251. Beware the Believers

Comment #151863 by Corylus on March 29, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Nevermind, Richard .

Look on the bright side. The English accent in this one was much better than the South Park episode.

252. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151423 by Corylus on March 28, 2008 at 5:02 pm

I suspect that this might just be biased reporting from Christians not being able to move outside their frame of reference, but this does sound pretty mawkish.

What's interesting about this non-church is some of its churchlike aspects. There's a hymn book, talks that sound like homilies and, at one point, an actual collection plate passed through the aisles after one song.

One tangible plus point for atheism is a lie in on a Sunday and no group conformity forcing you to give cash away to others without reason. Sorry, stuff that.

253. Iowa county board gives initial OK for ghost hunters to investigate asylum

Comment #151402 by Corylus on March 28, 2008 at 4:09 pm

It is interesting the buildings that people deem to be liable to haunting. They are often buildings associated with death like morgues or regular hospitals. Ok. This is understandable. Lots of people dying in one place, if you are going to find ghosts anywhere it will be one of those places.

However, other buildings seem to get picked not because of deaths occurring, but by virtue of the fact that people find them intimidating. Courthouses, jails etc. and, as it appears here, mental hospitals.*

Brandon Cochran, museum operations assistant for the historical society, said there have never been reports of ghosts or bizarre happenings at the building and bringing in a paranormal team is "kind of taking the pre-emptive approach."

What is it that people find so intimidating about these places? I can only conclude it is the residents. What sort of attitude does it show towards the mentally ill that this place is considered a possible haunting site?

Maybe I am being unfair and it is simply because the building is old and just looks unappealing?? Fine. Renovate it.

This worried me.

Chatham Oaks officials said there wouldn't be a problem with the paranormal team coming in as long as it didn't disturb residents.

These people are vulnerable, changes to routine and unfamiliar faces can cause a great deal of distress. You cannot assume that something that would not disturb a resident of a regular hospital will not disturb a resident of one of these places (especially a long term resident, set in their ways).

I do not think there are ghosts here. However, I am more worried about this shows about attitudes towards the residents than unthinking acceptance of the paranormal.

* The one exception to this is old public houses, which are fun places, however, the increased profits made by people visiting pleasant 'haunted' establishments (and owners spreading rumours accordingly) might account for this one.

254. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150258 by Corylus on March 26, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Not very smart are they?

The trick is not to mention the atheists/pagans/homosexuals etc, in public. Just concentrate on talking about mutual love and respect and what we all share.

That way you manage to exclude without looking like an ignorant bigot.

Of course, you can badmouth anyone you like when you are all believers together sitting in a room with no heathens or gays listening.

But you just have to pick your time.

Sheesh! So much to learn....

255. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #150119 by Corylus on March 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm

The girl has three siblings, ranging in age from 13 to 16, the police chief said.

What a vile conflict that the surviving children will have to deal with. Either believe that God was enough of a bastard to deem their parent's faith not strong enough and let their sister die or come to the conclusion that the negligence and ignorance of their parents killed her.

Either way - pure love where it is expected is lacking. Someone has let them down. Badly. They now have a childhood experience that no-one they meet will be able to understand or relate to. Telling potential friends and; when they are older; partners about this will be a huge hurdle to overcome. Trust will not come easy.

They will be indescribably lonely.

256. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150066 by Corylus on March 26, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Well, that year went quick!

Happy returns RD.

257. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149662 by Corylus on March 26, 2008 at 4:39 am

Right, I am yet again marking Clearmind as a troll. The issues have been patiently explained to him again and again. For anyone interested in replying to him see this thread where a huge amount of information was given to him.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2352,Two-More-Fleas,RichardDawkinsnet

N.B. He seeks responses by stating that he is a teacher: knowingly full well that certain types of people hate to think of chldren being lied to and will respond to his drivel.

If he is a teacher then I'm the pope.

258. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148954 by Corylus on March 24, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Quezcotal (Comment 173)

We already have someone else on here named after that particular deity (different spelling). Someone who is extremely polite.

It might be best if you got yourself a new login name.

259. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148945 by Corylus on March 24, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Spinoza

I think the vast majority of creationists are honestly unaware of an alternative and a few are simply lying to themselves. However, I am willing to consider the possibility that there is a very small percentage who are knowingly lying.

There could be a variety of explanations for this. Maybe it is due to fear about what the general public will do if they no longer believe (the centre will not hold etc.) It maybe something as nasty as simple profit (there is money in preaching). Or it may be something as utterly vile as enjoying deceiving others in order to give oneself a feeling of power.

What do I base this on? People who are honest, people who are lying to themselves and people who are lying to others tend to make different types of statements and use different types of strategies.

It is impossible to look into the minds of others, of course, (bugger it - can we even do this with our own?!) Plus, there are also perilous waters between type 1 and type 2 errors.

However, I have to say though, that the evidence is leading me to the conclusion that some of them do indeed know that they are lying.

Emotionally, I find it hard to understand as well; I just cannot explain certain actions in any other way.

260. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #148935 by Corylus on March 24, 2008 at 5:09 pm

One example is the treatment of the philosopher Michael Ruse: a decent man, bluff, bearded, articulate, and with a genuine and sincere desire to explain difficult ideas clearly. Stein asked Ruse how life originated. Ruse's immediate impulse (as mine would have been) was to launch into an honest effort to explain a difficult scientific idea.

That is what I find so reprehensible about this whole film. Honest people assume that people ask questions because they want to learn things. Accordingly, they do not simplify for the sake of expediency. Honest people try to supply people with as many relevant facts that they can, with the assumption that the truth will out.

Dishonest people use this impulse against them and spin it as uncertainty. It takes a practised liar to do that, someone who has spent time and effort spent learning that particular art.

The more I understand about the cynical and systematic techniques of habitual liars, the more I despise them. Also, the less I am willing to charitably assume that they are only acting in that fashion because they are childishly lying to themselves.

261. John Templeton: God's sugar daddy

Comment #148503 by Corylus on March 23, 2008 at 8:12 am

Years later, Dr. Templeton repaid the favour by giving up his medical practice to help safeguard his father's legacy; a legacy summed up in the Book of Matthew's parable of the hidden treasure.

I see. Stop with the hard work looking after sick people and look after a heap of money instead. Reading about such wondrous self-sacrifice and care for others makes me go all gooey inside.

Is it possible to prosper too much? The heir to the Templeton legacy thinks not.

"The more you have," he says, "the more you can give away."

Yes, and the more superior you can feel when you do so.

Daddy sounds unusual and psychologically fascinating. Junior, however, sounds dreadfully common.

262. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148490 by Corylus on March 23, 2008 at 7:51 am

As a godless, atheistic Marxist.

Whenever, I see someone make such a determined, up-front effort to establish their credentials, I know to be on the look-out for the unsubstantiated (and often idiotic) statement to follow.

...Arh, here it is! (Didn't take him long).

Only someone with the brain of an Easter egg could seriously believe that the influence of religion over our lives is on the rise today.

We recently had an archbishop talking about accommodating sharia.

Prat.

263. The death-of-god debate

Comment #148486 by Corylus on March 23, 2008 at 7:40 am

Gray's attack on Dawkins is anything but disciplined....This is Tony Blair's trick (in opposing a "naive, outdated socialism") of using qualifiers to get inconvenient nouns off the hook.

That is the smartest thing I have read this weekend.

264. EXPELLED!

Comment #147640 by Corylus on March 21, 2008 at 3:38 am

I'm in quoting mood...

The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it, but there it is.

Winston Churchill.

and

When men no longer have the least fear of saying something untrue, they very soon have no fear whatsoever of doing something unjust.

Theodor Haecker

Incidentally, the second quote was written by a serious Christian. I doubt the makers of Expelled will have heard of him though.

These people are the pits. I have to take this a bit seriously.

Mind you, I can't help laughing at the thought at the entrance staff who missed RD and are now doubtless getting one hell of a telling off...

265. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146408 by Corylus on March 19, 2008 at 4:03 am

Happiness is a hugely complicated subject. Lots of variables to consider. If this study is correct then we need to ask "What factors might shed light on a correlation between religion and happiness?"

