151. The Out Campaign

Comment #61359 by Flagellant on August 5, 2007 at 12:37 am

Henri - perhaps you should consider talking to another persistent theist who keeps popping up on the 'Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath' thread. His name is Dianelos Georgoudis and he's very knowlegeable. Be sure, though, to read the whole thread to get every nuance of the discussion, first. While you're at it, I think we ought to call you Nigel Tufnell in view of the similarity of (some of) your views. Would you mind?

In the immortal words spoken by Steve McQueen, 'What else is there to do on a Sunday?'

Well, I suppose there's always Quetz's flea-blown religion; he doesn't yet understand that all proper, meaningful religions have schisms.




Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edited for accurate thread name.]

152. The Out Campaign

Comment #61211 by Flagellant on August 4, 2007 at 7:38 am

This Mary stuff is quite fascinating. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariology ), Pope Pius XII founded the Pontifical Catholic institute for Mariological studies in 1950 at Marianum

At Marianum, one can get a Master's degree in Mariology (2-year academic program) and one can also get a doctorate in Mariology. This Mariological facility has a library with more than 85,000 volumes on Mariology and a number of magazines and journals of theological and Mariological concern.

I was so excited by this that I signed myself up immediately.

Yours penitently for all my disbelief,

Flag


Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

(Did I just type that?)

153. The Out Campaign

Comment #61162 by Flagellant on August 4, 2007 at 2:04 am

Hi Geckoman (583) – about being sycophants

The adulation point you make is without validity, you will find, if you read the whole thread. Indeed, the opposite is true: many of the posts are likely to piss RD off. He got a bit tetchy about people posting to the 'wrong' thread/board, not to mention highly personal and individually-targeted messages. There's lots of that here (no names – no excommunications, lol).

This is an interesting, erudite, eclectic, or funny thread – take your pick. Sometimes it's all four. No names, no swollen heads (Henri).

Veronique – tennis and Spinal Tap

I dunno about the origins of three sets at the most for women – probably something to do with the notion of supposed 'fragile XX', if I may put it that way. It irritates me greatly. (How the men let it through this year beats me.) Then there's the grunting – a point docked every grunt would soon stop the little dears.

Spinal Tap (Dir. Rob Reiner) is a hilarious, satirical 'rockumentary'. Even if you don't like rock (and I don't), it's worth watching. Watch it, V – it's brilliant. To eviscerate Henri's 'joke', Nigel Tufnell is a rather thick rocker (I can't remember if he's the drummer, but that might be too apposite. Perhaps he's a philosophy teacher, as well). Anyway, someone accuses him of being sexist and his reply, looking genuinely puzzled, is 'What's wrong with being sexy?'

V, scottishgeologist, BAEOZ - The 'virgin' birth

I read somewhere recently that, as well as not meaning strictly 'virgin', the term originally may have applied to St Anne - Mary's mother - instead.

And on the same topic, I've always felt that, if God was so much in favour of chaste marriage that he could have found another way, rather than 'making cuckold' of Joseph.

Religious schisms

And for epeeist (and others) Quetz has become (was always?) a deity. He has some disciples. Like all proper religious movements, we're having our doctrinal differences. One of these is about the use of e acute. To start with, steve99 suggested that monotheism should have one. Pillock. It's far more important to decide on what the proper tea (not theft, NB) is.

In the light of this waste of thread space, I'm just off to award myself a hundred lashes. (Actually, I'm just going to Sainsbury's but don't tell anyone, please.)




Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

154. The Out Campaign

Comment #61003 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 9:44 am

I don't think V has seen (or remembers) Spinal Tap.

More importantly, now that women get equal 'payment' at Wimbledon, why aren't they expected to play best-of-five sets rather than best-of-three? Especially as this would add to Henri's enjoyment...



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

155. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60988 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 8:50 am

So, how about this from July 5th Guardian:

A man who called for British troops to be brought back from Iraq in body bags at a demonstration against cartoons said to be offensive to Islam was today found guilty of inciting murder.

One of the others convicted also had a placard saying 'Behead those who insult Islam'. Here's the link to the whole article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,2119522,00.html
Incitement to murder is the crime; it's nothing to do with religion. It looks as though the UK got it right, here.

