151. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #169525 by Corylus on April 26, 2008 at 8:32 am

I have looked at the original article and can see no mention of exactly how old this lad is (just that he is a teenage).

Strikes me that there is a possibility that does not appear to have been considered yet.(Apologies if anyone has made this point and I have missed it).

Is it entirely his choice to wear this damned thing?? I am very suspicious as to the role of his parents in this incident.

He probably is just a bigotted little idiot, of course, but it might be that he is a pawn in a larger game. Some parents have no qualms about using their children to further their own agendas, we have seen this in cases concerning muslim dress and chasity rings.

If this is the case, then it is not his right to free speech that is being breached, it is his right not to be used as ideological capital by others that is under threat.

This one needs further research.

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169287 by Corylus on April 25, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Markg

Arh, Devil's food cake involves chocolate. All good :-)

Measure a 1/4 of the quantity of flour you are using. Add the same amount of cocoa powder, plus 1/2 teaspoon of bicarbonate of soda (add in step 5) This is if you have a sweet tooth....

If you like dark sensuous chocolate cake, measure add 1/3 of the quantity of flour you are using. Add the same amount of cocoa powder plus 1/2 teaspoon of bicarbonate of soda (step 5).

Last minute, stir in betweeb 25g and 50g (whatever feels right)of chopped up chocolate chunks (at least 60% cocoa solid chocolate).

Eat cake, not when warm, not when cold, but at room tempature.

N.B. You can cut in half and add chocolate butter icing*, but that would make you a greedy person - I will not judge you if you do this. I am an atheist with no morals. (However, you will have to wait until cake completely cool if you do this as slimy butter icing is not a good thing.)

Enjoy.

*Equal quantities of butter, icing sugar and cocoa powder (plus couple of spoonfuls of good brandy of feeling really naughty - spoonful of water if feeling virtuous and like filling runny).

[Edit]: temperature is more of problem in that you just have to get to know you own oven. Good rule of thumb: put on moderate/low heat. Then when the smell of cake makes you want to chew the paper off the wall - switch oven off. Allow to cool in oven. Do not open, until totally cool. I know this is hard, but abstinance makes the heart grow fonder ;-)

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169257 by Corylus on April 25, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Remnant

Cake is the universe
Baker is the creator of the cake

That reminds me - it is always a good idea to share knowledge.....

A short digression concerning cake.

Children - ever noticed that sometimes your cakes rise and sometimes they don't??

Why is this! You always measure your flour, butter and sugar so carefully, add three eggs and every time it turns out different. Curses!!

What is going wrong? :-((

The heart of this problem lies with the variation between type and quality of eggs. (A particular problem if you are using good quality, free-range eggs).

Tip from Auntie Corylus...

1)First, get yourself some good electronic scales.

2) Secondly, measure the exact weight of three eggs (with shells). Then use the exact same amount of flour, butter and sugar (ignore the recipe book instructions). Four equal measurements.

3) Cream the butter and sugar together (violently).

4) Add the eggs(briskly).

5) Add half the (seived!) flour, calmly.

6) Fold in the last of the flour (seived with a pinch of baking powder) slowly and gently.

(Remembering to breathe slowly and relax your shoulders when doing this)

Place in a prewarmed, greased cake tin. Into a prewarmed oven.

Perfect sponge cake. Every time.

Thank me later.

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169149 by Corylus on April 25, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Quite right, Rev

P.S. Unlike TruthID I actually understoood your linguist comment. I thought, not for the first time, that your wife is a very lucky lady.

Hope you don't mind me saying.

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169134 by Corylus on April 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm

TruthID, you are not the first person I have had to counsel against posting drunk.

Sleep it off.

156. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #169074 by Corylus on April 25, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I think The TruthID's post to Elli (#4471)is offensive, I just flagged it.

Seconded.

Getting very, very close to my personal profanity boundary...

Remnant Do you think that comment was acceptable??

P.S. Flood.

157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168807 by Corylus on April 25, 2008 at 11:18 am

Remnant

I would not want my children exposed to profanity..

You want to protect them from being sworn at. Understandable. In light of that I do hope you are teaching them to not follow your example of telling people that they are going to hell, merely because they do not adhere to a specific ontological postion - to wit that a God exists.