Personally, I suspect that Paula is right and a lot of this is boils down to opportunities for socialisation. We are (mostly) social animals. Churchgoing is just opportunity for meeting people and fostering relations.

Here is a fascinating interview with the psychiatrist Anthony Clare on the subject of happiness.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/a-trip-to-the-psychiatrists-chair-in-search-of-happiness-1210788.html

What I do object to is this bit (my emphasis)

But Justin Thacker, head of Theology for the Evangelical Alliance, said that there should now be no doubt about the connection between religious belief and happiness.

"There is more than one reason for this - part of it will be the sense of community and the relationships fostered, but that doesn't account for all of it.

The implication here is that it is actually God himself that is making people happy; that this is some type of miracle.

Whether God makes people happy and whether religion makes people happy are two completely different questions. I suspect many religious readers of this article will unthinking conflate the two.

266. The atheist delusion

Comment #144090 by Corylus on March 15, 2008 at 4:26 am

Groan, John Gray!!

I thought his previous stuff was annoying, but looks like this new book is going to be even worse, especially if this is anything to go by...

There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace.

Wha? Is his saying that China's one child policy is enacted because of atheism? Is his saying that atheists generally seek to dictate how people express sexuality? Dear me.

The trouble with John Gray (who, heartbreakingly, is a smart and well read man) is that he takes the whole thinking dialectally business to unbelievable, ridiculous extremes. Yes, looking at hidden aims and agendas can yield insights. Yes, looking at points of opposition and resistance is fascinating. However, you cannot view all politics and thought in stark delineated, oppositional terms. (You make yourself look like a paranoid wally if you do).

It is possible to have new ideas and attempt real progress as opposed to being in a constant state of flux. I smell a case of Foucault overdose (amongst other things).

Anyways; an antidote by A.C. Grayling :-)

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1423

267. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143664 by Corylus on March 14, 2008 at 9:39 am

Chris Hedges

I think he's completely amoral. I think he doesn't have a moral core. I think he doesn't believe anything. What's good for Christopher Hitchens is about as moral as he gets.

Well, I think the best response to this is a direct quote in evidence.

Christopher Hitchens

I do not set myself up as a moral exemplar, and would be swiftly knocked down if I did, but if I was suspected of raping a child, or torturing a child, or infecting a child with a venereal disease, or selling a child into sexual or other slavery, I might consider committing suicide whether I was guilty or not. If I had actually committed the offence, I would welcome death in any form that it might take. This revulsion is innate in any healthy person, and does not need to be taught. Since religion has proved itself uniquely delinquent on the one subject where moral and ethical authority might be counted as universal and absolute, I think we are entitled to at least three provisional conclusions. The first is that religion and the churches are manufactured, and that this salient fact is too obvious to ignore. The second is that ethics and morality are quite independent of faith, and cannot be derived from it. The third is that religion is; because it claims a special divine exemption for its practices and beliefs; not just amoral but immoral. The ignorant psychopath or brute who mistreats his children must be punished but can be understood. Those who claim a heavenly warrant for the cruelty have been tainted by evil, and also constitute far more of a danger.

God is Not Great p52.

Yeah right,obviously someone with no moral understanding at all.

This "atheists as a/immoral slugs" argument is really the one that gets me the crossest of all.

268. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143611 by Corylus on March 14, 2008 at 8:45 am

Irate

See the scariest site on the internet....

AKA

The Widdy Web

http://www.annwiddecombemp.com/

P.S. I do admire some of her animal welfare votes; so I cannot totally, completely dislike her... however.

269. Fleabytes

Comment #141956 by Corylus on March 11, 2008 at 1:11 pm

OK - I am responding to a comment from a while back. This is because, unlike some, I think it is vitally important to admit when you are wrong.

4373. Comment #141504 by veronad on March 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Corylus: Just received this from Don Hoffman, the author of the essay on which you commented --

Hi Joe,

I think this feedback is quite reasonable, especially given the brevity of my article and its consequent lack of supporting evidence for its positions. My article reads more like a position statement.

