351. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #194748 by hungarianelephant on June 17, 2008 at 8:27 am

alexmzk - Of course. But I thought that I wouldn't like to make an offer which was so obviously too good to be true.

352. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #194745 by hungarianelephant on June 17, 2008 at 8:25 am

188. Comment #194666 by Shmeezers on June 17, 2008 at 6:48 am

And objective morality makes complete sense. For example - the statement that everyone has inalienable rights (to life, to a fair trial, to express their beliefs). Just remember that you atheists got your chance to express your views precisely because theists decided to conceive of the right to freedom of expressions as absolute. Had they not, your nonsense would have been stopped long ago. (And look at what it has brought us...multiple universes, life arising on it's own...ugh. Whatever.)

Objective morality is the basis of our rights in this society, and the moral claims that we make.

Oh, really?

Please provide citations showing developments by theists of the concepts of rights. Also please provide your dictionary's definition of "inalienable" and "absolute", as they are obviously not the same as the ones in my dictionary.

It is surprising that this is not obvious.

Not if it is not, in fact, obvious. Unless we have a dictionary problem again. Does "obvious" mean "I can't be bothered to understand any other explanation"?

353. Rapture site sends unbelievers their last chance ... via email

Comment #194695 by hungarianelephant on June 17, 2008 at 7:39 am

And for the bargain price of $25 per year, I would like to offer rapture insurance. In the event of rapture, I will pay all policyholders $1000, to be distributed to those friends and relatives left behind.

Terms and conditions apply.

[EDIT - and wouldn't you just know, gcdavis beat me to it.]

354. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #194640 by hungarianelephant on June 17, 2008 at 5:59 am

mixmastergaz - There's nothing wrong with changing your mind. It's what reasonable people do.

355. Divine Impulses: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #194638 by hungarianelephant on June 17, 2008 at 5:55 am

Not really on topic, but since it came up:

Does religion turn people into austere ass holes, or do austere ass holes gravitate towards religion?

The reason I ask is that as soon as Ireland got rid of the influence of the Catholic no-fun brigade, it immediately acquired a cohort of self-appointed guardians of the national interest who were almost completely indistinguishable. Except they attached themselves to political correctness and the lunatic fringe of the green lobby.

Will we ever get rid of these people?

356. Stephen Hawking: ministers' £80m error puts science at risk

Comment #194036 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 10:00 am

Lemniscate - Funnily enough, I received a letter this morning telling me that Oxford University is trying to raise £1.25 billion (and asking me to provide some of it).

And why? To enable it to maintain its independence.

When the great universities essentially pass a declaration of independence from government, that ought to tell us something.

357. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #194030 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 9:51 am

238. Comment #193951 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 8:35 am

So what you're basically saying is that I'm talking complete crap. Natural "explanations" rule out most of what theists claim, as well as having other problems - such as lack of any actual evidence.

Trying to argue like a theist makes my little head hurt.

358. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #193891 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 7:42 am

Something here needs fixing:

Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, head of the Vatican's Prefecture for Economic Affairs, said that the author had "turned the Gospels upside down to poison the faith. It would be unacceptable to transform churches into film sets so that his blasphemous novels can be made into mendacious films in the name of business. Selective use of ancient texts and lying to extract money from people is the exclusive preserve of the Vatican."

You're welcome, Bish.

359. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193828 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 5:22 am

224. Comment #193822 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:54 am

But then D can't be the source of objective morality etc., so it can't be Robertson's God.

Why not? What if D has interacted with our specific planet with a view to ensuring that the human species evolving as it has, and intervened in history to get the bible written? As such D created man in - if not his own image - at least his own preference, and gave commandments through biblical figures.

There's a pretty glaring Humean objection here, as well as a parsimony problem. What I'm looking for is anything which knocks this down as a matter of principle.

Quetz - Good points. Such a mechanism contradicts the later Christian concept of God. I sometimes wonder which is more effective: logical pushing of people into contradicting themselves, or asking questions about pictures in grilled cheese sandwiches.

360. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193820 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 4:53 am

218. Comment #193807 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 4:23 am

This isn't a matter of something being outside of 4D spacetime. It is about something being entirely "extra dimensional".

That's my point. The quantum-deity conjecture seems to imply that D is not "extra dimensional", but merely outside 4D and interacting with it in a way which we cannot (currently) understand. I may be misunderstanding MPhil, but the argument seems to assume that D is not natural. What if D is natural?

