrong. However, they have a long way to go…

969. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48557 by Corylus on June 8, 2007 at 11:24 am

Disturbance

I do like your word 'fundgelicals'!

It has the economy of combining two groups with similar ideals. It also has the added advantage of sounding like something that a person would get from their doctor when they have picked up a "dodgy" infection. :)

970. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48205 by Corylus on June 7, 2007 at 3:43 am

Biz

I cannot believe I have just spent some of my morning looking up circumcision articles for you, Bizarro! I am feeling queasy and my breakfast croissant is uneaten :(

You say that it does not effect pleasure, actually there is evidence to the contrary...

Here is a short article, from a reputable journal that you might find interesting. It is too late for you, but since you have expressed the desire to have children I thought I should post.

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/

If you have any sons, I do hope that you will give due thought as to whether or not this procedure is something that is really needed. Do some research beforehand and consider the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

'Nuf said on that subject: I don't want to be put of my lunch as well as well as my breakfast.

Re moral judgements you state

I don't buy it. Morality becomes an arbitrary concept without God. If it is my gut feeling that I should torture infants for fun, based on your logic, could you argue with me?

Yes, of course I would argue with this, as would the philosopher I was alluding to (Hume) and I suspect you know this...

You have said elsewhere that you are studying philosophy as well as biology. Good. Ignore some of the close-minded comments on here that philosophy is a waste of time. Cooking 'junk' food is a waste of time, scratching your rear end is a waste of time, crochet is a waste of time: thinking never is.

If you haven't had a chance yet, do read Hume on morals, you will find that our reactions to children, our duty to care for them, and our desire to prevent them from suffering are actually quite key...

Happy reading Biz.

971. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48081 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm

See now this is evidence for my long held theory that anti-theism (as well as atheism) is justified due to the fact that theists tend to make bad facial hair decisions.

OK, OK, correlation does not equate to causation (and there are some notable exceptions on both sides), but b*gger me, that's picture is unbelievably scary...

The God Squad meets the Village People. Arrh!

972. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48059 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 12:44 pm

OK Biz, I can accept that you didn't realise that the author of the article was referring to both male and female circumcision.

However, I am afraid that I am not going to accept your flippant:

It has absolutely no relevance to Christianity however.

a) Are the moral questions that have relevance to Christianity the only ones capable of being asked? There are plenty of moral questions that are not relevant to Christianity; or at the very least there are questions that are not addressed in the bible. We live in a changing world with new technology and new problems. Do the 10 commandments involve the injunctions "Thou must not overtake on the inside lane" or "Downloading films is in infringement of copyright law"?

Silly examples, I give you, but my point is that in order to legislate in today's world we must look at why we make moral judgements and not rely on ancient texts. (You can try this if you wish, but it would involve ditching both your car and your computer and somehow I doubt you will be moving in with the Amish anytime soon)

b) Also, is Christianity the only world religion?

Methinks not on both counts.

You have spectacularly failed to answer my main question so I will repeat it…

You say that as a Christian it is a 'non-issue'. I do not agree. We, all of us, need to work out our moral viewpoints on different issues. You need to ask yourself, as a Christian, would you support the rights of members of other religions to subject their children to circumcision; when their only rationale is religious? Maybe just the boys? What about unnecessary surgery in general? These are very important questions Biz and religious assumptions lie at the bottom of them.

You don't like female circumcision, great! Top marks. Now tell me why. What would you say to a Muslim who says that it is part of his religion and his religion is based on 'reasonable faith'? What would you say to a Kantian inclined Muslim (an odd thought I know but bear with me!) who says that a world with all women circumcised would be a kingdom of ends to be wished?

Sorry Biz, moral reactions are based not on God's guidance, or 'reasonable faith' or 'objective morality' they are based on our guts. Reason is the slave of the passions, and a bloody good job too!

P.S. Yes I have heard of smeg and without wishing to be crude in reply… have you ever heard of soap?

973. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47918 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 3:29 am

Biz thank you for answering me.

There are several points that you make that I would pick up on, but I suspect you will have a few replies and I don't want to swamp you, so I will pick out just one: circumcision.

OK, well I'm sure you are aware that circumcision is actually a health benefit, right? I'm not trying to be gross, but I was not circumcised due to religious reasons. It's not an obligation in any way for Christians. I was circumcised purely for the health benefits. This is therefore a non-argument.

I do so wish you were right about this, but respectfully you are dead wrong (I know this because I used to think as you do. This site has taught me a great deal about many subjects, but I have to say the practice of circumcision is something that I have learnt the most new things about…)

The practices of religion and circumcision are intrinsically linked. For example,

Female Circumcision
I used to think that this was a very rare practice, common to a few pagan tribal communities in Africa. I was wrong, although it is not required by Islam, it is condoned and sanctioned by many Imans. This is because, due to the sewing up often involved (I don't want to get gross either, but this is the only way I can express this!) it is a guarantee of virginity. Also, because of the removal of the clitoris it sabotages sexual pleasure in women: it is therefore used as 'tool' to prevent adultery. (N.B. There are different types of female circumcision: all of them gross).

This is directly attributable to the religious mindset that views women as sexual property, and lauds virginity over common humanity.

Male Circumcision
I used to think that this was only carried out on male children with specific needs (i.e. problems with the foreskin) and Jewish boys. I was wrong here too. I have learnt that it is much, much more widespread than that and really common in North America. I'm from the UK and no male I know has had this done, well maybe I do know a few, but they haven't seen fit to mention it ;)

You say that as a Christian it is a 'non-issue'. I do not agree. We, all of us, need to work out our moral viewpoints on different issues. You need to ask yourself, as a Christian, would you support the rights of members of other religions to subject their children to circumcision; when their only rationale is religious? Maybe just the boys? What about unnecessary surgery in general? These are very important questions Biz and religious assumptions lie at the bottom of them.

N.B. I am aware that the 'health benefits' are often talked about. Actually, it appears that the 'health benefits' are hugely over-reported, and some argue, non-existent.

I have to go to work now, but maybe someone else will be kind enough to track down some links for Biz to look at re:

Female circumcision and the also the 'health benefits' of male circumcision?

This is a subject that needs thinking about Bizarro.

974. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47575 by Corylus on June 5, 2007 at 2:36 am

That said, if there is nothing wrong with North American children playing with guns, acting in Civil War plays, etc. etc. and watching G.I. Joe cartoons, playing with the toys, etc. Then there is nothing wrong with this. It's more of the same, and either it's all wrong, or none of it is.

Actually, I can see Spinoza's point here. There is such as thing as consistency. I myself am willing to accept the conclusion that it's all wrong.

If I change my mind about the children thing and decide to propagate my genius - albeit in dilute form ;) Then they will not be given toy guns to play with.

I'm no pacifist, but I happen to feel that guns should be treated with respect. The only time you pick up or carry a gun is when you are prepared to kill with them, and the only time you do that is if you would be willing to do the same thing with your own hands.

Practical point: children playing with toy guns is especially bad in countries when their parents might just have a real gun in a drawer somewhere. Lots of kids get killed by their siblings by accident in places like these. War is not a game and guns should not be produced in "toy" form.

975. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47571 by Corylus on June 5, 2007 at 2:10 am

Bizarro

I notice that you did not comment on the moral cowardice shown by the Vatican (and people of faith in general) over condemning the practice of circumcism.

What is your view on this?

You also did not comment on the gender equality legitimised by religious teachings.

What is your view on this?

You also neglected to mention of the biblical advise vis-a-vis childrearing. You mention that you plan to have children one day. That's nice.

Will you be sparing the rod?

My point is that if you condemn the mistreatment of children (as I am sure you do) you have to condemn it whatever the theoretical underpinnings behind it.

