101. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #212059 by Corylus on July 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Comment 212039 by Al Rawandi

I'm afraid I do not understand what you have just said.

Was that comment an explanation, an excuse or an apology?

Alvorin can be grumpy at times, but I have seen no evidence for sadism in her posts.

'Inner joy' in the face of death? Come on now.

102. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #211975 by Corylus on July 16, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Mordacious!

Don't tell me anyone actually read comment #211931 . If you did, you have to get a life.

Hehe!

I scanned it. The grammar seemed suspiciously good so I did an advanced search on it. It is all from the blog below.

http://islamic21.blogspot.com/2008/05/amazing-quran-part1.html

Maybe this is Joe's blog, but I doubt it. If not then the post above is not his work - the bad boy.

Hmm, just realised I am being unfair - I think he added some extra capitals. Maybe in some circles that counts as co-authorship.

103. Fury at funeral songs ban

Comment #211434 by Corylus on July 16, 2008 at 2:40 am

This part is telling...

The first rumblings in this funeral controversy go back to 2000 when the Archbishop of Armagh, Sean Brady, deplored "over the top" eulogies "going on for ever" as "unnecessary duplication" of the more formal aspects of the Catholic rite.
(My emphasis)

Is this really anything to do with keeping inappropriate stuff away from a religious ceremony? Sounds more like a bunch of lazy priests using religion as an excuse to cut down their hours.

I can understand how performing a funeral would not be a favourite task for a priest - it is always awful to see people upset. However, to deny people something that can make them smile and laugh (as well as cry) at the ceremony seems to be selfishness of the highest order.

104. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211149 by Corylus on July 15, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Donohue's organisation has issued another press release.

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1461

It's vile.

In fact, being a bit of a masochist, I have been reading the previous press releases from the Catholic League. Constant bullying tactics in order to obtain privileged access to media and politics. Crass, vulgar and cowardly.

I have been getting a feel for the persona of Donohue while I was at it. Not pleasant. His wiki entry is fascinating too. One picked fight after another. He is a classic playground bully.

In this case Donohue picked on a college student, thinking that they couldn't fight back: seeking to blight a promising future. A college professor fought back on the student's behalf. This arrogant pipsqueak then had the towering temerity and impertinence to ask people to lobby the professor's employer to get him fired.

I would never normally advocate doing anything that causes needless upset, and I can see where Steve is coming from here.

However, I would support PZ if he does two things whilst doing this.

1) Makes it very, very clear that this is in response to Donohue and his threats.

2) Makes it funny to take away the sting for people caught in the cross fire.

Donohue will keep bullying and blustering if not stood up to.

There is only one way to deal with bullies. You stick your face in theirs and say "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough". Then you laugh at them.

It's the only way.

105. Man Sues Church Over 'God Injury'

Comment #209795 by Corylus on July 13, 2008 at 11:13 am

Mmm.

Where there is pain - there is a claim!

I'll leave the speculation about the result to the lawyers, but I suspect that this bit might stuff him....

The Sevier County man said he was asking God to have "a real experience" while praying at church.

I wonder whether "volenti non fit injuria" would apply?

106. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #209470 by Corylus on July 12, 2008 at 11:12 am

Flying Goose,

I understand Richard's argument, I agree with it, I think. (It is an argument from morality, faith is immoral).

Can't speak for RD, but I have to say my sympathies lie with this view. Colin McGinn recently summed up this moral argument very well...

We believe, as an ethical principle, that beliefs about what reality contains should always be formed on the basis of evidence or rational argument; so that "faith" is inherently an unethical way to form your beliefs. To believe "on faith" is to believe that the world is a certain way (contains a god etc) without the support of either empirical or logical justification. This violates the ethics of belief - how you ought to arrive at your convictions.

N.B. The 'ethics of belief' reference is about a famous essay by W.K. Clifford here. It is quite a long piece but worth reading. The conclusion is ,"It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence."

Why is it wrong?