220. Comment #193811 by Quetzalcoatl on June 16, 2008 at 4:28 am

look at it this way. If God is hiding in one of the higher dimensions, then he is still within our Universe, and therefore his interactions should be testable.

Absolutely. And the scientific answer should be "state the nature of this interactions and make testable predictions". The problem is that religious minds are trained to answer that with "God moves in mysterious ways" and other such guff. They think they have put together a scientific basis for God and sit back smugly. What I am getting at is whether there is a logical or scientific demolition of this.

361. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193816 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 4:36 am

I wouldn't hold the Hitler Youth / army thing against Ratzinger either.

However, when the Catholic church tries to make a big thing about its leader's moral integrity, I think it's fair to point out that many people did refuse to serve in the German army long before the Russians were breathing down their necks. Many paid the ultimate price.

You'd think, wouldn't you, that a devout believer would recognise that doing the right thing for God would mean that you get to go to heaven, and that martyrdom is not to be feared?

362. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193805 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 4:12 am

Steve - I (think I) understand that. But "space" and "time" are just the dimensions that we perceive. Nature is not necessarily restricted to those four dimensions. We know that some things make more sense in fractional dimensions, and I understand that the string hypothesis requires at least 12. What we are positing here is an entity D which exists outside of what we normally perceive but which can nevertheless act through natural processes to influence things which we can perceive. The idea pokes at the premiss that spacetime is causally closed.

This line of argument seems to imply that D is natural, not supernatural, and thus subject in principle to scientific enquiry. It also seems to me that I'm talking utter bollocks. I'm just not quite sure, scientifically, why.

363. Physicists in Congress Calculate Their Influence

Comment #193797 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 3:55 am

17. Comment #193769 by Count von Count on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 am

Maybe instead candidates could just be rigorously vetted by a panel of scientists, who give them the thumbs up or thumbs down. The voters are free to disagree with the panel, but it would be very embarrassing for a candidate not to have the approval of the panel. I understand something like this happens in Brittan (but not with a panel of scientists).

That's right. There's a panel of local party stalwarts. They come from all walks of life - retired brigadiers, company directors, barristers, stockbrokers ... there are even sometimes ladies on the panel, and what a pleasure it is to see them nicely turned out with their new hair-dos. Once there was even a gentleman under 60, though he went off to run the cricket club.

They serve a very important role, such as ensuring that the prospective candidate's wife is a suitable person for the position. Of course, since she's the daughter of the panel chairman, this is pretty much a given.

364. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193790 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 3:45 am

200. Comment #193776 by epeeist on June 16, 2008 at 3:17 am

He has never managed to define the "creed" or "tenets" that atheists supposedly adhere to.

We certainly don't have a complete list. But I think we've managed to pin down two such alleged tenets:

• materialism


• moral relativism

Neither of them actually are tenets of atheism, but who needs truth when you have an imaginary friend to balance your cheque book?

365. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193788 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 3:40 am

194. Comment #193765 by Steve Zara on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 am

What MPhil is saying is actually quite simple (athough the philosophical discussions of it can get a bit obscure). Cause and effect have no meaning without space and time. Without time, causality has no meaning, and without space, there is no ability to determine what caused what, as that requires chains of spatial connectedness.

So, to invoke a being outside of any space and time and to say that He influences physical reality is simply gibberish. The words don't make any sense. It is like saying "circles have 8 sides".

One response I have heard to this is that since, at quantum level, we can't determine how things will behave, it would be possible for a suitably knowledgeable deity to influence subatomic behaviour so as to produce natural effects without leaving obvious signs of a supernatural cause.

The obvious practical objection to this is that there is no sufficient empirical evidence for any given deity, such as a significant response to prayer, and the fact that modern "miracles" are confined to images in grilled cheese sandwiches and coincidences involving cheques drawn on the Clydesdale Bank. But is there a better scientific (or philosophical) objection?

366. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192519 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 9:01 am

123. Comment #192489 by kaiserkriss on June 13, 2008 at 7:12 am

Why does the police only seem to enforce it against reasonable individuals such as the young man you mentioned but not against the placard waving Muslims calling on death to all infidel??

Because only one of these entails them having to do some real work. Much the same as if a fight breaks out at a pub, the police will turn up 10 minutes later and arrest the wounded. Excuse my cynicism.

124. Comment #192491 by al-rawandi on June 13, 2008 at 7:19 am

Sounds like Muhammad cartoons are illegal in England.