This is an insult.

When you insult people you get sworn at. Happens. In fact the people that swear are generally those using it as a release to prevent their tempers rising even further.

Anyway, please answer the flood question.

---
For the amusement of the hellbound, godless masses on here I offer up a fundies nightmare.

SouthPark, Harry Potter and rude words in one very tidy one minute video.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8mvrFHcgsc&feature=related

---
P.S. Remnant, again, when did the flood occur?

158. Judge orders La. school district to stop Bible giveaways

Comment #168326 by Corylus on April 25, 2008 at 2:51 am

Clearthinker

David Robertson. You are now capable of signing in under your own name. I have asked you before why you persist in using the 'clearthinker' handle when this is the case. I did not receive an answer.

I can only conclude that David A Robertson is a name you use when you wish to personally attack Dawkins (and hope that he will read your comments) and Clearthinker is the name you use when you wish to quotemine and make snide general comments to cause arguments and discord.

There is a very technical and precise term for this behaviour: it is called shit-stirring.

Kindly desist. Or, as I suspect you do not have the ability to do that, at least do it under your own name. Of course you will then run the risk of your parishioners seeing how much time you spend on an atheist website and what sort of comments you make, but that's just tough.

-----

Admin.
Banning this person from posting entirely is a decision I make no comment about. However, under the rules of this site posting under two names at once is not permitted. I think that it would be a good idea if the account of Clearthinker were revoked.

159. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #167736 by Corylus on April 24, 2008 at 9:44 am

Translyvanian

That's a bit extreme, eh?

Bit out of context would be a better way of putting it :-)

Why not check out the statement he released after having his heart op?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,280,THANK-GOODNESS,Daniel-C-Dennett--Edgeorg

It is a great piece of writing.

160. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167712 by Corylus on April 24, 2008 at 9:27 am

IDiot

There is a difference between an attack on a belief and an attack upon a person.

We all hold on to beliefs that we are emotionally invested in. When someone questions those beliefs we often, mistakenly, think we are being attacked.

Ask yourself, why do you identify yourself as a believer in ID? I suggest because that is what you have been told by people in authority.

That says something about them : nothing about you.

If you are sixteen, you have lots of time to read and learn. Research as much as you can, if after this you still find yourself believing in ID, come back on here and chat.

P.S. Never, ever call yourself stupid. You have managed to spell and use the words 'repulsive' and 'critique' properly. Not many sixteen year olds can do that.

Or, is that something that someone else in authority has told you too?

If so, they had no business doing it.

161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167687 by Corylus on April 24, 2008 at 9:08 am

Remnant

He will not force Himself or salvation on you.

Where were those verses you quoted all of 10 minutes ago... ah yes...

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So, while not forcing himself, he is willing to do it by proxy.

162. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167434 by Corylus on April 24, 2008 at 3:27 am

There is a review of this in the Guardian today.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2275634,00.html

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167019 by Corylus on April 23, 2008 at 2:42 pm

I try to be cheerful, but sometimes I get sad.

Remnant

At times Christians may verbally spar with you but you will not find many that resort to filthy comments and harsh demeaning personal attacks.

This individual is obviously congratulating him/herself on a dignified retreat. However, is incapable of seeing that not one single person on here has threatened them with an eternity of hellfire and being deserving of it.

Not one.

Remnant, go easy on yourself and the people around you.

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166947 by Corylus on April 23, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Steve

It will be changed back very soon.

Good; I would hate to have to call you Mr Hanky.

(South Park reference for Bonzai).

165. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166935 by Corylus on April 23, 2008 at 1:53 pm

[Wanders back from dinner to see if my argument from linguistics has been answered] ...Nope...

Wait a minute... what's this...

Star Spangled Eagle

One stark raving mad mouse.

Oh come on! Ok - complete normality and perfect mental health is just a construct, but I'm kinda sane.

Oh wait, not me you're referring to ;-)

Ha! Guess that makes me both cat and mouse.

----
OT: Site seems to be much quicker now. Thank you admin.

166. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166546 by Corylus on April 23, 2008 at 9:50 am

Ok, lets try something a bit different. (A change is as good as a rest)

Remnant, you don't want to talk about biology, physics or any type of analysis of scientific theory. OK.

