301. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175233 by MPhil on May 5, 2008 at 1:04 am

Prof. Dawkins,

I think we can assume that Sam will have thought of such things himself!

You are very probably correct, sir. Let us hope that most Christians who are made aware of this won't dismiss it because the study is done by a prominent atheist...

Knowing as we do that many of them are not very knowledgeable about science and the scientific method - or distrust science outright - I suspect many of them may falsely suspect bias or trickery because of the fact that Sam is behind it (among others). Can we assume that they are perfectly aware that bias is exactly what scientists do not want, because they want representative results? We know that many of them think Big Science has a conspiracy going when it comes to evolution, so I am skeptical.

Anyway - I am very interested in the results of this study.

Best,
-Michael

302. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #175217 by MPhil on May 4, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Done, all four... one question appeared twice... thought the best option in that case would be to use the middle option for both, since one of them surely was mislabelled, actually a different question and will get evaluated as such.

Some questions were phrased inaccurately - like the one asking one's opinion concerning the statement "Jesus was not immortal, and did not ascend into heaven" (or something to that effect)... if one doesn't believe that Jesus ever existed, what should one answer?

The appropriate phrasing would have been "Assuming Jesus existed..." or something to that effect.

Also, why give people 5 options, anyone creating a survey will know that a middle option is extremely attractive and will get less detailed results.

303. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175199 by MPhil on May 4, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Vincent, is it? Don't know why, but it seams to fit.

Strangely, my name - though not Latin in origin - translates into "Who is like god"...

304. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174814 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Just because I want to get everyone's attention - I'm posting this on every active thread (I hope you'll forgive me)

Guys - take a look at this...


The Vatican has joined forces with Shiite Muslims.
Ridiculous statements, and a direct attack on negative religious freedom:

(be warned - you may throw up in your mouths)

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=88070

If any local newspaper of yours runs this story - send a letter to the editor for publishment. Put it on your blogs and tear it to shreads... raise awareness that this is a dangerous alliance, and a large-scale attack on negative religious freedom, freedom of speech - and it is ludicoursly revisionist history!

305. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174813 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Just because I want to get everyone's attention - I'm posting this on every active thread (I hope you'll forgive me)

Guys - take a look at this...


The Vatican has joined forces with Shiite Muslims.
Ridiculous statements, and a direct attack on negative religious freedom:

(be warned - you may throw up in your mouths)

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=88070

If any local newspaper of yours runs this story - send a letter to the editor for publishment. Put it on your blogs and tear it to shreads... raise awareness that this is a dangerous alliance, and a large-scale attack on negative religious freedom, freedom of speech- and it is ludicoursly revisionist history!

306. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174812 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Just because I want to get everyone's attention - I'm posting this on every active thread (I hope you'll forgive me)

Guys - take a look at this...


The Vatican has joined forces with Shiite Muslims.
Ridiculous statements, and a direct attack on negative religious freedom:

(be warned - you may throw up in your mouths)

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=88070

If any local newspaper of yours runs this story - send a letter to the editor for publishment. Put it on your blogs and tear it to shreads... raise awareness that this is a dangerous alliance, and a large-scale attack on negative religious freedom, freedom of speech- and it is ludicoursly revisionist history!

307. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174809 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Guys - take a look at this...


The Vatican has joined forces with Shiite Muslims.
Ridiculous statements, and a direct attack on negative religious freedom:

(be warned - you may throw up in your mouths)

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=88070

308. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #174796 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Furthermore, when the Americans and British fire-bombed German cities (and the Americans leveled Japan), they made no distinction between moderate and extreme Germans. They probably killed any number of Germans who hated Hitler.

What does this have to do with the denazification after the war?

The allies couldn't eradicate the mindset completely (nationalism and antisemitism existed and exist everywhere), but they could see to it that it wasn't legal for the state to promote this anymore, that people who committed the crimes went to jail and that openly denying the holocaust and calling upon people to persecute a certain group.

What does the systematic eradication of civilians, the bombing of cities with phosphorous bombs in order to kill as many men, women and children have to do with that? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I fail to see the connection.

309. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174762 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I think the quality of education in schools and Universities is the real culprit here. It is the only thing to blame for any amount of attention a retarded movie like this would draw.

The quality of education in schools and Universities is certainly a major factor, but I think the quality of education at home - the fact that many patients don't encourage learning, trusting the scientific method etc. - and that religious parents indoctrinating their children actively encourage compartmentalisation or even straight out denial of the value of science.

That's the real crime - the real problem. How are schools and universities supposed to deal with this? They can try, but inevitably, they will have less and less success than with people educated properly at home, taught proper values.

they should not even be mentioned in one sentence.

Really? How about this sentence, which I think is absolutely true:

"Progress in science has always to a retreat of religion from claims to absolute factuality to metaphor, allegory etc, because the religious cannot face the fact that the claims of their ancient books are shown to be false, so they have to change the goalposts"...?

310. Gods and earthlings

Comment #174729 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 11:11 am

Pitchfork...

I strongly object to that use of the term "philosophy".

There is always philosophy behind science - the demarcation criteria, the basic assumptions of causality, the assumptions about realism, methodological naturalism, assumptions about the nature of evidence, corroboration, falsification - and of course: Ockam's Razor.

Philosophy is a serious and rigorously studied subject, including philosophy of science.

311. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174688 by MPhil on May 3, 2008 at 8:54 am

if Dawkins (and all atheists for that matter) is right, none of us will ever know

No, people with skills in logic already can know that he's right in believing that there are no deities.

Take a look at the wonderful collection of papers, edited by the Professor of Philosophy Michael Martin, called: "The Impossibility of God"

God is a logical impossibility and therefore could not even exist in principle.

Of course this isn't all. If we disregard this, no atheist would have been a fool, because there still would be absolutely no epistemic justification for belief in the existence of a deity.
_____________

As for Ayn Rand... just a small reiteration of my position, which I explained elsewhere:

Some of her specific political positions may be tenable, but she's a dreadful pseudo-philosopher, and her movement is a cult. Her arguments are abysmal, less for her political than her philosophical views, but still. Her understanding of philosophy is surpassed by every 1st year student. Nozick actually took her on on politics, stating that he agrees with some of her conclusions, but that the arguments for them are worthless. Why he took her on, I don't know. Philosophers should take a similar position towards her than Dawkins does towards taking on the ID pseudo-scientists. Only that here, it's pseudo-philosophy, not pseudo-science.

312. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174264 by MPhil on May 2, 2008 at 12:16 am

I too love Dennett's response to the Mary thought-experiment... but I find the Chinese Room to be a mere semantic problem - by far not as interesting as the Chinese Nation or Mary.

Searle? Brilliant indeed.

I wish I could have studied under Quine, Searle, Mackie or indeed Dennett or Paul Churchland.

Bonzai,

Comte? I always found him suspicious :)
A tortured person can become quite weird indeed.

Anyway, really have to go now... ttyl guys.

313. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174259 by MPhil on May 2, 2008 at 12:04 am

Whoa, robotaholic - that avatar is making me nauseous... IT'S TOO FAAAAAAST!!! :)

314. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174258 by MPhil on May 2, 2008 at 12:03 am

Styrer,

I have always granted philosophers a measure of intellectual respect which your answer to my question seems to refute. I wondered if great thinkers simply were immune to such human and childhood influences, beautifully holding their solitary own, creating their own affirmations and negations of ideas to which they had never yet had any exposure, and all to the better that they had not.

Great Thinkers are human, too... and basic psychological facts hold true of them as well.

There is a German book, Wilhelm Weischedel's "Die philosophische Hintertreppe" (the philosophical backstairs) who shows how the philosophy of various great thinkers is influenced by their personal history. Highly interesting.

Anyway - I think the great philosophers were/are still far less susceptible to brainwashing than an ordinary joe (not because they were or are philosophers, but simply because their psychological nature - and nurture - made them - and thus made them such great philosophers)
Many develop an extremely great intellect but not the ability to apply it to everything... because of indoctrination or a general susceptibility to something of that sort. Other - I think - , like Voltaire, or Kant (whose theism was radically different from anything the church offered) or de la Rochefoucauld, acheive a high level of "mental immunity".

315. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174256 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 11:52 pm

I love consc.net - and don't care for chalmer's position either.

As I said - I have to work out that position first, but I have a feeling such a position between Dennett and the Chuchlands is possible, since in my opinion, the neural network theory is in a broad sense also a functionalist theory - and eliminativism to a reasonable degree is actual in both Dennett and the Churchlands. I find it rather amusing however that it is Dennett who holds a strict Qualia eliminativism, and Paul Churchland who proposes intertheoretic reduction (IMO sucessfully) of at least colour-qualia.

That's what gave me the idea of a position in between the two (three).

Or, as I said, Intentionality as assimilating representation in the neural net.

316. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174252 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 11:48 pm

the "only" was meant only as referring to the duration, not the degree:)

Most courses with a similar degree take longer. But the course of studies only has about 10 students per years, involves writing your own papers from the second week on and is generally very intensive, so its possible, but involves a lot of reading and writing.

317. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174239 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Oh, and I just remembered... I had the idea of writing about a possible position regarding philosophy of mind between Dennett and Churchland - which I would still have to construct :)

318. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174236 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 11:22 pm

It's actually not a usual masters, it's an unusual MPhil. I don't study one main and two minor subjects, but two main subjects - philosophy and (Logic and Philosophy of Science). The course is only 4 years and the degree a magister philosophiae.

I plan on writing about philosophy of mind. (Yes, I still got one year to go, but - if I may say so - I was the only one among my fellow students who started this 'elite' course of studies having such an extensive knowledge of philosophy already.)

I would write it about philosophy of atheism... if I wasn't in Munich, and studying under a professor who hold is a catholic and holds a chair where the catholic church has to approve of the candidate :)

So I guess philosophy of mind - possibly about intentionality as representation in the neural network that is the brain. But that might be too technical, I don't know...

319. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174225 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 11:06 pm

Whether she is intelligent enough, despite outstanding grades, to enter either remains to be seen. I was at school with students who achieved top grades right up to A Level but who were not able from there to make much headway.

Oh I know - it's exactly the same with the German Abitur. Though there is definitely a significant correlation between very good grades and intelligence.

Oxbridge usually looks beyond grades to decide whom to admit. These decisions surprise and anger the likes of the witless Gordon Brown, as you may have heard.

I didn't hear of Gordon Brown having a problem with that, but I know of the fact.

Sadly, as a visiting student, you still need a whole bunch of money to afford living and studying there, which is why I didn't bother applying.

I think I will apply for doing my doctorate there... although I would also love to do it somewhere with strong interdisciplinary tradition between the cognitive sciences and philosophy...

anyway,

Would you answer a question, MPhil? Those philosophers who, knowing as much as you about the nuts and bolts of philosophy, come to the conclusion that there is a deity and must do so for a reason. Those others, like yourself, and knowing all the same nuts and bolts, come to an atheistic stance. Would you care to explain to me what separates the two different types of philosopher?

I'm not sure about "two different types." That's just picking out the attribute religious/non-religious because it is of specific interest to us and diving the class of philosophers according to it. You could do the same for any other positions. Why are there so many who think that Functionalism is wrong, or so many who think Hegel was largely correct?

I guess it's because philosophy is such a theoretical field, and has so much to do with definitions. We all have unjustified common-sense beliefs. A philosopher's work often involves trying to justify and strengthen positions that are usually held tacitly or uncritically - although all really innovative philosophy of course did exactly the opposite. As a philosopher your only tools are analyzing positions and constructing arguments (although knowledge of science and/or culture is indispensable in most areas). Thereby you naturally learn to make the best case possible for any position.

I think for most theists, their theism is the result of childhood indoctrination. It is so deeply entrenched that those who take up philosophy use it to justify their theism come what may. Craig, Plantinga and Swinburne are extremely good at this.
Many (including some of my fellow students), do exactly what scientists do - they compartmentalize. They either don't apply their critical thinking to their theism or conveniently don't take it far enough.