The issues raised by this reviewer are dealt with more comprehensively in my paper "The interface theory of perception: Natural selection drives true perception to swift extinction." I have attached this paper. Feel free to forward it.

best,
Don

It can be found here: http://www.veronadesign.biz/interface.pdf

I'm curious to get your feedback!

Veronad Actually, I do not agree with Professor Hoffman above and do not think that my feedback was "quite reasonable". I am ashamed to realise that I was actually extremely rude. I have re-read my comment I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologise for my rude, dismissive and patronising attitute to his article. I withdraw my accusation of manipulation unreservedly.

The second article you linked places his views on perception and evolution in context - it is absolutely fascinating and I have enjoyed reading it a great deal. (While I still do not agree with the first article you linked) I should have taken the time to research and read some of his other work before commenting on one small piece.

That was wrong and I do apologise.

270. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141461 by Corylus on March 10, 2008 at 1:09 pm

I only got level five and am most annoyed at my mediocre 'half-way' score.

I knew I shouldn't have given that homeless person the spare packet of monster munch I found in my handbag the other day.

Sigh, must try harder.

[Plus - waits to get flamed by Scooter for enabling victimhood]

-----

P.S. As a general rule I am going for sloth as my favourite sin - but what can I say? I'm a dormouse for FSM's sake!

271. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141458 by Corylus on March 10, 2008 at 1:03 pm

I would just like to express my admiration for the avatar that admin have picked out for the "banned".

Imagine, being a creationist and finding yourself with a cute primate picture.... that has got to chafe.

Good show.

272. Fleabytes

Comment #140949 by Corylus on March 9, 2008 at 7:06 am

OK; I agree with a great deal of the possible motivations, but in order to give balance (and because I am sometimes the voice of cynicism) I am going to swap over for a moment and think of a few laudable possible reasons for posting.

I have seen a few one-stop type comments. These can be people who want to express support for some aspect of what we are saying e.g. separation of church and state or the importance of science education, etc. This is completely legitimate. It is great when people seek out areas of agreement.

Maybe there are a few people who are just a bit lonely. Post a comment on a Christian message board and you are liable to get ignored -one voice amongst many etc. Put a comment on here and you will have lots of people to play with.

Maybe we get a few theists who are actually having some internal doubts and come on here with the motivation of strengthening their faith by arguing; whistling past the graveyard a bit.

All these motivations I try to look out for and control for, so I am not going to say that there are no good reasons to post.

Also, I admit that I would get bored if everyone agreed.

----

Have to say though that one thing that I do find really reprehensible is 'concern trolling'. Why start off a relationship (even if it only an internet discussion) with a lie? Whatever happened to 'the truth will set you free'? I simply do not see any good reason for doing that.

273. Fleabytes

Comment #140791 by Corylus on March 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Interesting article, Veronad, I enjoyed the clear writing style.

However, it really does not add any new or significant. For example it is non contentious that our sensory experience is something which is constructed.

Research in the cognitive and neural sciences has made clear that our visual systems are not simply passive recorders of objective reality, but instead are active constructors of the visual realities we perceive.

I am fine with that conclusion. There is no such thing as extrasensory perception after all!

However, the writer appears to be presuming that this admission means: -

Indeed it is highly unlikely that objective reality resembles in any way the worlds of our phenomenal construction. It would be luck beyond belief to find that the human species, of the millions of species on earth, happens to be the one whose phenomenal worlds resemble the relational realm.

This is a frankly ridiculous assertion.

Firstly, on what basis is the (I hesitate to call it probabilistic) "luck beyond belief" judgment made? Is there any robust evidence to back up this argument from incredulity/ignorance? (Forgive me, I am not entirely sure which term to use in this context).

Secondly,(and much more seriously) there is not the first understanding that all species might have some understanding that resembles the relational realm. It is not perfection that we seek, it is a working, coherent, relational understanding of our environment. What we need to do is to aim for a meta understanding of our world even if (especially if?) we can never fully achieve this goal. You have to assume, or work towards, some form of correspondence between objective fact and reality. If you do not do that, all that you do is throw teddy in the corner.

Bottom line; the author of this article is saying precisely nothing. He argues for nothing and refutes nothing. He gives makes no argument for precisely what his views on epistemology are. This make me suspicious.