Well, the beliefs that we hold with insufficient (or no) evidence are often self-serving aka "wishful thinking". N.B. The 'evidence of things hoped for' is no evidence at all - if wishes were horses, beggars would ride :-)

You may be asking what the problem is with comforting illusions?? Trouble is, this is not where it ends (with people deceiving merely themselves.) It is an unmistakable fact that our beliefs inform and effect our actions. Therefore our non-evidence based actions (as well as our beliefs) are often self-serving and; sadly; harmful to others.

By this analysis there is a moral duty to seek the truth and constantly question the evidentiary bases of your world view. Even if / especially if your attachment to said beliefs turns out to be merely emotional in nature.

107. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207535 by Corylus on July 10, 2008 at 2:13 am

J.Anderson

Why not quote any comments you find objectionable, with the name of the person making it for clarity.

You can then have a conversation with the person responsible to see if you can reach an accommodation.

Blanket comments concerning the content of an entire thread are counterproductive. Some people are oversensitive and assume criticism is directed at them when it is not.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to upset anyone needlessly. That is why is it always best to take up any problems with the person concerned.

108. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #206655 by Corylus on July 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Graham Owen

My new business of is to a good start, and soon a number of my bugs will be in major films, TV shows and commercials.

Glad to hear it. Best of luck.

109. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206627 by Corylus on July 8, 2008 at 3:15 pm

PBUM

Talk about cure for insomnia.

Yep. Gets me every time. I have timed myself... after five minutes of theological speak I get restless, after ten minutes I get irritated, after 15 I shrug and start to nod off, after twenty I'm snoozing.

Today I did well and switched it off after 21 minutes.

N.B. If you do make an effort and stay awake it can be rewarding. For example the Jonathan Miller interview with Denys Turner can be seen here, here and here.

It is about half an hour in all, but it is worth watching (in full in order to understand the context) just for the gob-smacking, jaw-dropping admisssion of sheer lunacy in the last two minutes.

A small part of me admires the courage of the admission, but the vast majority of me reels into huh!?? territory.

110. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #206055 by Corylus on July 8, 2008 at 4:01 am

Enlightenment

Just seen the news, to see that old crone Alison Ruoff, well known member of the General Synod, show that she's never read Animal Farm by trotting out the old canard that men and women are equal in the eyes of the lord, yet different.

There is actually a technical term for this BS. It is called complementarian and it ain't pretty.

Steve

What I find even more astonishing than that so many women are against women priests and bishops is the reaction of some of them (such as the previously mentioned Anne Widdecombe) to such changes.

I'm convinced it is about the preservation of self-image.

Those (both men and women) who buy into the 'equal but different' business do it with the tacit assumption that their 'difference' is the superior one. Men will take comfort from the power. Women will take comfort from 'holding the family together' and being 'responsive to other ways of knowing'. Both will bolster their self esteem by taking pride in what is merely an accident of birth. Both will (in their hearts) consider themselves 'better' because of it.

Hmmpf. "Different but equal" - my furry little butt!

I think this explains the reaction and the fervour shown. We are status animals and we work very hard not to go down in the pecking order. (Incidentally we work much harder to not go down than to go up).

Nothing will elicit emotional knee jerk responses more consistently than an attack upon what we consider to be the foundations of our own inherent 'superiority'. It is one of the few things that will get even lazy people off their backsides.

111. Former state science director sues over intelligent design e-mail

Comment #203760 by Corylus on July 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm

For those that haven't already seen this.

A short video with this lady in it.

Hope her lawyers and the courts come through for her.

112. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202572 by Corylus on July 1, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Not their balls then.

113. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202569 by Corylus on July 1, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Oh noes!!

I have fallen a victim to argumentum ad typo - the shame!!

114. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202552 by Corylus on July 1, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Gregg, nothing wrong with quality footwear - as long as not combined with socks.

Brian

FVVCK = fwuck.

Arh yes, that is the proper pronounciation to use when talking about 'Biggus Dickus' - but only in that situation.

115. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202547 by Corylus on July 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Gregg

How shall we fuck off, oh lord.

He said 'fvck you' not fuck off!

(Comment 115.)

The meaning is completely different.

SPLITTER!!

116. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202469 by Corylus on July 1, 2008 at 2:16 pm

I am generally happy with moderates who defend the seeking of knowledge and fight against the misrepresentation of scientific fact.

