301. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230973 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Apathy personified

Welcome to the show. I was trying to keep tabs on this thread and ... then decided to just come in with my thoughts. But I think you've got the gist of it

The Christians I meet occasionally throw me the line, "what exactly would it require to convince you that god exists". I'm always unprepared, and the question leaves me a bit cold. I don't really care about the question, because whatever I want - it aint gonna happen, so I try to come up with some crap about, "well, it'd be nice if god could make a personal appearance and do some lead into gold type trick under lab conditions". But I know they're thinking, "but god did come down and make an appearance for us, so you should be content"

Hope Durant comes back and tries to answer your question though.

302. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230947 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 12:58 pm

It's worth coming on the site just for the humour. Cartomancer has me in stitches yet again (there you go - I'm a sycophant too)

303. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230943 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Steve,

But "doubt" is an excellent position from which to start. I guess Durant will assert his reason for staying on the fence, or decide one way or the other, hopefully based upon argument. As I say, I'm interested to hear why accepting the possibility of god is a viable position and how it helps to have that viewpoint.

Personally, I probably would have called myself more agnostic 5 years ago. Durant might even think that Dawkins is agnostic because he's only 99.99% sure god doesn't exist? What would be interesting is to hear Durant's thoughts on possible harm of going down the road of supernatural explanations of phenomonen. Does he think that it stifles rational debate? Does it allow people to lazily accept some phenomenon as unexplainable and simply leave well alone because god made it so?

304. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230927 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I'm so with Durant.

At first it did look a bit Drive-By attack, but he's stuck around and given an argument. Part of the problem is that some of the comments here do seem a bit lick-ass, but over time I have seen genuine critical thinking from quite a few people here.

Being an agnostic may, to some, appear a weak-minded position. But I would say that this is not always the case. It's usually correct and to doubt and then think / argue the points. It's often the case that religious people have no doubt - they are sure there's a god and sure they're going to heaven. That's bad! Durant is willing to argue his point, and I for one am interested to hear more.

The rest of you are a bunch of sycophantic idiots (now that's Drive-By shooting! ColdFuckingLazarus runs for it ....)

305. To learn biology, just pick up the console

Comment #230780 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 6:06 am

You can just see so many religious parents telling their offspring, "You can't go and see the Golden Compass, and you can't buy video games that promote evolutionary ideas."
"Oh, but they look like interesting harmless fun"
"No, they're evil. They make you think evil things, and they'll make you blind!"
"Oh alright"
"And you can stop that masturbating right now"

Cartomancer! Breeding without women. What could you mean! By the way, is that a pack of cards, or are you offering me money?
[Edit - to try to fix some spelling]

306. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230680 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 3:41 am

Go away. There's not enough valuable oxygen for "you"

307. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #230648 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 2:40 am

To make it clear, it's disgusting that any religious stance is used to defend behaviour that is way off the scale of acceptable behaviour. We simply shouldn't cower away from challenging such things, despite whatever cultural norm has crept in elsewhere. If some religious society allows cannabilism then we would condemn it wherever it happens and prosecute if it happened here.

That said, I still have to challenge what Fanusi says. Mainly on these 2 comments:

18. Comment #230241 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 14, 2008 at 1:14 pm

1. The Bible is a vast and vague document. It necessitates interpretation and discussion. The Qur'an, Hadith and Sira are much more consistent.

24. Comment #230258 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm
There are very, very few cherries. And those that do exist are cancelled by the doctrine of naskh in which the later verses (always more psychotic) cancel out the earlier ones.

34. Comment #230319 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm

It's also wrong to say that Muslims are not obliged to follow the Hadith. The Qur'an continually refers to Muhammad as the example to be emulated - he is uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man, the Excellent Example. Muslims were usually called Mohammedans, and there's a reason for that - the figure of Muhammad, in Islam, is actually more important than that of Allah, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

308. Rushdie condemns cancellation of Muhammad novel

Comment #230626 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 1:33 am

Isn't it a bit harsh to mention outright "Censorship"? Doesn't the author still have a right to take the book elsewhere to be published? Or are contracts such that the publisher owns it and it would take a lot of effort to allow another publisher to take the work off them?