Question? Is this author defining 'truth' in any fashion that is; if not objective; is at the very least helpful? I really don't think so.

This article is an argument for scepticism: nothing more. The sentence at the end though was totally unsubstantiated and really irritated me.

The atheist, then, can marshal an array of evidence that there is no God, and the theist that there is. In neither case can the evidence logically prove the claim. Both choices are, equally, a step of faith.

No definition of faith. No understanding that we need to move away from radical fallibilism. (Everyday fallibilism you can talk about) No suggestions for further research. Merely a sense of nausea in the face of the problems of epistemology. Same Old. Same old.

I would want to question this author, in depth, about what propositions; if any; he holds to be true. Do you know; I'm betting that there are some. I am also betting that he would not be calling these faith positions.

The words "cake" and "eat it" spring to mind.

An exercise in manipulation to those unfamiliar with philosophy. I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but this article reads like manipulative propaganda aimed as the pseudo intelligentsia.

I hope this answers your question. You have been posting it on several different threads and all... it must be very important to you.

274. Fleabytes

Comment #140739 by Corylus on March 8, 2008 at 1:14 pm

HaHa - Cartomancer sees much, but he hasn't uncovered me!!

In fact, no-one has got me twigged...

They don't realise that I am actually 6 ft 6in tall, 25 stone and a Peruvian truck driver called Frank.

Dayum!! Blew my own cover...

275. Fleabytes

Comment #140618 by Corylus on March 8, 2008 at 2:43 am

Benway

Saul of Tarsus is spinning in his grave. I did enjoy 5:4

4 Do not sai liek teh Tom Cats, "Hai secksy puss, show me sum ur tail..." DAT BE UBSEEN!
(Boring original; Neither filthiness nor foolish talking...)

And 5:18
18 Do not roll in teh catnipz, wot maeks u act stoopid an getz u in trubble. U shud let Hovr Cat mark u wid hiz scent.
(Boring original; ,And not be drunk with wine...)

It's a huge improvement. I do hope you are translating from the King James though; you do not want to risk losing nuances by translating from an inferior modern text...

276. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140488 by Corylus on March 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Paula

Yes, indeed. Wee Flea's "dead baby" comment was made for a different purpose than Wooter's: not to celebrate suffering, but to suggest that atheists are indifferent to it.

Absolutely. Not only that though, it was a demand for sympathy. From those not used to his manipulation. (Same with that 20 year dying medic dig - interesting that he mentioned the age as evidence in support of his experience - extraneous details make people more likely to believe unsubstantiated assertions).

People without empathy learn to manipulate others, even if they cannot feel as they do. The more cornered he gets the more sympathy plays you will see. It's like waving at a mirror - there is a reaction but the reflection does not feel anything.

Prediction: if the sympathy plays don't work you will see anger instead.

--------

Wooter You have made Philip cross. That says alot. I'm a hippy and I get cross ten times more often than he does.

Sunshine, you deserved that one.

277. Fleabytes

Comment #140478 by Corylus on March 7, 2008 at 1:59 pm

SG

Got a feeling its gonna be a long weekend with a lot of F5's.

Now if only Wooter could learn the value of F7...

278. Fleabytes

Comment #140143 by Corylus on March 7, 2008 at 2:19 am

Have to put a word in for advocaat here.

Ugh - snot in a glass.

279. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139710 by Corylus on March 6, 2008 at 12:18 pm

If you go to the original link from the NSS you can read the whole debate as a PDF. It is quite fascinating.

I have my political issues with the House of Lords, but I do give them credit for amazing vocabulary. I learnt two new words; that is well worth a half an hour read. (Dear me - are they bitchy too!)

280. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139533 by Corylus on March 6, 2008 at 3:27 am

Opps - apologies if I sounded patronising Mitchell - I do (unintentionally)sometimes come across that way, I know.

[Edit] Arrh - Wooter seems to be sapping my understanding of grammar and using it for himself - that sentence above was dreadful!

281. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139530 by Corylus on March 6, 2008 at 3:22 am

Each to their own Irate :-)

Re Wooter - I don't think any of you are going to convince him about evolution, but you do seem to be improving his English.