Believe it or not, that was suggested. There is a defence that "the conduct was reasonable" - you'd have a hard time getting a conviction. However ...

126. Comment #192515 by Barry Pearson on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 am

The police officer screwed up, and hopefully the police will get it right next time. It reflects on police traing, etc, rather than the law. It is important to distinguish between what the law ACTUALLY is, and what people claim it is.

I profoundly disagree. This law is drafted vaguely (quite deliberately) and gives the police an express power of arrest. It was intended to allow the police lots of scope to tell people to "move on" or arrest them. Our 15 year old friend was brave enough to tell the police they were wrong. Most people, threatened with arrest, will not. If you wanted to suppress free speech, this is the ideal law to use. It has a chilling effect on free speech.

When drafting is this vague, overzealous and stupid interpretations become inevitable. And the same applies to the Steyn case. No doubt the BCHRC is comprised of bumblings jobsworths. But what they are doing is the inevitable result of the nicey fluffy mandate they have been given with the powers attached to it.

367. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192487 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 7:04 am

Did someone call?

To the discussion of "inciting religious hatred" in UK law, it's also worth pointing out section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

This is the police weapon of choice in dealing with behaviour which they do not personally approved of. You may remember that this was the section used against the young gentleman who was arrested after refusing to take down a placard calling scientology a "dangerous cult".

368. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192431 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 3:42 am

scottishgeologist - That gave me a great laugh, thanks. Probably because it's not too far from the truth.

The proclamation on tampons came from a long work by Canon McCarthy of Maynooth in answer to readers of some magazine's sexual dilemmas - imagine "Dear Deirdre" in old Ireland. He also offered the view that kissing was "fraught with danger", and "often venially sinful" as it "arouses venereal pleasure". I'll say. He should have met my wife.

These guys must have been seriously obsessed.

369. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192422 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 3:29 am

An entirely unscientific observation:

Westerners seem to use recourse to violence when they can't get anywhere with legal processes.

The jihad resorts to legal processes when it turns out to be rubbish at violence.

370. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192419 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 3:24 am

100. Comment #192416 by epeeist on June 13, 2008 at 3:01 am

Much of this is a matter of perspective.

The French regard the Dunkirk evacuation as "vache" - cowardly. Apparently it would have been better for the BEF to stay and be killed or captured, along with the French. While the Poles, who did put up a good fight, were furious that the British and French together didn't invade Germany in September 1939.

I have met Brits who are still sore about Ireland's neutrality, while almost no one recalls that the Italians lost a lot of people after they changed sides.

And to the Soviets, anything that happened on the western front is largely irrelevant.

371. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192417 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 3:11 am

Guinness sponsors the hurling. You couldn't make this stuff up.

The self abuse eventually gave way - partly anyway - to self delusion and hypocrisy. Back in the 1970s, when contraceptives were illegal, and tampons were described as "morally suspect" because they "can easily be a grave source of temptation" (some things just need to be underlined), married women could still be prescribed the pill as a "cycle regulator".

It turned out that Irish women had the most irregular cycles in the world.

372. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #192410 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 2:38 am

phil rimmer - Some exploiters, but mainly expert compartmentalisers. But then, I live in Ireland, where the national sports are hurling, self-delusion and hypocrisy.

373. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #192396 by hungarianelephant on June 13, 2008 at 1:38 am

lastgeekstanding - 1 is acceptable, though 2 is a clearer expression of your intended meaning, in my opinion.

Do let me know if you'd like any further views on grammar or OJ Simpson. My rates are very reasonable and I don't get uptight about Americanized spellings or split infinitives.

374. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #192010 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 9:55 am

lastgeek, if you must intrude on our important and on-topic discussion of OJ Simpson, and if you must criticise other posters' punctuation, then you might at least do it in a sentence which makes sense in English.

375. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #192006 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 9:52 am

MaxD - I don't know whether the chain of custody problems are the result of something sinister or not; I was perhaps being a little loose with language before. However, I have a rather large hunch.

Police departments do this stuff all the time, and for the best of motives. They think they know whodunnit and want to make sure that they keep the bad guys off the street. I have been in cases where an officer brazenly made things up in the witness box to suit the prosecution, apparently because he was personally convinced of the guilt of the accused (in one case, the police evidence would have required the defendant's car to have been travelling at 160mph down a busy street and stopped in twenty yards).

It wouldn't surprise me if LAPD did this stuff deliberately. Not even a little bit. It doesn't mean that OJ was innocent. But as you say, it did mean that they couldn't prove him guilty.