[Edit: And here's a later article with more detail: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2129235,00.html ]



Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

156. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60912 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 5:45 am

Easy to make the succour/sucker mistake when discussing religion...



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

157. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60901 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 5:25 am

Q, while you're so currently discipular, couldn't you discipline steve99 for trying to suggest that 'monotheistic' needs an acute e? I mean, beware of schisms - that's why I've stirred it up asked epeeist about his views on his acute.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

158. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60889 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 4:42 am

(Switches off bold...)

And while you're at it epeeist, why don't you use one acute e and why do you pass off clips of sabre as epee?

Anyway, welcome back.

159. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60850 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 2:21 am

Thanks for that, bluehillside. D'accord.

While we're at it, pace gcdavis, what on earth is McGrath (an Anglican) doing dealing with the National Catholic Register? I'm not sure that they'll like his

MAJOR FORTHCOMING BOOK: Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution ... [a] magisterial 500+ page analysis of one of the world's great religious movements

(Source: McG's website.)


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

160. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #60835 by Flagellant on August 3, 2007 at 1:00 am

A very well written and persuasive article; it encouraged me to read the McGrath piece, (http://ncregister.com/site/article/3287/) in full. I found more assertions on which to comment. Here are a few:

So curiously I think The God Delusion is written to reassure the faith of atheists who are puzzled by the persistence and, in many places, the resurgence of religion

No it's not; there may be one or two people whose atheism needs shoring up but the majority of Dawkins's audience/readers have positive reasons for seeking his views. The 'acolytes' include 1. People who find religious 'faith' too difficult to accept and who want to find out more about this delusion, 2. People who find the real, i.e. religious, fundamentalists threatening, 3. Atheists who want to read a rational critique of religion, the better to be able to refute more of the unsound arguments they come across and 4. (Lots more positive reasons. Add your own...)

When you read The God Delusion, it's extremely aggressive, it's very dismissive…

No it isn't, you twerp! A major plaint of TGD is that faith has unjustifiably been treated with too much respect and accepted without question as a 'good' thing. (And by the way, the most 'aggression' I've ever seen/read from Dawkins is a slight tetchy aside, on his own website, about people posting to an inappropriate thread.)

The God Delusion works as a piece of writing only if the reader is very ignorant or very prejudiced against religious believers

Speak for yourself. The book works very well for open-minded, inquiring readers and for those genuinely puzzled about why and how 'people of faith' believe as they do. Readers are generally puzzled how faithheads can believe rubbish, not by the alleged 'resurgence' of religion.

Mcgrath's article is far more lucid than his discussion with (the extremely polite and patient) Dawkins on this site. PZ has got the big points but there's still plenty of opportunity for more 'quote-mining' and refutation, though. (http://ncregister.com/site/article/3287/)



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Minor edit for clarity, grammar, and punctuation.]

161. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #60211 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 10:16 am

Hi Russell Blackford (28): I'm not sure that the seatbelt example isn't a good example in discussing trying to change the religious climate. If we stick with legislation, for example, there has to be some sanction to apply if people don't obey the law. I'm sure you know the arguments, but here's a better, and more relevant contribution:

In the UK, we have a generally OK law about racial abuse (Race Relations Act). It has worked pretty well but it has not been helped because the Act allows Jews and Sikhs to conflate race and religion. The overall effect is that, if one criticises their religion, members claim that they are being racially abused. (Interestingly, the Sikh religion specifies the carrying of a dagger that the rest of us might get prosecuted for. Appositely, for this point stemming from seat belts, they were also exempted from motorcycle safety helmet laws.)

There were moves to get the race/religion situation clarified around 1980 – the impetus came from the body responsible for monitoring the situation. It didn't get anywhere. One result of this favouritism is that Mohameddans think they are being discriminated against. Consequently, we have had to enact religious protection laws. Aaargh!

Until we can 'force' religions into the same basket, we in the UK have to get rid of the confusion of race (notionally nature) and religion (notionally nurture). It isn't just a matter of stopping the religiosi's aspirations to political power: they've already got it (some); it has to be taken away.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

162. The Out Campaign

Comment #60162 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:28 am

E with an acute é - there! Q did it! (Personally, I think it was the spirit of Ivor Cutler wot done it.)