I can even understand the thinking in a way. For example,

Yes, it [ID] turns God into a kind of conjurer, one who comes in every now and then to do a trick in nature. How is this a helpful model for God?

I can see how for some this is a denigration of what they perceive to be god. After all, a conjurer god is just naive anthropomorphism and thus; for the high level moderates at least; a form of idolatry.

However, (and my is it a big however!), my patience disappears whenever they bring theodicy in...

I think that we need to understand bad design and evil things in nature in the same way that we understand bad choices and evil actions on the part of humans in nature. It's been a part of the Judeo-Christian understanding of creation that when God created the world it was somehow separate from God. People debate about what that means and how great the separation is, but in articulations that I find most congenial, that entails God giving some freedom to the world. We have a free will to choose good or choose evil.

Natural evil as a manifestation of free will? Hmm... so people are born disabled in order to give freedom to the world. I see.

How can anything give freedom to the world as a whole when it; by definition; negates the freedom of individuals?

This is nonsense and by no stretch of the imagination a "congenial articulation."

To be bend-over-backwards fair here I should note that moderate can backtrack at this point and redefine 'freedom' as the presence of varying situations - some of which will (obviously) be defined as more desirable as others.

However, when this happens they are then open to the counterargument that the extent of bad design seems somewhat excessive.

Meh. Doesn't work. Try again.

117. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201849 by Corylus on June 30, 2008 at 10:27 am

Lesson I have learned today:

When someone unpleasant turns up - it is a good idea to check whether they are an escapee from the...

Pharyngula Dungeon.

118. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201219 by Corylus on June 29, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Oh dear, see what you are saying Mark!

I read an interesting blog post by Steve Zara recently on Lane Craig's Cosmological proof - you might enjoy it.

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/143957.html#cutid1

119. The Flea Delusion

Comment #201201 by Corylus on June 29, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Robert O'Brien

Friendly advice:

You have started off your commenting here by being remarkable rude. Rudeness begets rudeness.

There are many people here who enjoy debating with theists, if you want an in-depth discussion on atheism and philosophy you can have one.

However, your manners will have to improve.

120. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200774 by Corylus on June 28, 2008 at 8:21 am

Terabrat

Sigh, I was basing my argument on the reaction people had to a work of fiction.

When people realise that laughter is possible, it is a remarkably liberating experience.

121. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200765 by Corylus on June 28, 2008 at 8:05 am

Terabrat

That's strange - they work when I click them, but I know some people have been having trouble with links recently.

I repost in full below.

On fallicies:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm

On Candide.

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

----
Edit:(In response to a statement added later).

Terabrat

See what your reaction is to me ridiculing you?

Huh?? My reaction was to presume you were being honest and wanted to read some evidence - so I calmly reposted the links.

Evidently I was giving you too much credit. However, in the event that you do decide to stir yourself, you might like to check "Ad Misericordiam" or "appeal to emotion" on that fallacy list. I have noticed that it is a particular favourite of yours.

Maybe we will chat again when you have grown up.

122. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200753 by Corylus on June 28, 2008 at 7:51 am

'Appeal to authority' is just below 'ad hominem' in that list of fallacies I linked, Terabrat.

Now I concede the appealing to authority is not always a fallacy in that some authorities can be trusted. However, it is a fallacy if the appeal is made with regard to a statement about a situation which is not equivilent to the one being discussed. As you have not supplied a specific quote (in context) it is impossible to make a judgement on this issue.

I am going to ask you to work harder than you presently are if you wish to make a case with me.

A passive/aggressive 'I hope this is convincing everyone that they are wrong' (and sotto voce - 'and can see I am right'!) just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

I am not an unreasonable person, I actually think that there is a very nuanced and subtle case to put for when ridicule is appropriate and when it is not. However, you haven't yet made it.

123. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200734 by Corylus on June 28, 2008 at 7:22 am

Terabrat

I sure hope all this ridiculing is convincing people they are wrong.