I'd rather these things didn't happen. I'd rather the LAPD had done its job properly (as it now might) and the prosecution had been competent, and we had seen a proper investigation and a case which would have put a double murderer away. But if they can't or won't do that, then it's very simple. He has to be acquitted. Otherwise there's no point having trials at all.

376. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192001 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 9:39 am

Frankus - I'd be more worried that he'll go into politics in Ireland.

Here's what the chairman of a planning tribunal had to say last week during our former Taoiseach's (prime minister to you) evidence about unexplained pounds sterling deposits in his bank account:

Could I ask the members of the public not to laugh while evidence is being given?

Some things just need to be underlined ...

377. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191999 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 9:35 am

64. Comment #191990 by Szymanowski on June 12, 2008 at 9:07 am

Even if it IS causing negative long-term effects on the mental health of all the exposed children (and it clearly isn't), this sort of thing is NOT the business of government or law.

But some will only understand the importance of free speech when it's gone.

Szymanowski - I've a feeling there might be an important point in here.

Could you expand a bit, please?

378. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191964 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 7:41 am

Read the Wikipedia section you cited.

LA Police Detective Phillip Vanatter could not explain why he kept the 8 cc's taken as a sample of OJ Simpson's blood for hours before recording it as evidence, and why he had it at Simpson's house when evidence was being collected, as corroborated by TV news footage.

The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 cc's of blood were missing from the original 8 cc's taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.

Hmm.

Much of the incriminating evidence: bloody glove, bloody socks, blood in and on the Bronco, was discovered by Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman.

And Fuhrman's credibility was in dispute. The "nigger" thing is a sideshow. Ultimately, the jury weren't sufficiently convinced that he was credible.

As I've said before, a DNA match between two blood samples only proves (with miniscule doubt) that the two samples came from the same source. If, say, blood is taken from a sample and put on a sock in police custody, then you would expect the two to match. But that doesn't place the bleeder in the place where the sock is found. The defence doesn't have to prove that this happened. It's up to the prosecution to prove that this didn't happen. This is easy if you follow standard police operating procedure. They didn't, so they couldn't.

More generally, I suspect the jury felt that the whole picture didn't add up. The murder scene was a bloodbath - the murderer would have been covered in the victims' blood. There was also evidence that Goldman fought hard. Yet only traces of blood were found, and no injuries on the alleged murderer. This is not impossible, but it does need some explanation. The prosecution seemed to think that they were above such niceties.

379. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191957 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 7:23 am

39. Comment #191953 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 7:12 am

If the resurrection happened, then there had to be a "fall", which really does imply some kind of Eden-like state of the world before some species of Homo did the first naughty thing.

If not, what was the death and resurrection of Jesus for? One can't talk about dealing with the sin of Adam if Adam didn't exist, you know.

I was recently told by a Catholic that the resurrection was part of the "central Christian message" that there is hope beyond death. So you don't need a literal fall.

Quite how this central message failed to be communicated in the rambling mess of the bible, or why most Christians would struggle to articulate it, or what the living bejesus "hope beyond death" means, was not specified.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

380. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191955 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 7:18 am

al-rawandi - If you think I'm suggesting that you're messing with the evidence, I'm not. I am pointing out that people form opinions based on all kinds of crap and in the light of all kinds of prejudice. America being a free country, and Britain being only half way departed, they are perfectly entitled to do that.

But as we keep insisting on this site, that is no way to run a society. Evidence has to be not just present, but relevant, complete as far as possible, and properly weighed. That is what is supposed to happen in a court. It's not perfect, but on the whole it's better than trial by media, IMHO. The people who complain about "legal technicalities" are nearly always the ones who want to push a particular agenda without backing it up properly.

You are, to quote an excellent poster here, "flailing at a straw man" if you are trying to argue the relevance of the physical evidence. Of course it is relevant. But so is the evidence which raises doubts as to how that physical evidence got there.

Not relevant includes Nicole's statement that she feared that her husband would kill her. And the same goes for Princess Diana's similar statement. If you could prove an actual threat, that would be relevant. Otherwise it's simply prejudicial. I don't recall whether it was admitted or not. It shouldn't have been.

Furman's vocabulary is unimpressive as character impeachment - that's a bit of trial showmanship and I wish it didn't happen. But his character was very much in issue. It's not for the defence to show that someone else did it. It's for the prosecution to prove its case. And it did a pretty poor job. The jury thought so too.

381. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191945 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Philip - A suggestion:

Since creationism isn't about God, but an unprovable idea that there was a creation, we agree that it may be taught in schools, but insist that the creator be called "Janet".

They've already agreed that it isn't an equivocation about the nature of God, so they can't possibly object. Can they?

382. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191940 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 6:45 am

464. Comment #191936 by al-rawandi on June 12, 2008 at 6:27 am

Well you did say to me that you weren't even sure that he committed the crime, outside of the legal framework of the case. In this case (in your mind) you can allow any and all relevant facts. The chain of custody argument is only good in a court room, in the real world you would have to tell me that the police went around carefully planting the evidence, you would also have to think of why they would even do that.

I said that I wasn't convinced - not convinced enough to put someone away for life. I stand by that.

Of course, when you form your own opinion, you're entitled to take into account any and all relevant facts. And irrelevant ones too, if you like. And to leave out relevant stuff.

But these issues are not legal technicalities. They are essential protections for ensuring that the evidence is sound and relevant. Generally, they are there to prevent the jury from being sidetracked by prejudicial material; if we didn't have juries, we wouldn't need many of the rules, but there is still plenty of reason for giving little weight to some kinds of evidence. "Chain of custody", for example, is to ensure that someone doesn't disappear with an 8ml sample of blood for several hours and emerge with no explanation and blood on a number of items.

LAPD may have framed the right man. But if he was so obviously guilty, why was this necessary?

The guy wrote a book called "If I did it". You can't be a rational person and not say "Ok the guy killed his wife".

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The trial, far more than his football career, was the defining moment of his life. It's hardly surprising that he should think a lot about it, perhaps even try to put it into words. At best, it was horribly misguided, but it's hardly proof that he did it. If I wrote about how I'd have made a better job of the Great Train Robbery, does that suggest that I was involved?

383. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191923 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 6:01 am

al-rawandi - So what you are saying is that on the basis of inadmissible evidence of past deeds, physical evidence without a proper chain of custody, inadmissible evidence of flight (and do your shades constitute a "disguise kit"?), inadmissible hearsay evidence, inadmissible irrelevant evidence of theft of keys, the finding of a court on a lower standard of proof, and a hearsay confession by a financially interested party, you're prepared to convict someone of murder and imprison them for life.

You're entitled to that opinion. You're not going to sell it to me as the basis for a sound criminal justice system, though.

384. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191896 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 4:25 am

53. Comment #191886 by AllanW on June 12, 2008 at 3:54 am

So would one term in government really be any different from the vacillation between monolithic, doctrinaire Tory and New Labour hegemonies that we in this country have seen for the last twenty years?

Well, as you say, it could have ramifications well beyond.

Generally I wonder if we would even notice if the government simply stopped doing 90% of the things it does. I've previously suggested making a randomised list of all public servants, and firing every third one - or even just paying them to do nothing for a couple of years. Would anyone really notice the difference?

A few years back I did a stint in a London council I prefer not to name. My job - in a loose sense of "job" - was to answer the phone. People would ring up and ask to speak to (let's call her) Jenny Higginbottam. And I would say "no", because she was too busy. It's hard to say what she did. Mostly it was managing the department which she had grown, in the space of two years, from 3 people to 25. While I was there, they held two all-hands off site meetings about what the department should be called. I promise you, I am not making this up.

One of the possibly useful things they had done just before I got there was a mailshot to the blind and partially sighted people of the borough asking them what the council could do for them. Unfortunately, no one had thought to produce this in large print or Braille. There were a total of six responses, four of which were "please stop bothering my mother, because she's been dead for over a year". The council maintained at least five different databases that I know of and had no procedure for reconciling them.

The staff obsessed about minorities. Except me (and a straight white male is a rare bird indeed in London councils). I once made the mistake of asking why there was an HIV/AIDS support unit, but not one for other incurable fatal diseases when more people in the borough died of cancer. This marked me out as a troublemaker, though I never actually got an answer.

They also obsessed about the latest management consultant fads. A particular hang-up at the time was "best value" in competitive tendering. There was a slight problem with this: the legislation hadn't been brought in (or Labour even elected), and what they were doing was completely illegal. This was of no apparent consequence. In fact, the only thing that did encourage energy was the presence of a councillor. You or I might regard councillors as a sort of joke - political hacks who can't make it in real politics. In the council, they may as well have been camp commandants.

Outside the council building, the streets remained filthy, with homeless people sleeping rough in view of social services' window.