309. Rushdie condemns cancellation of Muhammad novel

Comment #230622 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 1:14 am

Before this, from Rushdie, I had allowed myself to think, "Maybe the book is crap and serves little purpose anyway. What's the point in speculating what Ayesha may or may not have thought as her body was violated at such a young age?" But if Rushdie and others are so dismayed by a publishers right not to publish (and it seems that they are not publishing due to oppressive fear) then I'll think again.

What I liked about the Satanic Verses was that it was trying to ease open the debate about the "infallible" man and the "infallible" book. It "almost" worked as a force to allow moderate muslims to feel more confident.

310. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #228624 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 9:41 am

I particularly like the "bible is a load of bollocks". That bit made sense.

311. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #228619 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 9:36 am

Actually nightwatchman, I'm God, and so is my wife.

I'm so glad christians in quaint villages still can't stomach Life Of Brian. Given us all a larf!

312. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228545 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 7:35 am

hungarianelephant

Ha ha! Very amusing. I think quite a few scientists have gently nudged their measurements in the direction that gives them the result they wanted. I'm sure that I too have done something similar to that (very naughty). Thank goodness for peer reviews.

Still better than the laziness of leaving any possible explanation to one side, for only the Good Lord understands such mysteries.

313. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228476 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 5:12 am

hungarianelephant

Absolutely agree with the theory, but there is nothing in the curriculum today that hasn't been tried before. Nuffield science courses have been around for a very long time. "Active Science" and teaching the "scientific method" is not new at all. The need for a "Fair Test" has been pushed down students throats for at least the last 20 years (and quite right too). Some teachers can still teach good science even within a bad curriculum, and some teachers can do a lousy job in what looks like a good curriculum. But ultimately, science isn't "cool" like it was 100 years ago. And so you think you can try and get the students thinking about important issues, such as our effects on the environment, but some of them are just going to struggle to come up with their own questions, and once they have a question, some are going to struggle to hypothesise and test. Some smart students are going to "google" around the area and may be to be too lazy (not totally a bad thing) to want to come up with the experiments. Others are just going to be bored with their own idea of wrapping different insulating materials around beakers of warm water, and may feel that their small experiments have nothing to do with real science. I shouldn't be so negative, but to believe that science education has taken a great leap forward in the last few years would be wrong.

Part of the difficulty with any education is that the students already "know" stuff. What they think they know may feel good to them, but it could be wrong, and you just can't overlay the new ideas over their old ideas. It's a bit like some of the religious commenters on this site. You think you've told them something important and that they will say, "Gosh, you're right. How could I have been so foolish", but it's not so easy to break their cherished belief systems. Getting students to interact with their environment in a scientific manner is the way forward. But just saying it doesn't make it happen.

314. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228381 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 1:46 am

hungarianelephant,

That's an excellent point, but I'm afraid that there are few new ideas about and that one has already been tried many times. The science I taught had exactly that emphasis. Students asked questions, were encouraged to come up with their own possible answers / hypotheses, designed experiments to help answer the questions ... etc. ...

The trick is to inspire them to actually give a damn in the first place. And at the end of 3 years the students didn't neccessarily know enough to really study advanced level science.

It's often the actual teacher that turns the students on to a subject. My teacher did fantastic demonstrations. It was entertaining and I discovered I was quite good at science, so I stuck with it. At the end I was taught some facts and ideas and some tricks of scientific method. The method of teaching you propose only really works if the students are hungry to get these things for themselves

315. CBI wants more pupils in science

Comment #228370 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 12, 2008 at 1:08 am

Hmmm?! I guess the CBI should come up with a promotional slogan, such as "Science isn't Boring"

20% Science might emphasise the importance of science in school, but the value of science isn't promoted in the home, nor many other places outside of school. It's not that cool to be a geek. There aren't many scientists driving fast cars and turning up stoned to the best parties.

When the top, best-paid jobs go to people with Science degrees then western kids might battle to do well in science subjects. As it is, successful people (entrepeneurs?) don't need science qualifications. They use technology and only occasionally look for advice from a "techy". It's only when the businesses cannot find the "techy", that they didn't want before and never nurtured, that they complain that the schools aren't giving them what they want. And then the whole technology thing is sent over to China.