The above is not ridicule (which is a humorous take on something which is factually correct) Terabrat, it is an ad hominem. Which I have incidentally just marked as offensive. (I do this when people make fuckwitted comments on the basis of appearance).

Incidentally, I do wish you would post some evidence (aka links/examples/specific attributed quotes) in support of your assertations - otherwise they are merely that: unsupported.

Let me show you: with regard to satire and ridicule I contend that this can truly work. For example, you might have heard of Voltaire's Candide.

When people decry the 'tactics' of the new atheists they tend to forget (or are simply ignorant of the fact) that ridicule is not a new thing.

124. A secular world is a sane world

Comment #200645 by Corylus on June 28, 2008 at 2:53 am

I avoid Clearthinker these days, but I don't like it when comments that snidely skip around libel are made.

Just play the role of the angry middle aged white man.

This thinly disguised and snide accusation of sexism and racism is easily countered by the asking of a simple queston. "Why would a sexist, racist man give two hoots about the treatment of muslim women?"

Pat expanded his views on this type of accusation here.

I hope that the people that you direct here, also watch this video, it demonstrates what a idiotic statement you have just made.

You are very good at throwing out such assusations without evidence and making a complete fool of yourself. Do you remember when you accused me of being a 'dreadful sexist'?

Now answer Steve's question. There's a good chap.

125. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #200398 by Corylus on June 27, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Oh, bollocks.

There I was catching up on the conversation, enjoying the non-emotive gender role discussion (an unbelievably rare thing!) and then Clearmind comes in and lowers the IQ of the thread by a good 40 points.

FFS. Josh, ban his backside. He made Philip cross. I repeat : Philip cross!!

C'mon - how much evidence do you need??

---

Teapot, you are a bad boy and you make me smile :-)

126. PZ Myers - Science and Atheism in the Blogosphere

Comment #199850 by Corylus on June 26, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Shmeezers

the arrogance of the atheist comes out in stark clarity...

Ah yes, arrogant atheists. Are these the ones that claim to be the centre of the universe?

Not quite.

127. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199373 by Corylus on June 25, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Best of luck to your friends esuther!

May their lives together be more Mozart and Verdi than Puccini and Wagner :-)

128. The Flea Delusion

Comment #199370 by Corylus on June 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Thank you Phil

Yes, that was it. I remember that dratted thread all too well.

1) RM decided to criticise from on high what he perceived as a collective lack of empathy. (Concerning a cult leaders suicide 'attempt')

2) He received some thoughtful considered responses as to why he was being harsh in his assessment (at least with regard to the vast majority of most cases).

3) He did not like this (not too good with any form of criticism anywhere as it happens).

4) Another (new!) poster turned up agreeing the RM.

5) Much stirring of the pot ensued. Emotional statements were made - peacemakers ignored.

6) 'New' poster admitted to making a statement that was actually made by RM.

7) Sockpuppet discovered.

8) No apology was forthcoming from RM - just a series of deleted posts to cover up a lie.

9) Long silence followed by conversion experience.

For someone who was concerned about the emotional sensitivity of others RM showed unbelievable selfishness by inventing another poster merely in order to win an argument. This was on a thread where people were getting extremely upset. He put his own need to win an argument over both the feelings of others and the consideration of the alternative explanations that people were proposing.

I was shocked then, and I am shocked still.

---

I find his statement above shocking in a way too...

"We can love Him, because He first loved us."

What precisely is this supposed to mean? Taken metaphorically this is pretentious wank. Taken literally this precludes any form of mutuality. Is it only permissible to love people who love us first? By that criterion no-one would ever love anyone.

For example, I don't have any children. However, in the (unlikely) event that I do ever have any, I fully intend to love them before they love me. My care would not be released only in response to a declaration from them.

... he first loved us...

It that merely another way of saying "he started it"?

How childish.

129. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199243 by Corylus on June 25, 2008 at 11:28 am

Tera

And the way the guru's are fawned on by some people is somewhat sickening too.

I acknowledge it when people have made me think or taught me facts. I feel no reason to stop doing so. It is called good manners.

I'm afraid that you are coming across as someone who is used to being the centre of attention and fawned upon. Do you find yourself getting jealous when others are recognised? Is that what this silly comment is about?