Now, I've got to go away and do some serious penance: about atheist strategy, boo hoo!



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

163. The Out Campaign

Comment #60161 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:23 am

Yes, steve99, but my machine doesn't do 'e' with an acute - except off line in Word, of course. Perhaps Q could work a miracle...

164. The Out Campaign

Comment #60160 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

So ten lashes of the cat for my thoughts of apostasy, eh? Oooh, I'll just love that!


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private

165. The Out Campaign

Comment #60155 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:02 am

Thanks, Q, for not having excommunicated me for my subtle 239 proper tea allusion and to all your inattentive acolytes, too.

Thanks, as well, for not having erupted at my suggestion that we should enhance the deity by adding Ivor Cutler. Perhaps others of the faithful could add a few more and, while we remain a monotheistic religion, we could add elements that take it way past the trinity: we could have a 'multiplicity', instead. Wouldn't that be superior? Mind you, we'd have to have a convocation, or a synod, or something to get this formalised. And it might be a bit difficult reciting all those that make up the 'one'. Oh bugger, I'm beginning to go off this religion...

Judas


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

166. The Out Campaign

Comment #60139 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 5:52 am

Oh come on, you surly lot of dissenters & heretics: there's only one proper tea (and it isn't theft) and that's 50% Sainsbury's Red Label and 50% Earl Grey. I know this because Ivor Cutler (now there's a deity to rival Q) used to recommend it. And with milk, too...

167. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #60115 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 3:29 am

As long ago as post 112, Fides said that he was 'going to stick to the point by talking about faith in God specifically.'

In 113, I asked him 'if [he'd] be good enough to tell us exactly which god it is [he had] in mind.'

As far as I can see, this question didn't get an answer. It is non-trivial. (And if it did get an answer, my apologies.)

Further, here's a way of thinking that may just help Fides to judge his actions with respect to his son, assuming that he hadn't begun his abuse indoctrination already:

What would your child choose if he were, later in life, somehow given the information he would need to make an informed choice?

(This is from Dennett, quoting Nicholas Humphrey - apologies if it's been quoted already.)

As people have said to you ad nauseam on this thread, you've already forced something on him when he's not in a position to make an informed choice; he lacks both the experience and the independence to do so.

You should perhaps rethink the issue: tell him that 'Prayer is talking to yourself' and respect his inability to make life-affecting decisions now. Think about the poor little lad being indoctrinated with something of which you do not approve; you'd try to stop it, wouldn't you? Surely you can see that you're not doing him much good. How do you know that, if you were to bring him up god-free, that when he was old enough to make his own decision, he'd choose your particular god, whichever it is? Just stop it all and tell him you'll talk to him about it when he's older (like 'sex', lol).

Please think about this carefully; there are plenty of other things to bring to his attention now. Teach him values, politeness, about nature, and the wonder of the Universe, but not about any god yet, even if you've got a personal favourite.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edited only for signature.]

168. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #59678 by Flagellant on July 30, 2007 at 6:51 am

I'm very pleased that Baeoz has found Walker's extracts from 'Mein Kampf' that indicates pretty clearly that Hitler was far from being an atheist:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

(This is 'clickable', I think.)

I remember a posting a couple of months ago, perhaps from briacoughlanworldcitizen, that showed photos of lots of Nazi memorabilia; they all had quite explicit depictions of 'the one true cross'. Alas, I cannot now find the site. The military insignia: badges, buttons, buckles and whatnot, could be interpreted in only one way. I mean, when they had a perfectly good atheist swastika to hand, why did H's troops get tarred with the superstitious symbol for religious masochism?

So please leave this one, Dianelos, and get back to the beef - both meanings :-).



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

[Edited only to add missing 'signature']

169. Philip Kitcher - Living with Darwin

Comment #59673 by Flagellant on July 30, 2007 at 6:14 am

Yes, it's all about priorities and strategy, isn't it? It's about framing the question, as Kitcher says, without answering it properly. (Mind you, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do that, either.)