Do you take the story of the Tower of Babel literally?

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
(Genesis 11: 1-9)

Do you think this is the explanation for lots of people speaking different languages?

Is this why Finnish grammer is so complicated??

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

Did God have a specific issue with Finns? (Maybe they were the contractors for the tower?)

167. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166303 by Corylus on April 23, 2008 at 5:33 am

artificialhabitat

Winston works in fertility treatments and embryology. His scientific discipline is directly suffering sustained attack by religion right now.

You'd think he'd have noticed that.

He's noticed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3603020.ece

I don't understand the thinking either.

168. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165984 by Corylus on April 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Remnant

Epeeist asked you some very specific questions in comment 165884. This is a long thread, but as you have addressed posts both before and after this comment, I find it hard to entertain the possibility that you have missed it.

However, I like to be fair so I reproduce these questions.

What makes ID science?
What predictions does it make?
How can these predictions be tested and falsified
What tests have been made and what were the results?

I also would be interested in you answer to those questions. Kindly answer politely and remember that uncontrolled emotion will not help your case.

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

Comment #165904 by Corylus on April 22, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Chewmanfoo

I made a choice. I believe it is the better choice.

Interesting statement. So for you belief is 100% volitional?

170. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165672 by Corylus on April 22, 2008 at 2:39 am

Yep Quetz. That is a factor that must be considered.

171. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165666 by Corylus on April 22, 2008 at 2:33 am

Many atheists, he says, misunderstand why people go to church in the first place.

That a fact? There are lots of different reasons for going to church. People are individuals. Having said that, however, I always find it amusing that theists always gloss over one of the main reasons for going to church.

Dating.

There is always lots of talk about 'community' and 'time out for reflection'. No-one ever mentions the fact that church is a place you can go to and check out the local talent, and, bonus, not look obvious while you are doing it.

Also, due to the 'religion makes people moral' canard there is the reassurance that anyone you pick up is unlikely to boil your pet rabbit.

[Edit: Hello there Pewkatchoo nice to see you back *waves*]

172. Gods and earthlings

Comment #164396 by Corylus on April 20, 2008 at 7:41 am

ramiejae

You cannot prove that God has not been there infinetly, anymore than someone can prove it.

So you are an agnostic then?

173. Expelled Overview

Comment #164374 by Corylus on April 20, 2008 at 6:39 am

HaveEngngDegreeHeHe

Then why do so many of us so fanatically support this unproven, illogical theory? The answer is simple:

We want as many "liberated" women as possible to have sex with.

Not my motivation I have to say...

Do you have a specific piece of evidence for this assertion?

174. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164354 by Corylus on April 20, 2008 at 5:35 am

Bonzai

She would rather be lazy than stupid, because "laziness can be fixed, but there is no cure for stupidity".

No-one capable of that realisation is completely stupid. That is either someone with low self-esteem or, more likely, simply a lazy person justifying themselves.

---

Wow - looks like I've missed a real charmer!

I wonder if they ever stop to think that they might be chipping at the faith of the theists that lurk on here, by coming out with such bile.

175. The Child Preachers

Comment #163962 by Corylus on April 19, 2008 at 11:21 am

MPhil

I would be interested in reading that one too.

Wrote something on Rawls myself a couple of years ago. (Very much applied ethics).

Not good enough to publish or do anything further with though - I'll put in on an open file sharing site if you are interested.

If you show me yours, I'll show you mine :P

176. The Child Preachers

Comment #163911 by Corylus on April 19, 2008 at 9:16 am

Santi

I'll have to think about that

.Great attitute :-)

Marjoe, for example, thought through his experience, and even married the hot actress Candy Clark. That's not a terrible way to land.

Well, I don't know who Candy Clark is, but I hope they are both happy!

Only thing I would say about this, is that we only seem to hear about success stories in the media, the stories we are told can be biased...

Anyway, interesting talking to you.

177. The Child Preachers

Comment #163884 by Corylus on April 19, 2008 at 8:46 am

Santa Tafarella

If you have a book to refer me to, I'd be much obliged.

There is a discussion of this in Studying Poetry by Stephen Matterson & Darryl Jones. Their discussion on Blake is only brief, but I would recommend this book anyway as it helped me understand some literary theory.