Make me think or teach me something new and I will acknowledge your contribution. Gladly.

This is because I am on here to learn things: not to listen to myself.

----

Bonzai

In philosophy "scholarship" apparently in a large part is just opinions dressed up in big words, convoluted verbal gymnastics and horribly constructed sentences.

When you use technical terms when discussing physics or maths I look them up so I can follow you (or; more often; admit defeat to myself if I really don't get it). Why not take a moment to look up the 'big words' in philosophy you don't understand?

I'm afraid your philosophy bashing is taking on the 'broken record' ring.

---

Sigh, I hate telling people off, but I see I have done it twice in one post.

Disappointed.

130. Science is not philosophy

Comment #199008 by Corylus on June 25, 2008 at 2:50 am

TeraBrat

MPhil,

I have a feeling you don't know what philosophy is.

That is quite possibly one of the biggest 'foot in mouth' moments I have heard on here for some time.

Tera, yet another bit of friendly advice. Try clicking on someone's user name and reading their profile and/or quickly scanning their previous posts before making denigrating comments about them. (I thought you loathed rudeness BTW?).

It might prevent you from making a fool of yourself.

131. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #198876 by Corylus on June 24, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Just have to say that Al cleared up the feminism statement to my satisfaction too.

I made a different point / sought clarification in a reasonable way and got it.

This works with Al - and is pretty much my style anyway.

----

Tera, you have been posting non stop for a couple of days now. Enough to tire anyone out.

Why not take a day's break and come back to things later?

Plus, I find it best to stick to one thread (two at most) at a time - so I don't get tired and grouchy. Multi-tasking isn't my thing.

132. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198818 by Corylus on June 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Al

Have you seen my family photo?:

Arrh cute!

133. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198807 by Corylus on June 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Phil,

Sounds like a hell of a conversation. I fear this will get worse before it gets better.

134. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198804 by Corylus on June 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Al

Perhaps we could dedicate some time to that?

I can go for that Al.

P.S. I was being playful about the feet, but it makes you feel better I'm sure that they are silky clean, smelling of roses and as soft as the baby's proverbial... :)

135. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198792 by Corylus on June 24, 2008 at 1:40 pm

You are in scrapping mood today Al.

Incidentally, I do agree with you that there are many women who have it easy in the West who should be fighting for other women with a proper sense of priority.

However,

It is directed at every feminist who complains about the "glass ceiling"

You might also be interested in another MP Ann Clwyd,

Ann Clwyd, chosen for a Private Member's Bill via Ballot was pressurised by hundreds of pressure groups in order to publise their group. Clwyd chose the Female Genital Mutilation Bill (to prohibit parents from sending, or taking, their daughters abroad for operations such as female circumcision) By Ann Clwyd speaking about this bill, Female Circumcision was banned in 1985. (from Wiki)

If the glass ceiling keeps women out of the legislature then they are less able to fight for other women's rights.

136. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198735 by Corylus on June 24, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Fanusi

Let's see now, where are the feminists? I mean, surely, surely they will raise hell about this?

*crickets chirping*

They do exist Fanusi. The British MP Ann Cryer is one of them. You might find some of her articles on forced marriage interesting.

http://www.anncryer.com/articles.html

137. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #197735 by Corylus on June 22, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Misael

Thanks for that.

No problem - always best to keep talking. :-)

With regard to the rest of your post...

I think there is an issue with any analysis of history of falling into the abyss that lies between necessary and sufficient causation.

You know I haven't just heard Luther blamed for the holocaust, or eugenics, or the theory of evolution being widely discussed, I have actually heard the Enlightenment as a whole blamed! There is a point when the analysis of causation and the assignment of blame gets ridiculous.

a) the subject is huge

You have got that right!

b) it seemed unlikely it hadn't been gone into, -- for all I know exhaustively -- already.

I yes. I believe a few times on this thread. Why not read back a bit??

---

Oh re talking, if you decide to stick around on here and jabber away as much as the rest of us,(we are all addicted!) above the little text box into which you write your comments you will see "comment posting guidelines" click on that link box and you will get instructions about doing fancy things like putting things in bold and quotes in boxes.