I think if I was 13 years old now, in the UK, there wouldn't be too many reasons that would drive me to do well at science. And having been a crap science teacher myself for a couple of years I know only too well how difficult it really is to truly inspire and teach high-schoolers anything. The only ones that did well did so "in-spite" of my efforts :-(

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

Comment #227789 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 10, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Fanusi

I'm not the one claiming that all the woes of the world can be blamed on Islam, on the "complete system" and the Islamic Conspiracy. I'm happy for the present law to act in ways that it already can do and deport people that are not British citizens. I'm not happy to describe all Muslims as the same, and I'm not happy to say that Islam has a special status as a religion - that it cannot change (the way most Christians became more laid-back over 50 years ago). I haven't visited a mosque recently, as AGN suggests, but I can say that my brother visted a few in the eighties, and the people were very kind and helpful. Islam has been hi-jacked by some, but there are plenty of people in my neighbourhood that are very open people and moderate in their belief. And then there are a few here that were arrested for the plot to blow up planes with liquids in bottles. I've met kind, humorous, easy-going muslims, and I've met selfish, angry Sikhs. I've met fundamentalist Christian nutters that may need locking up and I've met Christians that are very open-minded in their faith.

You and AGN ignore the faults of others and you in particular are guilty of ignoring the attrocities of Christianity only a few hundred years ago. Christianity was a brutal, controlling, mysoginistic religion. Before that, Jewish laws were very controlling and there are shocking old-testament scriptures that brutally "put women in their place". The Pharisees were well know for prancing around and telling everyone about how righteous they were for blindly following ridiculous rules, whilst everyone else was a condemned sinner.

My comments were not so cretinous, they were simply sarcastic. AGN's views are particularly extreme, and I'm not sure that your plans for dealing with some of our problems are not racist. I can go with a loyalty / "denial of Shariah Law" test for those entering the country. I can go for deportation of proven extremists that have not already been granted British Citizenship, but much of what you say I cannot go with. Speak up, by all means, but do not deny a section of society its liberty, because you will soon find that the same rules will be used to deny you liberty.

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

Comment #227761 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm

AGN

I'm not going to enlist Sikh's or Hindu's to help me engineer society. The events in India involving Sikh's, Hindu's and Muslim's in India are no model for the society I want to live in.

I'll say no more. I'll leave you to your own foolish statements.

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

Comment #227746 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 10, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Ok, AGN, Fanusi, et al
You've convinced me. I'm never gonna get "undercover" into my local mosque, not unless I get the special make-over of an actor in "Team America" (durka-durka). I never did like those foreigners. They stink, I don't understand them, and - well - they're just different to what I'm used to. They come here, and if they're not taking our jobs then they're taking our welfare cheques. Before I know it my whole family will be converted to Islam. Pass me that BNP form. Where do I sign?

Now, how do I start on the faggots? I just know that they want a piece of my ass! (I'm quite a catch.) And you can never say anything bad about them now-a-days.

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

Comment #227731 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 10, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Fanusi, I am not really talking about reforming Islam. I just mention the similarities between many religions. Any one of them can be very dangerous. That is why Dawkins fronted "The Root of All Evil?". Religion is potentially dangerous. "All" religion is potentially dangerous. Why should I discriminate? But you do discriminate. You describe Islam as so very different to all those tolerant religions, such as Christianity. But Judaism and Christianity are not so different to Islam. They stifle rationaility and encourage (lazy) supernatural explanations of phenomenon.

Intolerance of people who believe in Islam above and beyond intolerance of white women who think the earth is 6000 years old and that the perfect word of god must be obeyed ... well that's what Hitler did with Jews (and what some people would still do to Jews - arguing some form of Jewish conspiracy, or the argument that we must squash the Jews because they think they are the chosen master race).

I would argue for tightening of some of our laws. I'd argue that Sherry Jones should publish her book, and imprison people who would constrain her freedom of speech. I would also argue that all people should give up their need for god, and instead try rational debate and logical explanations for the world we live in.

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

Comment #227694 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 10, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Fanusi, I still disagree. You are seeing a general version of Christianity today and forgetting how it used to be and how it could be today. There is a version of Christianity that sees their bible as the precise word of God that must be obeyed. Wikipedia says, about The Bible:
"Many others, who identify themselves as Bible-believing Christians, regard both the New and Old Testament as the undiluted Word of God, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans."

Christianity has been used as a system of total control in the past, and there are people in Britain, and other countries that are waiting for any chance to enforce their "perfect" complete-controlling version of belief on a wide public. Who knows, they may yet get their chance, especially if they can build up enough fear about the alien-controlling-influence of Islam (as you would do).