And that's almost a natural consequence of successful indoctrination - you have a fear of losing your faith.

But then, for many, the exact opposite is true.
I have heard of only very few (actually, only one, but I'm sure there are more) who got into philosophy as atheists and then became theists... the opposite happens, I think, far more often.

And, as we of course know - society plays a huge role - atheistic philosophers in the middle-ages? Unheard of... why? Because you could only study it after Aquinas and then only at the church, as a cleric.

Nowadays, I still think there are significant correlations between the religiosity of philosophers and the religiosity of the country/state/community in which they live.

So I would say - childhood indoctrination and/or a n irrational need for religion and/or compartmentalization.

320. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174218 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:41 pm

Oh come on - "Brian", "Brain"... typo... or maybe not as sober as I thought? Or perhaps distracted by the thought of a threesome with Emma? Who knows? :)

321. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174217 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:39 pm

I was - but I'm sober by now :)

322. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174215 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:37 pm

I also need to do my doctorate at whichever uni she's going to choose... in which case the last two comments of mine are going to get deleted beforehand! :)

Maybe I do some introductory courses and intensive personal training in logic and propaedeutics for her :)

323. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174214 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:34 pm

No I'm not - I'm entirely serious, at least about me and my girlfriend liking the thought of that :)

But I have to go to uni in two hours (have to leave here at 9:30 am local time) - and since I woke up at 8pm last evening and haven't slept since then, the 4 hours in uni are going to be torture. Oh well, I'll get through somehow.

324. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174212 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:29 pm

No, Brain - I won't... but I might just construct a barrage of ontological and a posteriori arguments for why a threesome between her and my girlfriend (who would approve) and me is at least the best thing to do if not absolutely necessary...


... did I just write that? Seems I did :)

325. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174209 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Emma Watson is indeed very beautiful... but much more beautiful in the pics from her shootings than without makeup. But still, very beautiful - and just turned 18...

... and what's best (for me), she plans on studying philosophy at Oxford (or was it Cambridge?).

326. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174173 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 7:58 pm

That's wonderful Styrer...

but calling this thought of mine contemptible is a bit harsh...
There is nothing contemptible in a lack of imagination. I in turn hope you will withdraw that particular gem.

What I meant was that witnessing something first hand is emotionally different from witnessing it from afar.

I have never doubted the immense power of empathy. But I have - I admit - failed to phrase the above thought correctly. It is a psychological fact that closeness and remoteness are a significant factor. That is what I meant.

I have misspoken, phrasing my thought in a way that has connotations and implications which underrate the empathetic capabilities of others... and for that I apologize.

I do hope you will withdraw the "contemptible"-judgment however.

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

Comment #174161 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 7:23 pm

I thought "vile" was a bit unwarranted, but rereading I see I misjudged some of the comments... so I remain by the statement that calm and rational, without ad homs is the way to go, but that except for al's usual -let's say- aggressiveness :) there was little to none of this.

328. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174153 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:57 pm

often mentioned in the same breath with Hitler and Stalin

I don't quite get what this is supposed to mean... seems like you see Hitler and Stalin as cartoonish villains, and Mao as having committed nothing of the sort.

Putting everything into a historical perspective is fine, even necessary, so long as it is not apologetic. An explanation is not an excuse.

Anyway - this statement seemed wierd to me.

329. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174151 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Brian, - sadly, no I didn't... though I would have loved to :(

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

Comment #174150 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:51 pm

As I have already said, I am always a little sad when someone gives up rationalism.

But all I want to say now is that whatever criticism Richard Morgan may deserve, he has not resorted to direct insults - and I feel criticizing him should be done in a rational and clear-minded manner.

I am not one of those people who believe that swear-words should never be uttered... but I believe that we ought to try and be kind even to people with whom we disagree, or whose actions we don't condone.
When someone posts like DickDawkins did in his first posts, throwing insults at everyone, go ahead... but Richard hasn't done this...