[Edit: not saying you don't - just that it helped me!]

As for the larger issue, doesn't the fact that Blake uses the Watts hymnal as a foil for his own creative genius make my point? Likewise, Sharon Olds?

If you are asking whether or not Blake would have written that quatrain without Watts, then no, of course he wouldn't. However, I don't think that this is the point that you are making.

In other words, aren't the bindings and loosings (to use Blakean language) of the circumstances of our birth and upbringing the way all of us generate persona?

Maybe. Overall I have to say, that I think you are being a bit inconsistent. In one breath you say that children are more resilient than we think, but you also appear to be seeing art as an envitable product of environment. You can't have it both ways :-)

Look, I do agree with you that art often comes out of suffering. The artist produces it to deal with suffering. Others read it to share another's experience and feel less alone.

However, there is a bigger issue at stake here.

We wouldn't be better off culturally, and Blake wouldn't have been better off in his development, if he were removed from the stresses of his religious environment.

That is like inventing a disease and giving it to people only to increase resistance to the new disease. You don't make people sick just to create antibodies.

Art is a treatment and a solace not an end in itself. You appear to be coming very close to advocating a form of secular theodicy. (Maybe I have misunderstood you though?)

I have enough problems with the religious version.

If we have enough sensitivity to understand art, then we should have enough sensitivity to do without it in a heartbeat, if it means that people (especially children) are saved from harm. I hope you agree with that.

178. The Child Preachers

Comment #163853 by Corylus on April 19, 2008 at 7:28 am

Santi Tafarella

It's startling to hear a BRIT talk about a young artist who talks to God as "weird"--as if he's never read BLAKE!

and

But she attributes her gifts as a poet to the Watts hymnal and her saturation as a little girl in its quatrains.

You know, it isn't commonly known, but much of Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience are a response to; and a parody of; Issac Watt's vile Divine and Moral Songs for Children.

For example, Watts:
Praise for the Gospel
Lord, I ascribe it to thy grace,
And not to chance as others do,
That I was born of Christian race,
And not a heathen or a Jew

Then Blake:
Divine Image
And all must love the human form
In heathen Turk or Jew.
Where mercy, love and pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.

Were her parents abusing her by exposing her in church to all that heaven and hell Bible stuff in the hymnal at a young age?

If they were teaching it as fact YES. If they were teaching it to improve artistic sensibilities no, but they would have been way, way better off with Blake.

Art and poetry and amazing things, but to excuse child abuse, by saying that it increases artistic sensibilities is IMHO missing the point entirely. Art is an amazing thing that adds to our experience of life; but is not the reason for experience. It is not an excuse to impose suffering.

Also, there are poets and there are poets.

P.S. Have you considered the possibility that, if children are emotionally stunted and brought up in an atmosphere of fear instead of love, then becoming artists might just be one of many, many things that they then become incapable of?

179. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162858 by Corylus on April 17, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Cartomancer

....
altar boy
altered boy
whipping boy
church organist
church mouse

layman

Just to be clear. I personally am a dormouse not a church mouse; I wouldn't want to be the penultimate member of that particular pecking order :)

180. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162538 by Corylus on April 17, 2008 at 3:51 am

Egomaniac

Bravo, my fellow atheists!

Your first sentence was a lie. I see you are now moving on to justifying lying...

What if pursuing that lie that they believed in made their lives more fulfilled?

You might want to look at the title of this article and have a think.

Belief in God leading to morality?? Heard that argument before; laughed at it before.

181. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161620 by Corylus on April 15, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Yep - twas me with the bold. I was about to close my tags and my connection when t**s up.

Sorry!

182. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161592 by Corylus on April 15, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Seeker. Of.knowledge With a handle like that and comments like this

What is the smallest fraction?

What is the biggest number?

I am beginning to suspect that you might be a stoner. Dude; toodle off and get some snacks. You know you want to.
Kardashovel hang in there. Head down until the stupid storm passes; people will be able to chat after they are done.

183. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161563 by Corylus on April 15, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I think he did say that he is a philosophy professor, so in a professional sense at least, he is a philosopher

Nah, he didn't say he was a professor - he said he taught philosophy. For all we know he is teaching it at GCSE (16 year old) level at a sports academy in Slough.

Trouble is he is both right and wrong.