There are some Muslims who do not subscribe to the version of Islam that you are describing. That's not to say that the version of Islam you describe is not frightening - it is! But it's just one version of Islam that seems to be popular with some, and is so apparent on our TV screens. It is possible that a version of Islam may become more popular that does not kill apostates (the Koran does not explicitly state this as a neccessity), and where the interpretation is more tolerant and allowing of personal freedom.

I used picked 1000 years at random. It may not take that long for most muslims to change. And it might not take long for a truly awful, fundamentalist, intolerant version of Christianity to take hold!

The minute we allow your intolerant version of society to take hold is the moment that Islam or Fundamentalist Christianity has won.

321. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #217633 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Cartomancer, you're in fine, frisky mood tonight. I do hope you find "the hormonal one" tonight. Ha ha!

322. Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god

Comment #217624 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 24, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I'm still not comfortable with throwing emotive words - worrying about child abuse. I do feel some concern for the kids, but I cannot stop parents being bad parents. Thankfully there are some good parents, and some of it might be inspired by their religion. There are some pretty good idealised stories about some religious figures that can inspire simple, selfless, assertive people who are doing a good, supportive job.

Although I've denied god's existence for many years, until recently I thought most christians were just pleasant people trying to emulate an idealised Jesus figure, but forgetting all the "magic" mumbo-jumbo. I thought the fundamentalists lived in America, and that Britain had sensible everyday people that were trying to accept everyone as good character. Only recently I see desperate attempts at failth healing (I do believe, I do believe), and castigation of whole groups (they're quite welcome to be good and enter heaven, but they mustn't actually do any of that dirty sexual stuff). Today we whince at the practices of witch doctors in some regions of Africa. It's absurd to see that people are so backward to believe such dangerous nonsense. But today there are many Anglicans urging each other to "really believe". Not everyone knows that these people like to speak unintelligible mumbo jumbo, predict the future and heal physical injuries with magical spirits. Some people will be shocked what is really believed by the decision makers we have put in such positions of authority!

323. The brain in love

Comment #215208 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 21, 2008 at 1:41 pm

twp - you don't want a baby because you don't want a baby. At least not yet. And one of the driving factors is that none of us really want to be the victims of one of those praying mantis embraces.

Apathy Personified - I feel I should introduce the words of another great philosopher, which Helen Fisher touched upon.
"It's not the side-effects of the Cocaine. I'm thinking that it must be love"

I for one have found a great true love to spend my life with. But she's not here right now. Anyone fancy a shag?

324. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #214278 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 20, 2008 at 5:09 am

Joe, I aint reading all that!
You said Mohammed hadn't wasn't a sailor, but the koran accurately describes the conditions at sea. How could that be?!

Hmmm. Could it be that he met merchants that had described things to him. You see? You see what happens when you open your mind to other possibilities?

I mean. I wanna believe in your god, but there are these Christians that keep telling me that your god is the devil and that their scriptures accurately describe the geographical roots of mountains. How does the bible do that?

So who's best. Jesus or Mohammed? There's only one way to find out - FIGHT!

You know, the next thing you'll be telling me is that ground I walk on is part of a sphere. That just aint so. My everyday experiences confirm to me that the earth is flat, and I can find a couple of intelligent, "believing" scientists to back me up.

And when my god comes to town, all your computers are going to stop working because there's no way any sensible people could believe in that Quantum Mechanics babbling.

So Joe. Burn in hell. You chose the wrong god.

325. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214226 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 20, 2008 at 2:22 am

In response to "143. Comment #214150 by Veigard"

I have to admit that I was surprised at RD's age.

Surely it's all part of the deal when he sold his soul to the devil. Ha!

(You were all thinking it, but I couldn't stop myself saying it)

326. The Return of Religion

Comment #213854 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 19, 2008 at 4:46 am

563. Comment#213659 by utelme
Just read the article. Actually it was fascinating. I think if I'd had those out-of-body experiences and all the other stuff, then I'd find it hard not to believe god existed! Interesting that he pretends god exists. My guilty admission is that once-per-week I take my daughter to that church. It's her choice. I don't think refusing a desire makes it less desirable, so I agree to chaperone her. Whilst there I respect the behaviour, listen politely, enjoy moments of peace (sometimes nearly asleep), and accept other people's best wishes. So, once per week I pretend god exists. They tell me, "Surely you do believe." I say no, but I accept that a group of people coming together, hoping and praying might sometimes achieve more than if it were otherwise. But it's not god. It's positive thinking from a group urging each other on. It's a pleasant Anglican congregation. They mean well. Faith-healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, sexually inactive homosexuality, young earth creationism ... leaves me quite dismayed.