... and he hasn't displayed vile behaviour. He has abandoned rationality for fuzzy non-sequiturs and cozy feel-good religion, mysticism etc.
The god-shaped hole business, the "god loves you" is all unsubstantiated, the "to ask for evidence is almost impertinent" and "have shown me the limits of rationality and materialism"...

Hogwash, irrational nonsense.

But I don't think the personal insults here are entirely appropriate.

Just my opinion...

331. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174146 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Brian,

comment to your blog-entry delivered :)

__________________-


Concerning freedom and liberty - just a small anecdote:

I remember when the Berlin wall fell. I cannot imagine the emotional significance can be felt by anyone who has only heard of it from afar.

I remember that my parents asked me, tears in their eyes, if I had toys I didn't need anymore, because there were people coming to our town, people who weren't able to buy their children such toys, who would be very happy if I would give them toys of mine I didn't need anymore... we packed them up and drove to the inner city.

The people came, their eyes glazing, many of them with tears of joy in their eyes. And we gave them the presents, my parents talked to them, thousands of people were there.

When I grew up, I became friends with some people from the former GDR - one even became my (now ex-) girlfriend.

We were taught about this history in school, visited the important places, listened to people telling us their stories, stories of families torn apart by the Wall, stories of parents unable to see their children, stories of oppression and injustice, of totalitarian control, but also stories of courage, of love and inseparable bonds.

At least every 3rd of October, (German Unity Day), I watch the video of people climbing the wall, of the borders being opened, of people tearing down the Wall with their own hammer, of tags sprayed on the Wall "Every wall falls some day", of people crying, falling into the arms of their relatives after long, long years - of thousands of people standing in the streets, shouting "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!"... and every single time I watch this, or think about this, my eyes water.

There is a video of these events, set to the song "Freiheit" (freedom) by Marius Mueller Westernhagen... it was played at the wall back then... an immensely powerful song, and immensely powerful pictures.

For hundreds of thousand of people, perhaps millions, the day they got told that the borders are now open, that they are free, was the most important day of their lives.

The importance of freedom cannot be underestimated...

If you'd like to watch the 2 minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BhtyNFrlwc

The song's lyrics lose all their poetry in translation unfortunately, but for those who are interested nevertheless:

The contracts have been made,
and there was much laughter,
and something sweet for dessert.

Freedom, freedom
The band played 'rumtata'
And the pope's been there as well,
and my neighbour up in front,

Freedom, freedom,
is the only thing that's missing
Freedom, freedom,
is the only thing that's missing

Unfortunately man is not naive,
regrettably man is primitive
Freedom, freedom
has been canceled again

All those who dream of freedom
shall not forget to celebrate,
shall dance even on graves
Freedom, freedom
Is the only thing that counts

Freedom, freedom
Is the only thing that counts.

332. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174130 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Goldy,

from what I have seen, I agree with Bonzai. Talking politics seems to be dangerous. No freedom of information (no free access to the internet for example), to books etc.

Brian,

It's alright, I'm already drafting a comment :)

333. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174120 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Brian - I'm a little drunk right now, and I think I would have to check with Quine's essay, which I have in my home-town... I'll try, but don't be disappointed if I cannot answer until Saturday :)

334. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174117 by MPhil on May 1, 2008 at 5:00 pm

This "War on Terror" is the biggest load of personal restrictive hogwash I have come across.

Of course in China civil liberties aren't further restricted... they're sufficiently marginalized already. :/

Anyway...I agree. Only rivaled by the McCarthy-era when it comes to restrictions of civil liberties. There is a priority of basic liberties and freedoms, which is also supposed to be the defining barrier between the society that is supposed to be protected and the ideology that is supposed to kept at bay.

McCarthy saw to it that the barrier got blurred, driving the US into an autoritarion, almost totalitarian state... and the Patriot Act (the name also should tell everyone that this is nothing else than 1984 newspeak), torture and detention without due process - doing it again. Farcical, really... and that's only leaving foreign policy aside for now.

