201. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228416 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:20 am

212. Comment #228415 by decius -

Splitter.

202. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228414 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:19 am

Quetz -

Why humanities? Simple, really. The others subjects I'm interested in require maths that is far too hard for me (Physics, Cosmology etc). At least, too hard for the level I would like to study them too. History, Economics, Politics, Philisophy etc. hold an abiding interest for me. It would be nice to do something different.

If it had to be a science subject, then perhaps Biology would be an option. Not least because I didn't do it at A-Level. If one has to draw artistic pictures of things, however, I'd be totally fucked.

I don't really fancy doing theology, by the way. After all, writing, 'Because the author was an wilfully ignorant fucktard' in all of my essays, is unlikely to result in a 1st Class Honours degree, despite the accuracy of the statement.

203. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228412 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:11 am

Do you think he'll have his cheque book buried with him?

204. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228408 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 3:06 am

Steve - If we both survive long enough, care to joy me in my 'watering' expedition?

205. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #228405 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 2:56 am

199. Comment #228396 by Steve Zara -

Now, is that true David received a death threat on RD net?

No, it is not true. It was a joke in very poor taste, that was retracted.

206. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228392 by irate_atheist on August 12, 2008 at 2:26 am

On the whole, I would prefer more science in pupils.

207. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228017 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 9:27 am

Al -

As we all know, the whole tech sector was marked down after the dotcom bubble burst - the good, the bad and the ugly.

As you imply, once the liquidity crisis is over, re-ratings of all stocks will be on everyone's minds and a lack of exposure to this marked-down sector could result in an underperfoming portfolio.

Whaddya say TWP - Al has the ultimate medium-term cash-cow waiting to be milked. All he needs is loads of your cash. Go on - you know it makes sense.

208. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227967 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 5:24 am

145. Comment #227966 by Mark Jones -

He'd probably agree that the Catholic's shouldn't be allowed to get their hands on young children and 'teach' them their beliefs. On the other hand, the FCOS...

209. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227955 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:51 am

151. Comment #227953 by Steve Zara -

It certainly seemed to be a trigger.

210. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227951 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:44 am

141. Comment #227947 by BillySands -

Indeed. Thank fuck I got at least one person out of this insanity.

211. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227949 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:40 am

146. Comment #227945 by decius -

Too many aerosol products:

"Mr Sheen - shifts, shields and shines."

212. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227948 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:38 am

TonyA -

Let's face it, the long-term prognosis for humanity is not good.

"Abandon hope all yea who enter here."

213. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227942 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:32 am

143. Comment #227939 by Steve Zara -

Maybe he will come to his senses again. He has before, after all. Relapse - remission - relapse - remission. And so the wheel turns.

214. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227937 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:24 am

Phil-

However, like the train wreck, an attentive observer can learn a lot. I'm just not sure what it is, however.

215. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227934 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:18 am

135. Comment #227920 by TonyA -

Class, sheer class.

216. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227933 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:15 am

Phil -

Regrettably, you can lose the 'cuddly' from that description. And I write those words with genuine sadness, I really do.

217. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227930 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:12 am

Quetz -

Too slow, too slow. Never underestimate the posting ability of a man with three internet circuits at his disposal.

218. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227926 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:08 am

Excellent - I've found it. It is reproduced below - unedited - in all it's glory.

It was rather a good post Richard.

As the author, would you care to comment on it for us?

101. Comment #21198 by Richard Morgan on February 8, 2007 at 2:07 am

Mental illness. Neurosis/psychosis.

I have placed these words at the beginning of my comment in the hope that they will attract the attention of so many of my fellow atheists who are missing an important point when condemning Alister McGrath and his ilk.
Childish name-calling has the unfortunate tendency of discrediting otherwise valid arguments and the use of expressions such as: "A religious lunatic", "complete prat" and "lazy and complacent or perhaps just scared" apart from being in bad taste, are also untrue where people like McGrath are concerned.
The important point (which Dawkins has understood in his biologist's way) can be found in the pages of this site. We just need to apply a little first-year psychology to understand it.
In an interview, McGrath tells us:

"My parents (my father was a medical officer of health for Co Down; my mother was nurse at the Royal Victoria Hospital) belonged to the Church of Ireland and I tagged along to services most unwillingly, and when I was a boarder at Methody there were compulsory services, which I didn't like at all. But my parents were very good at letting me find my own way - but my way at that stage was reacting against the whole thing."

So, whether he liked it or not, his childish and susceptible mind was exposed to and conditioned by what we can call "religious thinking" (as others talk about "magical thinking"). The ideas and notions were planted in a mind ready to receive anything and everything; he was, if you like "programmed".
As a teenager, he "reacted against the whole thing" which is normal adolescent behavior. Had his parents been foaming-at-the-mouth Marxists, he may have reacted against that by reading the Bible and going to Mass. But in his case, atheism gave him the thrill of rebelliousness and the new-found independence from parental influence that adolescents are genetically programmed to seek.
Then he went out into the big bad world. Where did he find comfort? From other atheists? No. Rather it was in the company of people who were telling him, in a new way, things he was already programmed to accept and therefore "know".
Therefore it is perfectly logical that he should be able to say:

"First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life."
Without realizing it, he was "coming home" â€" psychologically speaking.
(Heck, even the writer of proverbs in the Old Testament understood that: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22.6
That is a neat bit of writing â€" it talks about "a child", skips over adolescence and continues with "when he is old". Exactly what happened to McGrath!)