Heh. I'm feeling generous today. Imaginary friends for everyone here!

327. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213849 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 19, 2008 at 3:44 am

Steve, thanks for the tip. Off on my hols. in a week, so I'll see if I can get a copy of "Fabric of the Cosmos", or some such to take with me

328. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213845 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 19, 2008 at 3:33 am

It says: "One side of the debate is wholly ignorant. It would be as though you knew nothing of physics and were passionately arguing against Einstein's theory of relativity"

I wish there were passionate debates about Special Relativity. Where is the Dawkins that specialises in Physics and really brings the subject alive to the masses?

I did a Physics degree, and I still don't really "get it". It's more than saying, "time dilation" or "Lorentzian contraction" or "mass increases". It gets confusing.

Before anyone else gets in, note to self: Fucktard
(and to prove the point, I quite like the entertainment of Big Brother. I was snobby enough to refuse to watch the first series, but the brain disease has set in now)

329. The Return of Religion

Comment #213436 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 18, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Steve,
that's the second time I've expressed incredulity on this site. I really must stop doing that.

I can go with Trevor Horn. I remember buying "Video Killed the Radio Star" when I was 10. The bits of "Art of Noise" I heard were good (theu must have influence The Prodigy). In fact, I'm ashamed to admit that I quite liked Yes (I guess there's a hippy in me somewhere) although Drama wasn't their best.

Anyone like the Pixies?

Ah, what the hell. I'm off now. Have a good weekend

330. The Return of Religion

Comment #213324 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 18, 2008 at 11:40 am

How can you not like the Smiths. Sheer poetry for the disenchanted youth of the 80s. I guess you had to be struggling a bit with your adolescence at the time, but it certainly gave me a lot of pleasure.

Morrissey still has his moments, but his voice isn't as good and it must get harder to write another genius pop song after writing so many before.

331. The Return of Religion

Comment #213225 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 18, 2008 at 10:02 am

Oh, nearly forgot. "Breasts, flaps and ass-juice".

And make mine a brandy.

I didn't want to totally miss out on the party!

332. The Return of Religion

Comment #213221 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 18, 2008 at 9:54 am

Is there anything left to discuss here? Scruton's an intelligent philosopher. I don't agree with his tactic of describing the baying dogs of atheism. But I do wonder if Laurie's weekend of fun and Pope-disruption are part-proof of some of what he's describing. Do such actions on either side set us on a war-footing? Is it possible to find a place where we can both stand and be part-reconciled? Time and again I find myself being sympathetic to the viewpoint of a "believer". Science alone struggles to answer my questions about my existence. It doesn't describe my emotions and doesn't easily help me with my own stupidity and my own "insanity". I mention insanity because most of us struggle to be rational all the time and many of us will have an emotional breakdown at some point in our lives. I think I've ventured into that territory twice. Thankfully for me I didn't need to resort to religion. But who can blame everyone that does? When all else fails, a supportive group of people offering hope when there is no possible hope, is a tempting offer. I'm not sure that secular-humanist organisations are yet as well geared-up to offer this sort of thing. CocoCantare's husband is still a mild-Catholic, and I feel no need to tell him he is stupid.

Richard Dawkins has described atheists who argue in support of religion as patronising. In that case I'll have to accept the "patronising" title. But the fact is, even if you've never drawn on that virtual-nocotine-cigarette of Faith before, many people are drawn to something at some point in their life. If it's not monotheism then it's crystals, astrology, mother-earth, buddhism or some such thing. In 1984 no-one believes in God, but the political machine has given everyone Big Brother to worship. What will our society do when god is dead? Yep, most of us here will find, or keep searching, for a scientic understanding of what we are and what we do, but not everone will. It could be that science is failing to win the arguments that it should be winning. Education is to blame? Society is to blame? Governments and families are to blame? But you try going to the average person on the street to explain the concept of a theory. Explain that the theory of evolution is a well understoood set of ideas that has a considerable weight of proof and many years of debate to support it. And yet the theories of the exact details of the beginning of the universe are more tenuous, but plausible and fantastically exciting to consider. All that some people will want to know is "Is it a true fact?" And when they hear that there are arguments against, then they will start to switch off.