Faith is not a get out clause for bad behaviour.

P.S. Re gun use: if you believe that just because your government allows you to play with lethal toys in your own backyard you are 'free' I frankly despair...

976. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47447 by Corylus on June 4, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Welcome IJM!
Re:

This does make posting a daunting prospect as I am slightly wary of 'getting it wrong', so if I do please be patient with me.

I have been on this site for a while and have noticed that the members that delight in correcting everyone else (particularly with regard to spelling/grammar) are often those that aren't half as smart as they think they are...

Go ahead and post: I am sure that you have lots of interesting things to say :)

977. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47170 by Corylus on June 3, 2007 at 9:41 am

Huh?

What's wrong with being ginger??

978. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46935 by Corylus on June 2, 2007 at 9:52 am

Nails

I have never seen evidence that radiocarbon decay rates vary over time, I always thought that the longer period of time examined the more uniform the decay rates as it is a study in probability....

This rings a bell! I was having a snigger at the Conservapedia entry on the Turin Shroud (man, I need to get out more!)I followed the 'carbon dating' link and and saw this...

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of 14C has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years: nor has it been proven that it has not remained constant. (Notably, the decay of other isotopes that have half-lives over the course of days to microseconds all follow the characteristic first-order kinetics; hundereds of isotopes follow this pattern, and their properties extenstively have been studied.) Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.

See the following link for the full entry.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Carbon_dating

Now, I'm no scientist, so I am not going to make a plank out of myself assessing this, however, the tone struck me as kinda biased....

979. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #46638 by Corylus on June 1, 2007 at 12:44 am

Anybody else noticed that our trolls appear to be especially vocal around about the time of the full moon??

http://kalender-365.de/lunar-calendar.php

980. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46469 by Corylus on May 31, 2007 at 11:37 am

Billy

Thanks for that impressive precis of biblical dodginess - I have printed for future reference.

I am always impressed when people know the chapter and verse numbers: I never do, I just know that that sodding quote is in there somewhere :)

981. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46036 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 4:01 am

Whoops sorry! Wrong thread.

That's what happens when I try to multi-task... :(

982. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46034 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:59 am

I wonder, am I the only person who finds Hitchens so much more convincing when he bothers to shave??

I'm shallow, I know, judging on appearances! But then so do many theists...

983. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #46030 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:37 am

Veronique

I was so busy composing my comedy Xmas rant that I didn't see your letter. Yep, the guy you are dealing with is a dangerous idiot.

At the very least he is making a category error: how does one destroy a belief by force? You destroy beliefs with the production of evidence and/or reasoned persuasion.

At worst he is advocating mass murder... there are indeed some loons out there, sigh.

984. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #46028 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:27 am

See now this, THIS is why I am atheist.

(Forgot the codified and legitimised discrimination and division between different humans beings. Forgot the inadequacies of the 'proofs' of God. Ignore the lauding of the lack of evidence required for 'faith' and the inconsistencies in 'holy' texts. Piffle to the problem of assigning causation to an interventionist God in a world with physical laws…)

It is not even June and already people are already talking about Christmas!

I hate Christmas, and what's more I really hate the run up to Christmas…

The Machiavellian plots required in order to avoid seeing certain relatives; Cliff Richard through shop speakers; naff decorations; whining, demanding children everywhere; mass production of useless plastic tat; 'comedy' singing model Santas… and all while I am still wearing my summer clothes!

Considering decamping to Iran, Ok I will not be able to follow my normal Christmas ritual of getting blind drunk and snoring my way through the second half of Gone with the Wind/The Wizard of Oz/The Sound of Music (one day I will see the end of those films), but at least I will not have to suffer the above.

P.S. Humbug!

985. Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival

Comment #45250 by Corylus on May 27, 2007 at 1:38 am

This unbelievably, spectularly stupid. Have these people given any thought to the possibility that this might be given television coverage and broadcast across the world, including the Islamic world?