Add to all this some interesting ideas found in the Benedict Carey article:

Children exhibit a form of magical thinking by about 18 months, when they begin to create imaginary worlds while playing. By age 3, most know the difference between fantasy and reality, though they usually still believe (with adult encouragement) in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. By age 8, and sometimes earlier, they have mostly pruned away these beliefs, and the line between magic and reality is about as clear to them as it is for adults.
It is no coincidence, some social scientists believe, that youngsters begin learning about faith around the time they begin to give up on wishing. "The point at which the culture withdraws support for belief in Santa and the Tooth Fairy is about the same time it introduces children to prayer," (Do You Believe in Magic? by Benedict Carey, NY Times)

….and the whole McGrath phenomenon makes sense. He's doing what he's been programmed to do.
I seriously liken all this to neurosis/psychosis (Freud was there before me!!) in the sense that attitudes and feelings are based on mental constructs that are not directly derived from sensorial experience of an external reality. Beliefs are not based on experience, but they shape the interpretation of the experience. "I see what I believe" is often just as true as "I believe what I see." (Maybe more so, but that is another discussion.)
Take paranoia for example. If I have slight paranoid tendencies, when I get on a bus I may have the unpleasant sensation that people are looking at me, judging me, and/or having unfriendly thoughts about me. I feel uncomfortable, because a part of me believes it is true, while another more rational part doesn't, so I am thrust into uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.)
However, if I am a fully-fledged, card-carrying paranoiac, I absolutely know for sure they are having evil thoughts about me. And if questioned, I will be able to advance some seemingly solid reasoning. (Ask any psychiatrist â€" psychotics can appear remarkably reasonable!) I have no doubts about it. In fact, I may have to kill them before they kill me! That is what psychosis is all about â€" acting out delusions.
So it is easy to see how people grow up to become believers â€" in varying degrees.
We have our gentle neurotics (in a recent survey in France, it was discovered that 50% of French people claim to be Catholics, and 50% of those Catholics claim to be atheists! Don't you just love those French people?,) the most harmless being perhaps C. of E. Then there are the murderous psychotics who destroy New York sky-scrapers, or bomb innocent families in the search for non-existent weapons of massive destruction.
So, my friends, there is no point insulting theists. They weren't reasoned into their neurotic/psychotic delusions so they will never be reasoned out of them. Cured, perhaps, but not reasoned. They are only behaving as they were programmed to do. And perhaps we atheists were programmed, in some way, to become atheists.
Quem sabe? (lol)
Efforts like those made by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are enormously useful in helping people who are in the process of curing themselves, or of being cured of their neuroses. There is, at the same time, a danger of their provoking the anger of the psychotics who may then feel obliged to act out their illusions. But that, too, is another discussion.
But please, let us remain above insulting the mentally ill, because it won't stop them from being ill. And unfortunately they are usually beyond the influence of reasonable argumentation. But by all means, let us share our ideas here on this site â€" we all need encouragement and moral support form time to time.
As that wonderful French author Frédéric Dard (SanAntonio) said:
"If God was able to create this whole universe and all that is in it without even existing, well, that is a real miracle."

219. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227923 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 4:01 am

129. Comment #227921 by Quetzalcoatl -

What you really wawnt to quotemine are the old Richard Morgan posts. Especially the rather eloquent one where he compared religious belief and mentall illness, where he said that the adults we saw - Alastair McGrath in the specific - had been indoctrinated as children.

Fuck, I wish I could dig out that post. Perhaps I will.

220. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227919 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 3:51 am

127. Comment #227917 by Quetzalcoatl -

Quetz. By RM's standards of intellectual honesty, his 123. Comment #227907 by Richard Morgan is a ringing endorsement of this thread.

good

221. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227915 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 3:40 am

123. Comment #227907 by Richard Morgan -

You claim to be loved by a 2,000 year old jewish zombie.

Now who's the fool?

222. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227899 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 3:00 am

129. Comment #227898 by Quetzalcoatl -

I literally have very great difficulty understanding how someone can honestly believe this.

223. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227897 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 2:51 am

127. Comment #227896 by Philip1978 -

I'll take the option to burn the hostage, thank you very much.

224. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227895 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 2:47 am

124. Comment #227890 by Philip1978 -

So what was the cause of this downfall then David, Satan? Atheists?

225. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #227885 by irate_atheist on August 11, 2008 at 2:25 am

Hopefully people watching this show will realise what a crock of shit religion is. Hopefully it will dissuade some from going anywhere near any of the fucknuts.

The not my religion defense? Fuck off - yes it is matey.

226. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227571 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 10:04 am

56. Comment #227525 by Old Sarum -

Can someone tell me why many of the comments here carry numbers & names but no text? Is it some kind of bug with the site or is my browser at fault?

227. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227567 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 10:00 am

455. Comment #227556 by JAMCAM87 -

I mean I could see these sorts of fallacies when I was a child, can you not be persauded now?

228. Neanderthal DNA Shows They Rarely Interbred With Us Very Different Humans

Comment #227561 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 9:51 am

55. Comment #227418 by Laurie Fraser -

Don't make me jealous.

I missed it.

229. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227494 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 3:16 am

446. Comment #227493 by decius -

"Is this a sock-puppet I see before me?"

230. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227489 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 2:56 am

443. Comment #227485 by Steve Zara -

Indeed. If I recall correctly, he was saying - in his posts - that he was banned from posting on the site. The fact that he was posting on the site seemed to have escaped him.

He is a total bampot - a danger to himself and anyone stupid and credulous enough to be a member of his cult.

231. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227482 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 2:32 am

109. Comment #227481 by BillySands -

His position is simple: Legs akimbo, body bent over double and head stuck up his own arse.

232. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227479 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 2:26 am

441. Comment #227473 by decius -

Comment #227447 by clearthinker

the reason I have posted under several names is because I was banned at least four times

233. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227474 by irate_atheist on August 10, 2008 at 2:05 am

Hmmm...so was that another shit-and-run by Rev. David Robertson?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is left for the reader to draw their own conlusions about this mendacious individual.

234. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227123 by irate_atheist on August 9, 2008 at 11:31 am

83. Comment #227072 by clearthinker -

I will try to set poor Steve's mind at rest. (Sorry there is not much I can do about Irate's...miracles are beyond me.)

235. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227121 by irate_atheist on August 9, 2008 at 11:26 am

337. Comment #227119 by Steve Zara -

Surely you can equal the humility and ability to learn from mistakes of an atheist?

236. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227118 by irate_atheist on August 9, 2008 at 11:22 am

333. Comment #227114 by clearthinker -

I think that spiritual death was a result of the Fall - I am also curious as to how the fall affected the rest of the environment - because I think it did.

Of course my viewpoint will be immediately lampooned - but then I would expect that. Ducks quake, a Scottish summer has lots of rain and atheists automatically mock when anyone speaks of miracles, sin or the Fall.

237. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #226973 by irate_atheist on August 9, 2008 at 4:16 am

David Robertson - Had any more luck balancing your cheque book recently?

And, more importantly, answer Dr Steve Zara's question.

238. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226546 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 8:50 am

230. Comment #226544 by kaiserkriss -

I have a problem with any lawyer who regards that evolution is controversial and that cretinists should be pandered to. In fact, I have a problem with anyone who thinks evolution is controversial and that cretinists should be pandered to.

239. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226538 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 8:36 am

224. Comment #226537 by Quetzalcoatl -

Ditto.

240. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226528 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 8:23 am

Comment #226509 by epeeist -

I see you more as a forward defensive man, myself.

A bit like Barnacle Bailey.

241. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226506 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 7:29 am

257. Comment #226494 by King of NH -

How? Is Ralph Nader running again?

242. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226505 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 7:27 am

Quetz -

He will be my former boss in three weeks time. Oh, what a shame.

btw I stuck a link to that loon on the 'Libby Purves is an uneducable dullard' thread.

243. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226500 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 7:17 am

Steve -

When you write 'the universe really is dull!' do you actully mean that a subset of it is dull? Bognor Regis, on a Sunday afternoon in November, for example.

244. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226498 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 7:14 am

200. Comment #226496 by Quetzalcoatl -

Perhaps the simulators created Pilchards expressly for the purposes of aggravating you?

245. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226495 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 7:00 am

Bonzai -

Politics, Philosophy and Economics.

246. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226491 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 6:56 am

Quetz -

That still doesn't explain Pilchards.

247. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226489 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 6:51 am

Quetz -

Of course we're not in a simulation. What intelligent being would come up with the concept of 'Wooter'. Or Pilchards.

248. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226487 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 6:47 am

Comment #226483 by Steve Zara -

I just thought I'd show how inane the conclusion was. Written by someone who doesn't even understand what 'empirical' means. What a twonk.

Fuck, Steve, why didn't I do PPE instead of Engineering Sciences? Any ideas?

249. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226482 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 6:32 am

Al -

Feeling a bit 'peaky' today, are we?



Ohhhh noooooo!!!!!! He's heading straight for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

250. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226474 by irate_atheist on August 8, 2008 at 6:14 am

186. Comment #226466 by Fionn -

The whole paper argues from a false premise to setup a false dichotomy as a conclusion.

You cannot assert that "Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation."

After all - why should we in the specific be living in a simulation in order for our descendants to be - in the future - capable of doing so.

Unfounded assertions are made in the paper about future technological capabilities, hand-wafting pseudo-scientific calculations are performed and - hey presto - after pumping in large enough made-up numbers, the statistics show we are probably in a simulation.

GIGO.

I wonder if the author and Prof. Alastair McGrath get along well.

Edit: You only have to pull apart just two sentences in the 'conclusion' to show this is based on wish-thinking and not fact: "A technologically mature "posthuman" civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true:...." Empirical? Fact? Please - show us this empirical fact for the technological level of just one 'posthuman' civilization.