Interesting that.

282. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #139524 by Corylus on March 6, 2008 at 3:12 am

Well Mitchell sounds as those you have exhausted the philosophical type comforts in the face of death.

My might want to try something practical. Personally, my garden helps me to keep death in perspective. It give me deep pleasure to watch things grow and live, but at the same time it shows me important it is to clear away what is dead and dying. If you don't prune your roses, you aren't going to many flowers the following year.

Sticking your fingers in the earth gives you a visceral as well as an intellectual understanding of the necessity of death. The more you understand things the less you fear them.

[Edit] Plus, carrots you grow yourself taste much better and scream much more satisfyingly ;)

283. Church exhumes Padre Pio

Comment #138534 by Corylus on March 4, 2008 at 1:35 pm

If anyone wants evidence for the strange Catholic fixation with bones and finds themselves in Rome then the Capuchin Crypt is an astonishing (it is a room beneath a church).

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

On a recent holiday I visited it on the grounds of a recommendation by Bill Bryson.

I have to say it is one of the strangest places I have ever been in.

The ossuary at Sedlec, I have heard about, but never visited. The writer John Connelly used it as an inspiration in one of his books. He writes semi-mystical serial killer books (surprise!).

He seems to understand the appeal; can't say I do! However, his video of the place shows it in its fully glory and strangeness.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6223812823776350514&q

284. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138183 by Corylus on March 4, 2008 at 3:22 am

OK, after reading a few of these books I am going to suggest an alternative strategy for dealing with them. We cannot just say that they are rubbish. (What I personally can say is that I have read several and thus far they have all been rubbish...)

The interesting thing is that, while that are common themes (i.e. fundamentalist atheists, accusations of rudeness and venom when only honesty exists) there are significant stylistic differences between the authors. I also suspect that there are different motivations for writing them.

As a group of books they demonstrate the subjective (and thus contradictory) notions of God that people have. I am beginning to wonder whether these authors will have an effect that they have not anticipated. I suspect that if any theist reads three of more of these books, the inherent contradictions might just begin to niggle.

Maybe we should not be saying:

Do not read these books; they are no good

but instead,

Yes, do please read these books; as many as you can*. See how long you last. Tell us which one you agreed with completely.How do you feel after reading them? Vindicated? Reassured? Or slightly worried about a few points and maybe strangely depressed? Now read one of the atheist books again; do you think the points made have been addressed; or merely glossed over?

*(Do get them from the library or borrow them though; nothing more annoying than realising that you have put your hard earned dosh in the pockets of a dreadful author).

A thought.

------

The people I feel sorriest for are the new atheists and their staff who I suspect have to read these books in order to check for libel (I have read a few statements in those that I have read that have made me wonder if a writ might be at the end of this road).
Now that cannot be a fun job.

---

No biggie Hungarian :-)

285. Fleabytes

Comment #138175 by Corylus on March 4, 2008 at 3:08 am

MPhil

I do think some more articles by readers might be great thing. I would not just send it in though as I think emails with attachments get automically deleted to avoid virus risks.

Maybe Josh will be able to give you a different mail address to send it to.

286. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #138171 by Corylus on March 4, 2008 at 3:00 am

A tour journal of this one would be an interesting read.

287. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138158 by Corylus on March 4, 2008 at 2:28 am

Hungarianelephant

Is this the same Chris Hedges who posted here on the leprechology thread, and was told by revcort that he was on the slippery slope to a worse hell than mere atheists?

No, that was Chris Heard, who is a biblical scholar (expert in hebrew). Seemed a lovely guy.

288. Fleabytes

Comment #137843 by Corylus on March 3, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Peace

Lets do a "Dr Benway challenge". First one to comment with something as good as post #137767 wins.

Not going there dude, I know when I am outclassed :-)

Witness the change of avatar - marvellously unpredictable. (Although I do maintain that the choice of a cute critter as an avatar choice is indicative of a lovely person).

Ooh speaking of avatars... Clophopper see below my standard really detailed instructions on avatar setup. Unlike you I am not just 'a bit thick' when it comes to computer stuff I'm really thick. Took me beeping ages to work it out...