Yes, let all have a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" See how well this goes down on al Jazeera. This could get people killed, and sod's law, probably some poor bloody atheist soldier.

Idiots!

986. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45249 by Corylus on May 27, 2007 at 1:27 am

This Somerville woman sounds like Mary Midgely Mark II... oh dear :(

As there are lots of Aussies on board: I'm interested...

I watched TROAE before Haggard's, um, "fall from grace". I suspect this might be giving the whole thing an extra element. Is it common knowledge in Australia what Ted subsequently got up to??

987. Adult breast-feeding sucks, authorities say

Comment #44709 by Corylus on May 25, 2007 at 7:46 am

Interesting take on what constitutes correct and decent behaviour in an office environment.

I wonder if this guy has a take on people who photocopy their bottoms?

988. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44518 by Corylus on May 25, 2007 at 3:35 am

So, Chris Hedges doesn't believe in atheists. Reading Chris Hedges I am starting to disbelieve in Christians! Sweetie you are so very, very close…

To give Hedges his due he is a moderate who is actually doing his best to fight extremism, and this article was at least grammatically correct and literate. However, I find his position logically incoherent. He defines his terms in such nebulous and contradictory ways that his arguments cease to have any explanatory power at all. I cannot add any more to what Wrought and Shuggy have said about his incoherence (well put guys).

Overall, Hedges is a interesting type, obviously intelligent, but I reckon prone to being led up intellectual blind alleys. For example,

I was intrigued to see his interest in the biblical passage "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God". This has always interested me as well: it appears to be an argument for some form of weird linguistic idealism (idealism in the philosophical sense). Hedges appears to be flirting with this position: it doesn't work. E.g. (To use the word of the day) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was… Bollocks!" HeHe. Now that makes more sense!

I go on, but I don't want to bore people. However, I cannot let this one pass…

More important, the tactic of suicide bombing was pioneered as a weapon of choice by the Tamils, who are chiefly Hindu, in Sri Lanka long before it was adopted by Hezbollah, al-Qaida or Hamas.

No, Chris. The suicide attack was actually first instigated by Samson, when he brought down a temple (with himself in it) onto the heads of the God's enemies the Philistines…

"Samson said, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' Down came the temple on the rulers and the people in it. Thus he killed more as he died than while he lived" Judges 16:30

So he destroyed God's enemies whilst destroying himself. He thus did not commit suicide in the conventional way and was not damned, instead he was elevated to hero status for his actions. Ok the guy didn't have any C4, but sod me the thinking is the same!

Overall, my feeling is that Hedges' has made a classic mistake with this long speech, he is showing his hand and playing his best cards way too soon. I think things will go downhill from now on.

Break a leg Sam :)

989. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44137 by Corylus on May 23, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Hmm, maybe he could tell me where to find an NHS dentist taking on patients ... now that would be a miracle!

I know, I know I mustn't ask too much of the Lord.

990. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43566 by Corylus on May 22, 2007 at 3:16 am

I was intrigued by the reference to "Dr" Falwell… Huh?? I said to myself, but the man obviously appears to have read only one book! So I looked it up. Apparently, he has three "honorary doctorates".

Evidently, no one informed Jerry that to get an honorary doctorate and then use the title "Dr" (unless, of course, one is already one anyway!) is very bad form.

Now, I think honorary degrees have a very important place. They are for recognising and encouraging people whose work spans disciplines, people have made a difference for the better for people's lives and, also, for recognising that some people display astonishing intellects without ever setting foot in a university. Many, many people earn their honorary degrees (I believe RD has them coming out of his ears!) and it is absolutely right that they can be awarded and recognition shown.

However, when attending my graduation ceremonies (I've had several) nothing was more guaranteed to irritate me than (after being awarded a degree for which I had worked my t*ts off) seeing some media mediocrity (invited by the university for publicity and fund-raising purposes only) poncing about in robes they simply hadn't earned.