First of all, Kitcher seems to want a more just World. So should we perhaps be trying to make a better World before trying to get rid of religion? (Join your local Socialists (lol).) He hopes that rationalism would ultimately triumph over supernaturalism largely perhaps as a consequence of a more just world, because 'religion is a response to harshness'.

This raises the very important point: to what extent should we have temporary alliances (truces?) with moderate religionists (e.g. progressive Episcopalians) to get rid of the extremists? There's no doubt that this would be effective should we be able to co-operate. But it's hard enough to get atheists to agree, let alone co-operate; bringing the moderates in won't make it any easier. Here, very few atheists agree about 'the enemy': some think it's all the religiosi; others think it's initially fundies and those who are beyond engagement.

The moderates present a problem, too: they often see themselves as having more in common with their co-religionist extremists than with mild (sic) polemicists such as Dennett and Dawkins.

So maybe Kitcher has a point. He identifies the militant (militaristic) religiosi as a threat to existence and by that I think he means the US Taleban as well as the real thing. But are the moderates doing their bit? They seem to be more offended by rational attacks on their faith by atheists (skeptical humanists) than by their co-religionists' total nihilism.




Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

170. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59643 by Flagellant on July 30, 2007 at 3:06 am

Want another worshipper, Q?

171. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59641 by Flagellant on July 30, 2007 at 3:03 am

There are HTML commands that turn italic (and bold) on and off. If one style 'overflows' into the next comment, it's likely that a previous poster has not closed the style change command properly. It isn't necessary to look back to find the mistake, just to put in the 'close' command for that style. In this case it was '<', followed by '/', 'i', and '>' - with no spaces and without the quotes. (I have to write it like that, otherwise you wouldn't see it.)

Now, some poor blusher is having to find that they typed >/i>, instead...



We've all done it, V... :-) LOL



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

172. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59635 by Flagellant on July 30, 2007 at 2:39 am

Has that fixed it?



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

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

Comment #59408 by Flagellant on July 29, 2007 at 1:18 am

All this squabble about flags reminds me of frequent conversations I have in the US, when conversing with a 'rural person' (RP):

R.P: Gee, I just love your accent.
Self: Accent, what accent?
R P: You know; your accent; the way you speak.
Self: But I don't have an accent.
R.P: Yes you do - you have a quaint accent.
Self: (with suppressed mock exasperation) No I don't. You have an accent; I don't. I'll prove it to you; OK?
R.P: OK.
Self: I'm going to ask you two questions and I want you to ask me the same questions, afterwards. OK?
R.P: OK.
Self: What language do you speak?
R.P: English.
Self: (Suppressing mirth) OK. What country do you come from?
R.P: America.
Self: OK; now you ask me the same two questions.
R.P: OK. What language do you speak?
Self: English.
R.P: What country do you come from?
Self: England. So you see, I don't have an accent; you do.

LOL



Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

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

Comment #59404 by Flagellant on July 29, 2007 at 1:01 am

I am fortunate to be able to spend part of the Northern Hemisphere winter in Australia. When I'm there, I wear a slightly confrontational tee-shirt. (It says "Only left-handed people are in their right minds".) Everywhere there, people find it a good opportunity to get into conversation. Sometimes, I steer the conversation round to discussing brain hemispheres; at other times, I get round to atheism, somehow. But then, Australia's like that. You have to think about your venue, what you're trying to do, and to whom you're talking (LOL). This forthcoming visit, I'll be trying something more direct, i.e. according to my "signature", below.


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

175. In defense of dangerous ideas

Comment #59185 by Flagellant on July 28, 2007 at 2:38 am

79 Russell Blackford - the subject of pornography has always interested me in a negative way. What's it about? Sex is not a spectator sport. I do not understand why people feel the need for it at the user level. I'd be grateful if you could discuss this with your students and find out what they think about it in this abstract way. I mean, is it a substitute, an aid, a perversion or what, given my maxim? Or is it just that, for cobbers, sex is more of a visual thing, anyway? But I notice that Pinker doesn't mention it above (LOL). I must go and look it up in 'The Blank Slate.' I hope you find this line useful. Thanks, anyway.

176. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59114 by Flagellant on July 27, 2007 at 11:34 am

Oh - I forgot: you'll also have to listen to the rather tedious Alister McGrath, too, What a task!

[Edit: and blow me it's up to 1639, now]

Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

177. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59112 by Flagellant on July 27, 2007 at 11:29 am

Yes, Northern Bright, I found your seminal post most interesting, too. Well put! Not only that, it's really useful. It's just the sort of thing to counter the Dianelos Georgoudis waffle on the 'Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath' thread. All you have to do is catch up with the 1638 posts on the thread and you'll be in business. (LOL)

It seems to me that your points may give him some difficulty. He's certainly very tricky as __J__ and others will attest.


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

178. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58790 by Flagellant on July 26, 2007 at 6:12 am

Well, according to the Dallas News, it's true. The guy is Dr Don McLeroy. He said:

If we can improve standards and get them up to where they need to be, we can really help teachers in the classroom

And I thought Creationists didn't do irony...

See this link for more: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-sboe_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.3bba4d6.html



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.
[Edited for spelling and for signature.]

179. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58570 by Flagellant on July 25, 2007 at 7:59 am

Canuck#1: you've not read the thread very carefully, have you? HARDtalk is a confrontational programme. Richard obviously expected it; I certainly did - I've watched many others being treated the same way.

180. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58564 by Flagellant on July 25, 2007 at 7:45 am

Gosh, fides (112), since you're going to

stick to the point by talking about faith in God specifically

I wonder if you'd be good enough to tell us exactly which god it is you have in mind.

Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private. [Signature edited in.]

181. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58542 by Flagellant on July 25, 2007 at 6:47 am

Oh, come, come...

Many years ago, I used to give talks on something that I knew a lot about. I explicitly asked for questions during the talks, rather than waiting for the end; I felt that answering questions at the time made for a more interesting and informative occasion. Very often I had to answer the same question, sometimes posed aggressively, but I didn't mind: I was never faced with anything difficult and I had the satisfaction of knowing that I had dealt with the issues and got my 'message' across. And if sometimes a questioner 'shifted the goal posts', my attitude was: 'So what?'

It would be useful to have Richard's views on the interview; I certainly wouldn't agree that he 'lost', nor that, given the known format of the programme, i.e. HARDtalk, that he was unfairly treated.


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

182. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58493 by Flagellant on July 25, 2007 at 3:22 am

I'm with Thor (21), Steve99 (74), and deviljelly #1 !! (sorry if I've missed anyone of the same mind) who think this was quite a reasonable interview; you have to understand the Hardtalk programme format (see my post 54) to be able to judge it properly: Sackur always 'grills' his interviewees; he wasn't doing anything special for Richard.

We – the communicants (lol) here – shouldn't expect to find anything new in such an interview but the point is 'Does it give a fair presentation of the Dawkins position?' I have to say that it does. It is a very far cry from the execrable talking down/over from Bill Reilly of Faux, for example.

When you're at the top of your game, as Richard clearly is, it makes a nice change from giving a lecture to be quizzed by someone, even if they sometimes interrupt. Sackur's questioning gave Richard a good chance to express his pov. Remember that he's talking to Joe Public, not the choir.

Richard is often referred to as publicly 'aggressive': a travesty of everything I've seen. On the other hand, even though this is a semi-private forum, I get dismayed by the immediate aggressive/dismissive tone of some posters. I do hope people don't try to de-convert the godly that way…

183. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58416 by Flagellant on July 24, 2007 at 6:17 pm

There seems to be a lot of misapprehension about the Hardtalk programme. It's called Hardtalk because the interviewer is expected to give the interviewee a hard time. I've seen Stephen Sackur give people a far worse time than he gave Richard Dawkins. In general, though, interviewees acquit themselves well if they've got a reasonable position and they certainly get the opportunity to put their case. For us on this site, being well-versed in the arguments, we shouldn't expect to get anything new from the programme. It's naturally a bit frustrating to find that Richard didn't get over quite as many points as we'd have liked e.g. that the vast majority of scientists are atheists for obvious reasons and that in TGD, he had explained, albeit somewhat speculatively, about the evolutionary reasons for religious belief. But, given the programme's format – a robust grilling – to someone unconvinced, the argument was positive.