1) When logged in look at one of your comments. Click on your name.
2) You will be taken onto a blue page with 'Viewing Profile' on it. At the top left hand side you will see 'Board Index' written. Directly below this you will see 'user control panel'. Click on this.
3) On the 'user control panel' page - which is laid out like a card index - you will see a tab with 'profile' on it. Click on this.
4) You will now see a page asking you to 'edit profile'. On the left hand side you will see the option 'edit avatar'. Click on this.
5) On the 'edit avatar' page in the middle is an option to 'upload from your machine' with 'browse' on the side of it.
6) Click on 'browse' you will then be able to download/upload (buggered if I know the difference) a presaved picture from your PC's memory.
7) Make sure your file is not too big (the maximum dimensions are given on the page).

N.B. You might want to check the properties of any picture before you try to download - you may have to crop or compress accordingly.

289. Fleabytes

Comment #137095 by Corylus on March 2, 2008 at 10:46 am

David has posted a response to _J_ on his message board.

http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg179;topicseen#msg179

More martyr complex stuff. One point stands out though.

I was only able to post as 'Clearthinker' because Josh the webmaster, and Dawkins, did not know who I was.

This is incorrect.

As Donald mentioned early on this thread; Josh had been told, months ago, that the poster 'Clearthinker' was David Robertson.

I can personally attest to this in that I recognised the invective when he started posting and mailed admin a warning accordingly; on the Friday the 16th November to be precise.

So admin did know who he was. (Whether or not Dawkins knew I make no comment about; I suspect he has better things to do with his time than to worry about trolls).

Incidentally, Clearthinkers very early comments are almost a tutorial in troll spotting. I encourage anyone interested to view them.

http://richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,25843

I had my suspicions from the start. For example I noticed:

a) The use of short ambiguous sentences that attempted to elicit large amounts of factual information

b) The use of colloquial and chatty terms combined with the grammatical sentence structure of an older person. (Like watching your dad try to dance; something just not right somehow)

c) Posting the same bland point nonchalantly at different times and places.

d) Faux ignorance demonstrated by the use of terms / names that are not commonly used.

All classic trolling signals that I have learnt how to recognise.

If anyone doubts the inherent dishonesty of this individual; I cite his November comments as Exhibit A.

Of course he really blew it when he linked to a Free Church Magazine. :-))

I would have asked Clearthinker directly to be completely fair. However, it was at a time when the website was having some technical difficulties and I (along with many others) was unable to log in to post.

I would be astonished if I was the only one who sent in a warning.
----
David; I am sorry to have to break this to you, but you are a deeply, deeply predictable man. N.B. You set off my 'lie detector' in other ways than I stated above. I will leave you to wonder what they were.

290. Fleabytes

Comment #136755 by Corylus on March 1, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Hello

Well, for all those of you who think we are unduly influenced by the church in the UK....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/02/10/do1001.xml

I have just finished reading the grubby piece of homophobic drivel you just linked to Hello

Oh dear, how awful that potential foster parents are rejected because...

Miss Stevens was told that she would not be suitable as a foster mother because her beliefs, in the words of the letter of rejection, "prevent you from fully accepting a child's sexuality if he or she were lesbian or gay..."

You know what?Good!

I actually worked in a Social Services children's department for a couple of years. Do you have the first comprehension of some of the things these kids of gone through; you snide, slimy, snivelling, sanctimonious little shit? I really don't think so.

Do you think these children need to be told that they are going to hell if they happen to be gay? Have you considered for one heartbeat that they just might have gone through enough?

And if you believe something, you cannot just abandon it at convenient moments. All the mainstream Christian Churches teach that homosexual acts are not the moral equivalent of heterosexual acts within marriage (though a good many individual Christians disagree with this view).

The central tenet of the 1989 Children Act (under which all children's social services in Britain must work)is that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.

The Child.

Not the narrow minded, miserable, repressed prejudices of those that deign to consider themselves the arbiter of morality for all. Those that like to preen, posture and pontificate in the light of their inherent superiority.

How dare these people make love conditional?