Right because:
a) you cannot get an ought from an is.

b) there is a difference between descriptive and prescriptive statements.

c) Objective moral truths do not exist (or, at the very least, if they do there is no way we can have privileged access to them)*

Wrong because:
a) There is a difference between metaethics (which is what he was discussing aka abstract stuff) and applied ethics (what most people on here were talking about aka real life decisions about real people). It's all very well throwing fancy philosophical terms like 'normative' about, and talking about different types of 'statements'. In real life though, you simply have to make judgement calls. Sometimes you just have to say "that sucks: stop it".

b) This brings me to my next point, yes, moral judgements are emotional and often irrational and ... pauses for breath.... sodding good job too . We make moral judgements in light of trying to maximise happiness and minimise harm, if we take emotion out of the equation with a sneer and snide reference to slave morality then what are you left with? Complete relativism? ... f*&k me... ethical egoism?? (Priggish Kantism is one way out of this, but it doesn't float my boat).

It is possible to be aware that making moral judgements on the basis of the 'yuk factor' alone is generally a bad plan, but at the same time taking into account emotional experience.

Because if you ignore emotional experience then you cannot quantify 'happiness' or 'harm' in any realistic fashion; making the whole business a monumental waste of time.

c) Also, [whispers behind hand] those distinctions that philosophers make, you know, those uncrossable lines in the sand, like fact/value or analytic/synthetic... not as clear cut as some make out...

*I am aware the many people, would disagree on this one, but I am putting my personal cards on the table here.

P.S. Bonzai, sweetie, some people manage to study philosophy and still retain their sunny dispositions... just saying :-)

184. The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled

Comment #161199 by Corylus on April 15, 2008 at 2:56 am

David
You can now sign in under your own name, yet you chose not to do that with your posts above.

Why not? I can think of a number of possible reasons for this, but please; do tell us why yourself.

185. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161147 by Corylus on April 15, 2008 at 12:05 am

[Wakes up] I'm going to be grouchy all day now because I didn't get my full nine hours. Hope you're proud of yourself Henri...

Arh, I see Mphil has dealt: good.

186. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161009 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Nah, Henri's no Christian - just a wind-up merchant.

Anyway, fascinating as this all is - I need my sleep. Henri - can you kick off fights at a more reasonable hour in future? Cheers.

187. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160981 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Henri

I'm actually a really nice guy...

.

Is that an expression of desire or fact??

188. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160971 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Henri

No, I behave in 'moral' ways, but cannot rationally say that way is superior to the ways of a cold-hearted assassin.

By calling some action moral (scarequotes or no) you are making a judgement on the matter.

189. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160953 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 3:21 pm

I'm not trolling, just trying to point out common errors which people do not want to hear.

Oh, I see, this is in the nature of a public service announcement.

Deary me and there was me thinking you just wanted to show off for a bit. How stupid of me to have misunderstood....

190. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160946 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Henri

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger"

It is not reason we are talking about - it is passion - and you know it.

Quit trolling.

191. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #160933 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Henri

I refer you to Bertrand Russell, A J Ayer, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Marx, et al, on this matter.

Kaiserkriss

Quoting a few fellow philosophers from previous centuries does not let you off the hook that easily.

Damn straight Kaiserkriss, especially when there is a giant of moral philosophy that he chose to omit.....

DISPUTES with men, pertinaciously obstinate in their principles, are, of all others, the most irksome;except, perhaps, those with persons, entirely disingenuous, who really do not believe the opinions they defend, but engage in the controversy, from affectation, from a spirit of opposition, or from a desire of showing wit and ingenuity, superior to the rest of mankind. The same blind adherence to their own arguments is to be expected in both; the same contempt of their antagonists; and the same passionate vehemence, in in forcing sophistry and falsehood. And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect, that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.