And just for the record, Richard was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman in Newsnight, within the last year. At the time, I thought I had never seen Paxman so emollient; I wished that he had been more confrontational.

184. Can the rest of us have our planet back?

Comment #57759 by Flagellant on July 20, 2007 at 11:57 pm

Well, it didn't make it on 'Thought for the Day', today...

I wonder if we'll ever get a breakdown of complaints. My guess is that the majority will come from those criticised least in the programme, i.e. those who have succeeded in conflating race and religion.

Anyway, a plague on all their houses; that was the most hilarious (and accurate) anti-religious seven minutes ever.

185. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57430 by Flagellant on July 19, 2007 at 10:12 am

Well, young Paul (1528) did the divine attend to the matter of your endorsement, too?

186. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #57079 by Flagellant on July 18, 2007 at 8:49 am

It has just been announced that four British Mohammedans have been sentenced to imprisonment for inciting murder and/or inciting race crime. The prosecution related to demonstrations outside the Danish embassy in London - remember the cartoons controversy? Placards carried included the delightful 'Behead those who insult Islam.'

Three of the demonstrators were sentenced to six years' imprisonment; one to four years. I can't wait for the detailed reports.

I'm not sure that Mohammedans will take this punishment meekly: the organiser of the protest has praised the imprisoned four unreservedly.

[Minor factual edit]

187. Charles Darwin - Legacy

Comment #56333 by Flagellant on July 15, 2007 at 5:52 am

Tom S - I'm pretty sure it's from Bach's B minor Mass, a lovely piece of music. The specific part is, I think: 'Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi': Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World.

Why should God have all the good tunes, eh?

188. Bush, the ethicist-in-chief

Comment #56133 by Flagellant on July 14, 2007 at 12:18 am

Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate * tells us that, President George W. Bush, in deciding to oppose '...perhaps the most promising medical technology of the 21st century...' (human embryonic stem cell research), had consulted thinkers about the concept of 'ensoulment' i.e. when the soul enters the embryo.

The very question is entirely consonant with Dubya's thinking on most things: centuries old (see TBS, pps.12-13).

*Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate, (London: Allen & Lane, 2002)

189. The courage of their convictions

Comment #51001 by Flagellant on June 21, 2007 at 2:04 am

This is the most uplifting thing I've read in ages: I couldn't quite believe it.

190. Manliness is next to godliness

Comment #49226 by Flagellant on June 11, 2007 at 4:23 am

Stine is a disgusting, unhygienic creature:

He also distributes a list of a real man's rules for his woman. No. 1: "Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down."

The (unisex) rule here is 'No matter what the nature of the transaction, ensure that both seat and lid go down afterwards.' LOL.

191. Adam and Eve in the Land of the Dinosaurs

Comment #49191 by Flagellant on June 11, 2007 at 12:21 am

Next time a faithhead says anything about atheists not doing anything charitable, a suitable retort might be: "Well, at least atheists don't do things like waste 27 million dollars on indescribably awful trash like The Creation Museum."

192. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #49188 by Flagellant on June 11, 2007 at 12:00 am

This is a most interesting, unexpected, and welcome piece from C. S. Lewis. In particular, consider

If we must have a tyrant a robber barron is far better than an inquisitor.

This isn't quite what one might expect from the author of Mere Christianity. It leads one to wonder if this statement has any relevance to political situations today. For example, if we compare Iraq under Saddam Hussein (robber baron) to its current mess (inquisition), Lewis seems to have a point. Under Saddam, it was of little importance if one was Sunni or Shia; people were, I understand, sometimes punished for praying too much: the Shia were also forbidden their public, ritual flagellations. Most importantly to my mind was the status of women: one saw none of this 'bodybag' nonsense.

What of the current situation? (Never mind what is being attempted.) The nutcases are in de facto control, the place is ungovernable, and there are more than two million refugees from this imbroglio. And, for women, the place is getting more like Saudi Arabia (see http://richarddawkins.net/article,1246,In-Saudi-Arabia-a-view-from-behind-the-veil,Megan-K-Stack-LA-Times ) every day.