But of course, for a Christian, faith and works go together, the latter flowing from the former. Works without faith would be like a body with limbs, but no heart.
The faith is why the works are necessary. As Ian McColl, of the Spitalfields Crypt Trust, puts it: "We wouldn't do it if we didn't believe it."

Yeah well, sociopaths understand hard and fast rules - nothing else makes sense to them.

You know what? These Christians can stick their charity in a place the daylight never reaches. I'm glad these people are not looking after children. They are not worthy of that privilege.
----
I'm sorry for the rant everyone; but that just pressed one of my few buttons.

(Go back to the philosophy now - I will calm down in due time. However, I no longer feel guilty for the Lionel Richie).

P.S. Hi flea.

291. Fleabytes

Comment #136694 by Corylus on March 1, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Fascinating MPhil.

Shows theology for what it is - something that works backwards and not forwards. I can never help seeing circles when I read the sort of arguments you address.

To make up for linking to a Lionel Richie video earlier (something about which I already feel guilty; and suspect I might just go to hell for) I link to the best version of Windmills of your Mind...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lArkToxcoFo

292. Fleabytes

Comment #136670 by Corylus on March 1, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Benway

That was sheer genius!

I can't write LOL speak - why can everyone else write LOL speak, but not me??

Mind you my friends laugh at me for putting semi-colons in text messages. I fear the times are passing me by...

MPhil Long post - looks interesing - working way through now.

293. Fleabytes

Comment #136607 by Corylus on March 1, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Steve

I think Buffy was very on-topic

Absolutely it was.

However, I detected evidence for the often made accusation that atheists cannot see what is in front of their noses.

For example, all that talk of lust for Giles and Spike, but nothing, I repeat nothing relating to the big, muscular brooding stunner that was Angel.

I was both shocked and disappointed.

P.S. I have a soft spot for Wesley too.

294. Fleabytes

Comment #136549 by Corylus on March 1, 2008 at 11:45 am

Hmm,

Strange stalking behaviour and the word 'Hello'.

Why is it that I can't get Lionel Richie out of my head?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PDZcqBgCS74

-----
Hello

When you post something substantive and stop with the snide comments about charity (your links don't work BTW) then people might engage with you more.

Incidentally, with regards to charity in general I notice that there are two types of people. Those that give and say nothing about it and those that do it merely to brag about it. What category are you in? When you dole out the minestrone who precisely is it that you are thinking of?

Oh, in case you were not aware, charity isn't a Get out of Jail Free Card when it comes to hell....

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

295. Fleabytes

Comment #136194 by Corylus on February 29, 2008 at 2:06 pm

SG

You're a bad man!

296. Fleabytes

Comment #136183 by Corylus on February 29, 2008 at 1:56 pm

George Bushicon?

(~|~)=8-----D
-----

297. Fleabytes

Comment #136023 by Corylus on February 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Bonzai

How can a philosophy major commit that kind of conceptual error?

(Rubs eyes) Bonzai, did you just say something nice about philosophy??

You watch yourself, you'll be quoting Husserl any moment....

298. Fleabytes

Comment #134210 by Corylus on February 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Fascinating Al and SG

Thanks :)

299. Fleabytes

Comment #134189 by Corylus on February 27, 2008 at 11:24 am

You know, if I were a member of David Robertson's Church the last thing I would do is to support him in asking for a public debate.

I would be worried that he would not be able to control his temper and generally make a dreadful exhibition of himself and everyone associated with him. That constant irritability and bubbling frustration is a part of his personality type after all.

Just a thought....

------

Al-rawandi

I sat down with a famous Islamic scholar named Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

Arh - this guy?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,710,Response-to-Richard-Dawkins-and-Sam-Harris,Zaytuna-Videocast-4

You might find this comment about the man (by someone called RichardH) particularly illuminating.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,710,Response-to-Richard-Dawkins-and-Sam-Harris,Zaytuna-Videocast-4,page2#25624

300. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133615 by Corylus on February 26, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Al

If you think Bruce Lee movies are accurate depictions of what happens in real fights....

Well, I do seem to remember Bruce Lee giving Chuck Norris a bit of a spanking in Return of the Dragon.

That would happen in real life!

Or mebbe not...