Those who have denied the reality of moral distinctions, may be ranked among the disingenuous disputants; nor is it conceivable, that any human creature could ever seriously believe, that all characters and actions were alike entitled to the affection and regard of everyone. The difference, which nature has placed between one man and another, is so wide, and this difference is still so much farther widened, by education, example, and habit, that, where the opposite extremes come at once under our apprehension, there is no scepticism so scrupulous, and scarce any assurance so determined, as absolutely to deny all distinction between them. Let a man's insensibility be ever so great, he must often be touched with the images of Right and Wrong; and let his prejudices be ever so obstinate, he must observe, that others are susceptible of like impressions. The only way, therefore, of converting an antagonist of this kind, is to leave him to himself. For, finding that nobody keeps up the controversy with him, it is probable he will, at last, of himself, from mere weariness, come over to the side of common sense and reason.
David Hume: An enquiry concerning the principles of morals
[My emphases]

Come on Henri this is a serious story. 'Nuff playing.

192. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160412 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 3:53 am

But now we're all supposed to travel light, be supple, so that we can swap jobs, partners or political allegiances at a moment's notice. But this perpetual state of agnosticism, this lack of commitment, must surely be corrosive.

Well, it seems that belief in belief lies at the base of this author's view. (Trans: the peasants need religion or they will revolt; but us members of the intelligentsia we are above such things).

Patronising idiot.

Or maybe, it is just sour grapes because he doesn't have a part in Dr Who??

193. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160396 by Corylus on April 14, 2008 at 3:13 am

Comment 160188 by Kardashovel

I would be honored to be your second.

Appreciate the offer. I was curious to see if you would make it. Well done.

Unfortunately, looking at what you describe as 'Vox's sandbox' I see that the people are so far away from me that I don't think I would be able to get significant agreement on anything.

I would suggest that it would be more entertaining to debate the ilk on a matter of politics or culture though.

HeeHee now that's funny. One of those pesky European pinkos on there! Anyhow, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. I get cross when non-Brits give me political advice on the running of Britain, so it would be inconsistent of me to do the same to a predominantly American audience.

Again, thanks for the offer, but I'll let you off the hook :)

P.S. In answer to your question:

I cannot fairly represent someone that emphatically believes that there is no God because that is simply foolish ...

Oh, I never say that. I say that there is no compelling evidence for he/she/it and that he/she/it is a non-parsimonious explanation. However when people start giving God attributes (other than just that of a creator) then I am happy to point to inconsistencies.

194. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160087 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 3:54 pm

PBUM

I'm going to bed

Yep me too. All the threads on here recently seem to want to kick off just as I have to snooze. Curses!

195. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160043 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Opps, glossed over this one.

Kardashovel

And I am quite amused at Corylus' offer to argue as a mercenary.

Arh come on. Wouldn't you want me on your side?? Ok, I'm not as scary as some on here, but I am persistent...

Tell you what, find me someone on Vox Day's blog willing to offer that sort of assistance without prompting and I might just go play....

196. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159933 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 12:28 pm

David

What does the 'A' stand for?

Come on.... How about a straight answer for once.

You know you can do it if you try...

197. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159918 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 11:52 am

Quetz

Hee hee. Old partying buddies from your bad snake phase?

198. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159909 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 11:41 am

Personally, I am wondering what the 'A' stands for.

Algernon? Aloysius? Alphonse?

Or maybe something more apposite?

Kaiserkriss

So I wonder what exactly did he ask for us in his prayers? Going from his track record, it would be nice to know before he MIGHT make some claim that his prayers for us have been answered some time in the future.

£87.50 would be nice. Too much month in the money at the moment ;-)

199. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159893 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 11:05 am

I thought that suggestion might cause a response...

Stryer
Objection noted: I didn't have you down as the natural advocate type anyway :-)

I have no idea how it could work. Might be best as a forum thing - trouble is, most people just see the front page and stay there.

Also, the person advocating would have to preface every post in bold with "I am advocating this position not necessarily holding it" to prevent confusion. It would be tough to organise and Logicel is right in that we are all different with different interests.

Maybe, just sometimes suggesting it to people that appear genuine might be a good thing??

Phil has a point - if they tell you to stick your suggestion where the sun don't shine it will give some indication how open minded they are willing to be.

I don't know how it could consistently work in practice.

I suspect I am just thinking about this because I have noticed myself throwing out the odd 'get of jail free' card to people when I feel sorry for them - or I think they are being swamped. Anyway, I always test out ideas by looking into the opposite position. *shrugs*

200. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159888 by Corylus on April 13, 2008 at 10:57 am

I have already told him to get a new login name Diacanu.

Looks like he didn't listen.