Took me a while to realise it was there. Sigh, technology is not my strong point.

138. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197584 by Corylus on June 22, 2008 at 10:53 am

How vastly peculiar. Seems to be just a marketing ploy to sell a self-help psychology book.

If his point is simply that modern psychology has shown we humans all have our individual crazy ideas, then I have to say that this is neither a novel insight nor a particular shocker.

However, I haven't read it so perhaps I am being unkind. One plus point is the deep amusement I feel at the evidence that someone might be making some pennies off the back of McGrath for a change.

Generally though,... a book about a delusion, about a book about a delusion, about a book...

Puts me in mind of a strange experience I had at work the other week. I was attending training on how to use Powerpoint for delivering training/lectures. It was being given by a trainer using Powerpoint.

I got so distracted by the contemplation of the infinite regress inherent in this situation that I learnt precisely bugger all.

Ho Hum.

139. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197298 by Corylus on June 21, 2008 at 4:01 pm

I've been reading the DI's link concerning Barbara Forrest. The venom is absolutely palpable.

I can't remember what sage came up with the notion that you can judge people by their enemies, but I find myself liking Barbara immensely.

140. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #197281 by Corylus on June 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Misael

Misdirected aggression was how it came across!

I would say vicarious rather than misdirected.

I often find myself more infuriated when thinking about offences against others than I do when I think about offences against myself. Anger on behalf of others is much harder to channel and control than simple anger.

... it's also hard to see how the film, even if it misled "David J", could be said to have "cruelly" injured or harmed him.

Really? Let's put this in context. How many letters to total strangers (not newspapers, but individuals) have you penned because you wish to express your anger and disappointment? What would it take to make you write the letter below?

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!

The quote above appears to indicate a deeply agitated and emotional individual (by the exclamation marks if nothing else).* It is not surprising that he was lashing out in an uncontrolled fashion. He was viewing something he saw as an attack against his family (that vicarious anger again!) and, by extension, himself.

A huge amount of our self image is based upon who our family are, and who our family were. How they lived and worked, and how they died. I'm not Jewish so I can only dimly attempt to understand how magnified this feeling would be if I had family who were murdered in the holocaust.

what he was saying was that he disagreed with Stein on the interpretation of certain historical data.

If this were the impartial debate that you appear to be envisaging then this would be about the facts. It was not about the facts. The facts were deliberately misrepresented. Arguments about facts involve both parties sticking to them.

Civilised debate also necessitates that personal attacks are disallowed. This is not only because emotion clouds the judgement and the truth is often missed, (leading to a waste of everyone's time) but also because basic care for others entails a respect for the privacy of others and a disinclination to cause pain. I agree that Mr J was not physically harmed, but there is clear evidence of emotional harm here.

This Stein individual wasn't just childishly unaware of where emotional sensitivities might lie. He actively sought out scar tissue, he cut it open and prodded. Stuck his grubby little fingers in it and pulled it apart.

There is a technical term for this. (I rarely use such words, but there is really no other way to convey what this is about.)

It is called "mindfucking" and it is vile.

I get angry when I see people indulging in such tactics.

This was all to make a rhetorical point - to play upon other people's feelings in order to persuade them that evolution might be wrong. Why did Stein want evolution to be wrong? Well, I don't believe in psychic links, but I do have a theory on this one...

Stein wanted to demonstrate that evolution could not satisfactorily explain his own infinitely complex and marvellous existence. His narcissistic, selfish worldview demanded that he be at the centre of the universe. The arrogance and egocentrism shown by this man was astonishing and disgusting. He disregarded both the feelings of others and the facts.

This double assault against both countless other people (who have done him no harm) and the truth was breathtaking.

More worthy of an Oxford academic...

Well, well, it does appear that Dawkins is a human being before being an 'Oxford academic'.

I can't say that I am sorry to see evidence of that.

Misael,

I can see how on a first reading you might think that the language used was unwarrented. I am not trying to get at you :-)

However, when I sit and deeply consider this situation I find myself thinking it mild.