I am so glad that I was never at any of Falwell's graduation ceremonies: I would have walked out in disgust. This is only beaten by Mike Tyson's honorary degree @%!* me!

Honorary degrees should mean something, dammit!

Sorry guys, off post rant, but I had to get it off my chest.

991. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #43240 by Corylus on May 21, 2007 at 2:17 am

Philip

Don't worry about it mate. I have addressed some comments to Bizarro in the past and never got a reply.

He doesn't want to play with me either :(

Nevermind, I'll live ;)

992. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42297 by Corylus on May 18, 2007 at 3:30 am

I do like it when people use words I have to look up. I can then play at seeing if I can work them into conversation.

Russell "Tribadistic" is now my word for today. I will try not to get myself into too much trouble with it ;)

993. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42270 by Corylus on May 18, 2007 at 2:19 am

Sniggers...

Looks like the conscious-raising feminists haven't got to this guy yet.

"Men build temples", "Men desire wisdom", "the history of man", "the religious man" etc.

Bad boy, Bad!

Here's hoping some female theists read this and tell Mr Larison to (tries hard to think of a non-swearing four letter word... ah yes) SPIN.

994. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42255 by Corylus on May 18, 2007 at 1:58 am

You're all laughing about men getting off on women on bicycles, but it happens you know!

Senex

Oh would I could subdue the flesh
Which sadly troubles me!
And then perhaps could view the flesh
As though I never knew the flesh
And merry misery.

To see the golden hiking girl
With wind about her hair,
The tennis-playing, biking girl,
The wholly-to-my-liking girl,
To see and not to care.

At sundown on my tricycle
I tour the Borough's edge,
And icy as an icicle
See bicycle by bicycle
Stacked waiting in the hedge.

Get down from me! I thunder there,
You spaniels! Shut your jaws!
Your teeth are stuffed with underwear,
Suspenders torn asunder there
And buttocks in your paws!

Oh whip the dogs away my Lord,
They make me ill with lust.
Bend bare knees down to pray, my Lord,
Teach sulky lips to say, my Lord,
That flaxen hair is dust.

John Betjeman

Plus, I for one am very glad that a theocratic state is doing its bit to fight global warming.

995. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41985 by Corylus on May 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Comment by Blods

I decided to opt for reading it backwards from the end. It helped a bit...

Backwards! See, see, now that proves all atheists are really Satanists in disguise! I bet you play all your records backwards too, don't you? ;)

996. Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments

Comment #41785 by Corylus on May 17, 2007 at 2:02 am

They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity, he said.

Hmm, it might be relevant to ask what the priests were 'silently longing' for at the time? The gold of Eldorado perhaps?

997. BBC man says 'I was wrong to lose it. But these scientologists are truly scary'

Comment #40767 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 11:28 pm

I admire his restraint ;)

I watched this last night. He was responding to an individual of spectacular rudeness, who persistently interrupted, refused to listen, made ridiculous, insulting accusations and, (in a obvious and crass attempt to physically intimidate) continually invaded John Sweeneys personal space.

(Plus, much, MUCH worse than all the above, he obviously wanted to be Tom Cruise)

I wouldn't have shouted: I would have decked the little toe-rag.

998. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #40760 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Good video Brian, but I fear that knife-wielding kitten will haunt my dreams! :)

999. The meaning of freedom

Comment #40235 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 1:03 am

I'm really tempted to draw a little speech/thought bubble between those two women in the picture, connected to both of them, saying the same thing.... "What the f@&K is she wearing on her head??"

Generally though, I would say the whole business of covering up to prevent lustful thoughts is ill-conceived. What the eye does not see the mind supplies: and inflates. After all, full-blown nudity can be totally unerotic.

1000. Defenders of Marriage

Comment #40155 by Corylus on May 13, 2007 at 11:39 am

Arrh, so my confusion is down to my out-of-date understanding of Republicanism.

That makes sense.

Thanks Mr Grape.