Wanna be a symbol for freedom? Don't deny the basic rights and liberties to your citizens - or indeed to anyone else that you're dealing with.
The now active "inter arma enim silent leges" and almost religious "we're good by definition, so nothing we do can be wrong" mentality... won't help that. And the world takes notice.

335. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173586 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Well, I've hear it used in English before... and yes, be Gemütlich about your beer, don't rush it :)

336. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173584 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Night Podaar.

Just two very minor points:

-the correct grammatical form is "Deutsches Bier"
and
-it's "Gemütlichkeit" - or if you're too lazy to search for the umlaut "Gemuetlichkeit".

I am aware that the latter has become a fixed term in Englisch, like Zeitgeist, Weltschmerz, Bildungsroman, Ersatz, Kindergarten, Leitmotiv, Schadenfreude, Doppelgaenger, Rucksack, Realpolitik, Weltanschauung etc... but the peculiar thing is the grammatical usage of "gemütlichkeit" in English.

In German it simply means "comfortable-ness", though with an etymological background in "Gemüt", roughly "state of mind".

...okay, that may have been a boring treatise :)

Anyway - yes, I'm feeling very comfortable in München... although I do miss my girlfriend somewhat. Oh well, I'll see her again Friday evening.

337. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173567 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Sounds nice... but I dont get to grill/bbq very often :) Will try it sometime.

338. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173563 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Let me modify a statement by the Monty Pythons...


"Any non-German beer is like having sex in a canoe"
...

339. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173562 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:24 pm

mole? like the animal that digs though the ground? :)

You mean chocolate and chile pepper? I like both seperately, but have never tried them combined.

340. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173558 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:21 pm

MPhil doesn't believe in empirical evidence but rather that for God to exist must be a contradiction :)

Not true at all - empirical evidence is important. Empirical investigation is the only way to find out about objective facts about the world... but the logical arguments are necessarily true, no matter what the world is like.
I do believe in empirical evidence. Even if the a priori arguments weren't true, the empirical ones would still be...

... me, not believing in evidence... sure :)


And no, sadly I don't speak Dutch... but I might be able to understand some of it.

Deutsch, English, un peu français et lingua latina should be enough I think.

Gute Nacht jedenfalls DickDawkins und eventuall bis Morgen :)

341. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173552 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Thanks... but to be frank, I never liked the taste of coffee - at all. So no Kalua either.

:/

342. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173548 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Brain, true - but looking only inside yourself won't help much either... you have to look at the world you live in and the people in it as well in order to create meaning and value for this life.

343. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173547 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Podaar,

Martinis... oh I love cocktails... I fancy myself to be quite good at mixing them as well. Though I usually drink the fancy sort... and create new ones.

I usually mix
-Zombie
-Touchdowm
-Sex on the Beach
-Cuba Libre
-Mai Tai
-Pina Colada
-Strawberry Colada
-Long Island Iced Tea

and so on...

also, if you get the chance, try this:



3-4 units Creme de Cassis
2 units pure lemon juice
4 units cranberry-juice
4 units pink-grapefruit juice
3-4 units Absolut Vanilla Vodka

... I call it "Pink Bastard"

344. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173543 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Very true, Quine.

Meaning and value are not discovered or given from above, they are made, given to ourselves by ourselves while facing the world as it is.

345. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173542 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 9:00 pm

I think the paper was arguing that official inclusion in the church should be discouraged, and that official membership in a church should be restricted to adults capable of making informed, free decisions - not against the legality of telling children about religion, of parents living their religion in front of their children as an encouragement or even taking them to church if they want to :)

346. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173536 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Podaar,

thanks... responded.

347. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173529 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Bye Goldy!

348. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173525 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:45 pm

On a side note:

I am really extremely sad that Steve Zara is leaving... I enjoyed his contributions so much. This is a great loss to RDnet... :(

349. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173520 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Do you realize that we've been on this constantly now for over three hours?

And no, figuratively speaking I won't kill the demon... but I might help exorcise it from the minds of a few people (wouldn't be the first time).

350. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #173515 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 8:39 pm

My sole motivation is enlightenment...

though I could propose a deal to Amazon I guess :)

...or to the various university publishers...