And, besides Iraq, there's Iran: Shah (robber baron); Khomeini; Ahmedinejad's mob (inquisition)... Yes, it works there, too.

[Oops! Minor editing to aid intelligibility.]

193. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49042 by Flagellant on June 10, 2007 at 4:25 am

Yes Logicel, I second your compliment to Dianelos. At the beginning, I had the impression that Dianelos was going through a crisis of faith and that he was considering changing his position from theist to atheist. Then, I thought it might be that he was wanting to get some material together on how atheists think/behave, as you perhaps imply. If so, he's got a lot to be going on with. LOL

194. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49020 by Flagellant on June 10, 2007 at 2:58 am

epeeist (474): I love your version, arrived at via Dr Benway:

There are some problems that science has not yet solved or are in a domain where science is not appropriate. This gives me a gap into which I can insert god.

In (201), I said to Danielos:

...it means that you have a world view with 'god' just tacked on as an afterthought. Why not knock it off altogether?

Why not, indeed? It seems the answer boils down to 'Because it makes me feel better.' Never mind the comfort value, though, is it true?

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

Comment #48803 by Flagellant on June 9, 2007 at 5:21 am

In the UK, the Race Relations Act does a reasonable job of creating a society in which racism can be dealt with. However, it has one great flaw: it allows religions such as Sikhism and, in particular, Judaism, to conflate race and religion. As a consequence, legislators have to think up new laws to protect religious sensibilities - Islam in particular - because Christianity is already protected by Blasphemy laws. Although the Blasphemy laws are never likely to be used again(they were last used, unsuccessfully, in The Trials of Oz - 1976, I think), they exacerbate the tensions.

All religion should be fair game; instead of coming up with new ways further to privilege religion, we should be looking for ways to reform the Race Relations Act. Such a measure was proposed round about 1980, but nothing happened.

In the interests of the community harmony you seek, Rabbi Sacks, how about asking for the Race Relations Act to be suitably amended?

196. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48447 by Flagellant on June 8, 2007 at 2:03 am

Re http://www.asktheatheists.com/ congratulations to all involved. Well done!. F

197. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47934 by Flagellant on June 6, 2007 at 4:31 am

Hi Dianelos, your 255 post to Logicel, the first part in particular, was terrible. As you may have noticed, I have been asking that we should indulge you. With that in mind, perhaps you should consider whether or not you need a longer rest...

198. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47903 by Flagellant on June 6, 2007 at 2:13 am

Hi Logicel, and others, I think we ought to give Dianelos Georgoudis a bit of a break. In his post 214, he said

My problem is that I have invested an extraordinary amount of time in this forum during the last few days, and even so the number of posts I would like to respond to has grown. I really can't keep up with this pace any longer, and would like to ask you and the other posters here for your understanding if I respond much slower in the future.

I'm not at all surprised at his asking for a bit of forbearance. I answered, saying that it was OK by me. My perception is that Dianelos has made a very serious attempt at engagement, unlike (say) devolved and the flea and that we should extend every courtesy, including that of giving him more time to respond. I'm glad of the respite, too; it must be murder for him.

199. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47654 by Flagellant on June 5, 2007 at 7:13 am

That's just great, Dianelos (201). I had guessed that you might be under some pressure from us all. Like you, I have another life to lead. We probably all have. LOL.

200. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47613 by Flagellant on June 5, 2007 at 4:26 am

Hey guys, (alovrin, USA_Limey) it wasn't a criticism, just an observation (to Dianelos) about what I thought were rather pithy judgements. I think we have to be aware firstly of what we're trying to do and secondly of the nature of the disputant with whom we're 'talking'. We're trying to persuade people to our naturalistic point of view. I agree that there are idiots to whom you just say 'Piss off!' but there are others with whom you have to engage on their (waffling) terms and keep at it until they say ridiculous challengeable things.

But it's great having colleagues joining in the debate in different ways: the one-person opposition gets overwhelmed with quantity, as well as quality.

So no apologies needed; I'd sometimes like to be more concise, too.