Still - Scruton loses my vote altogether when he refuses to admit that Young Earth Creationism is alive and well everywhere. It is highly visible amongst the people at the Church in my street, so I'm sure he's seen plenty of refusal to accept solid science, driven by the desire to insist their book is the perfect truth of god's word.

333. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210948 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 15, 2008 at 9:27 am

Clearmind
Thanks for that. Because I don't worship God I was going to encourage my children to lie, cheat and kill everyone. Phew! That was a close one.

Keep listening to your children and encourage them to look for some of their own answers. It's ok to get confused at first, but in the end she'll make her own intelligent conclusions.

334. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210817 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 15, 2008 at 5:41 am

I'll assume Clearmind is male. I think he's cute. He feels passionate and desperately wants to display the poetry of his soul. It's that understanding of the "soul" where he and I differ, and I'm not surprised that he feels the way he does. It's inconceivable to some that their consciousness is "not" a special, separate entity. I too struggle to fully understand that in a few years I won't exist. So I sympathise with Clearmind. It's a hard thing to get your head around. It's a difficult thing to accept. My daughter, when she was 8, demonstrated a similar difficulty, whilst discussing the fact we ate animals. In her own mind she didn't really accept that we actually ate "the animal" (a good vegetarian in the making). So she separated out the animal from the meat and said, "We eat animals don't we. There must be some meat inside." And if you were there, you'd realise that she thought there was, like, a bag of meat in the animal which we could harvest. But the meat was seperate from the animal and her way of thinking made her feel comfortable. She no longer thinks that way and I can only hope Clearmind will one day accept that his soul is not separate from his body. His mind, body, experiences are all part of the same animal-machine, with a better chemical parallel processor than most other animals. After all, my soul didn't exist 50 years ago, and in fact, the person I am now didn't even exist 10 years ago. But the concept of memes just might explain why Clearmind and others persist with such unhelpful thinking.

William1w1 - a "straw man" is an unreal enemy you can create for soldiers to practice their shooting and stabbing. You can make up the enemy to be something simple to attack, but the real enemy, or the real argument you want to defeat is not so simple. The reason I resent the term is that I heard it constantly when others criticised The God Delusion. Even other atheists who wanted to be very nice about religion, insisted that Dawkins book had created a straw man to defeat. And so they "proved" that Dawkins criticisms were not valid!

335. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210412 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 14, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Cluebot.
Slightly embarassed, and accepting your point - I cannot retract. I feel anyone can criticise anything and then people can pull the "ace card" too easily, saying, "that the criticism is not valid because it is only a straw man that is being ridiculed". And that alone is a fairly safe, defensive manoevre. But a better manoevre is to show that the "ridiculous charicature" is not what Dan was describing. I'm not the best to explain memes. I don't know much about them. But the essence of it seems to be that ideas can take shape that play a part in controlling our behaviour, and sometimes the resulting behaviour can be harmful. Darwinian mechanisms are taking place to allow some memes to continue their existence better than others. Clearmind has hooked on to the idea that "Darwin" explains how "something" (complex) can come to exist from nothing (or rather something very simple). And so Clearmind is laughing that anyone could possibly believe that the words of a book could actually be responsible for writing a book itself. You and I know that's not what Dan is saying. We know that some (sometimes random) behaviour becomes repeated and some behaviour becomes more desirable to us than others, and so some behaviours win and other behaviours lose. And so Clearmind may, when distressed, take comfort from self-harming, even when there's no real benefit. And then Clearmind might attribute this to the commands of god.

336. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210371 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 14, 2008 at 11:38 am

Cluebot, I can't believe you used the "straw man" argument. I don't really agree with censorship, but that one ought to be banned on this site. I'm thoroughly sick of hearing "that" from people of faith that don't realise that "they are" the straw people that are being criticised.

Not seen the video yet, but will take a look when I get home.

Nice touch MG. Valid criticism in the first place ... but then to realise that the poor level of English wasn't the real issue ... always good to hear an apology when due.