---

* There is a alternative possibility that this letter was itself from a deeply dishonest agitator, but let's set that scenario aside for the sake of argument.

[Edit: Grammar correction]

141. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196492 by Corylus on June 20, 2008 at 3:28 am

On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women. The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting.

Oh dear did it put members off their buffet? No politics or religion at the dinner table children!

Rod

I await with bated breath the definition of a "religious scholar".

As others have rightly pointed out this can mean a variety of things.

However, it is not what the UN considers a religious scholar that is the issue; it is what the countries in question consider a religious scholar that is important.

When they must, by definition, be at very least be wearing a dress* whilst at the same time being in possession of a penis... well, then you have a problem.

Particularly with regard to any discussion of women's rights.

*Maybe I'm being unfair here - I'm sure for some moderates the dress is optional.

[/feminist rant]

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195079 by Corylus on June 17, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Brian,

To be honest, I was just winging it yesterday.

Dude, just keep your head down and take the credit: I would :-)

---
[Edit]
Steve

I was too thick.

Steve, you are one of the smartest men I know!

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195021 by Corylus on June 17, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Steve,

By conceding for the sake of argument that evolution could be rejected, Brian moved the argument back to before Darwin.

Yes. Exactly. This is because Brian is a Hume fan ("bless" him!). He was having a bash at the argument from design via the back door.

See Section 4 of the essay. Linked below.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#4

He was not trying to provide an alternate explanation to the argument from design. What he was highlighting is that the argument from design does not work on its own terms. It is an unsatisfactory explanation in that it is open to alternative understandings of what a designer is.

You have to explain, in a series of steps, i.e. logically*, your proof for said designer. You have to explain not only the processes of design, but also why the designer might not just be a bit of a klutz "stupid mechanic" (and hence not god).

"In such subjects, who can determine, where the truth; nay, who can conjecture where the probability, lies; amidst a great number of hypotheses which may be proposed, as a still greater number which may be imagined."

I'm going to rename Brian as Philo.

N.B. This is also psychologically astute in that it bypasses the "stick fingers in ears and sing" response that occurs when you talk about evolution as an explanation.
----

*RtG was either too thick to understand what Brian ment by "logic" or too smart to play the game.

144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194356 by Corylus on June 16, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Same reason you capitalize the "G" in "God"! :-)

Proper noun??

Not to buy into cultural stereotypes at all... but you do know I'm English ;-)

---
Mphil Get some sleep mate!

145. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194340 by Corylus on June 16, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Steve

I wonder what other fundamentalist buttons I press? I am a gay, atheist, evolutionist. I am also a bit left-wing, and don't much like meat. Do those count?

Oh crap, I manage all of these except the gay part. Now, I'll never be a fundamentalist nightmare.

*Sob.*

I'm a failure.
---

Mind you -there could be only one gay Hulk. (Or was that Highlander?)

146. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194309 by Corylus on June 16, 2008 at 3:33 pm

He will show you the way and help you heel from your unnatural desires. (My emphasis)

Nah - no-one is that thick.

Pathfinder are you playing again?

147. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194300 by Corylus on June 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm

RtG

Are you Gay?

I'll let Steve answer that.

[Edit - I see he already has!]

However, I need to know, why the capital 'G'?

I'm genuinely curious.

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194274 by Corylus on June 16, 2008 at 3:05 pm

RtG

What do all atheists scream in the time of danger? Oh God please help me.

Why is this?

I see, so religion is all about fear! I do so agree :-)

(For the record though; not being a wuss; I tend to hold screams in).

---

[Evidence for a creator please]

149. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194162 by Corylus on June 16, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Kardashovel, You're back.

*Waves cheerfully.*

Hope you cooked your wife a nice dessert like I told you to.

----
RtG, do give Epeeist some evidence for your God - there's a good lad/lass.

150. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193792 by Corylus on June 16, 2008 at 3:50 am

Quetz

He may have read the post but he sure as hell didn't get it.

Sigh, I wouldn't take it personally Quetz (just as I don't take anything he says about me personally).

He once told me that Grayling is wrong about this issue too. I mentioned the essay Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?

You are in good company.