So I'm a little sceptical about government's ability to achieve ... well, anything. I enjoyed that rant, though.

What is clear is that you can achieve some kinds of significant change by a few well directed measures. The Atlee government created a welfare state which proved impossible to shift. The Thatcher government sold council houses and took power away from the unions, and no one even talks about reversing this any more. Can anyone name a lasting achievement of McMillan, or Heath, or Wilson (all more astute politicians)?

Whether the Reason Party would make a lasting difference to the way things are discussed is debatable. But I'd think it's worth a try.

385. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191880 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 3:42 am

45. Comment #191829 by phil rimmer on June 12, 2008 at 12:19 am

THE place to start in the UK is education. We must reign back Faith Schools. We must improve the quality of education in the areas of critical thinking skills, morality, civic behaviour etc. The political rhetoric would be-

"RE and Philosophy, Education to heal a broken society."

Stop rearranging the deck-chairs.

Phil - I've taken to regarding your posts as compulsory reading. Just thought you ought to know.

The Reason Party sounds like a great idea, though I suspect it wouldn't be elected for a second term. We all build delusions of some description. Are any of us really prepared to apply critical thinking consistently throughout our lives? I would think that anyone who tried to do this from a position of power would quickly find him/herself prodding sacred cows, and swiftly removed. Still, even one term might be enough to get rid of some of the accrued excrement in the way our soceity is run.

49. Comment #191878 by davorg on June 12, 2008 at 3:31 am

Of course that response will be hand-wavy and waffly in the extreme, but at least a civil servant will spend time composing it.

Then why do they all look like they came from the same random text generator?

386. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191866 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 3:08 am

MaxD - I pretty much agree with all of your post. Still, the question remains whether "more likely than not" or "very likely" is enough to send someone to jail for the rest of their life. I say not. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is there for a very good reason. I would not like to see that standard lowered. I may need it one day.

What worries me most about the OJ case is that most people aren't prepared to look beyond their initial prejudices. It's one thing looking at the evidence and disagreeing with the jury. It's quite another to be completely ignorant of the evidence and make up your mind on irrelevant grounds. I understand that opinion is broadly divided in the US on racial grounds. That makes about as much sense as Clinton's impeachment trial being decided on party political grounds. He either lied or he didn't. And OJ either did the murders or he didn't. These are questions of fact, not viewpoint.

Thanks for the rec of John Douglas' book. I'm not getting much reading done at the moment, other than of "That's Not My Kitten" to my daughter. The narrative is good and the flow is excellent, but it's a little insubstantial.

387. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191863 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 2:58 am

133. Comment #191847 by Vaal on June 12, 2008 at 1:44 am

Guys, no point biting to David Robertson. It is a futile exercise. He just posts his paranoid drivel and waits for the reaction. He doesn't have anything new to say, and he doesn't bring anything to the debate.

You are probably right.

On the other hand, if he is really here to quote-mine, we could have a little fun with this.

There's the Wolverhampton Gambit, for starters. (If you find yourself kidnapped by Al Qaeda and they tell you to confess on video that you are a spy, agree heartily with them and say that so are their Wolverhampton branch. It might not save your life, but it will ruin their video and deplete their resources.)

Or in the middle of any insult, add the words "quote-mining". That forces a dishonest quotation.

Or add something nice, or irrelevant. Or a word that his intended audience are going to have to look up.

Example:
You are an ignorant, self-absorbed, tall, homophobic catamite. And at least three of your congregation agree with me.

Just a thought.

388. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191840 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 1:09 am

Thanks for all the compliments, people. In all honesty, it's easy (though tedious). You just need a few hours of reading some of the fine posts on this site, a useful theist and liberal use of the <strike> tag. As I said early on in the thread, this guy is wooter, only in English. He has nothing to say other than LOGIC in block capitals.

Now sent2null's posts on this thread, they are of real educational value.

389. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191838 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 1:03 am

128. Comment #191831 by clearthinker on June 12, 2008 at 12:35 am

David, are you saying that moral relativism is an atheist tenet, and that the absence of justice is a necessary consequence?

Hungarian - Yes.

Well then you're talking piffle.

Firstly, as Steve Zara has pointed out, there are plenty of atheists who believe in absolute morality. They're called Buddhists.

Secondly, it is not a binary choice between absolute morality and moral relativism. Some moralities are more coherent than others, and some are more evolutionarily stable than others. Sure, this is doesn't prove an ought - see the work of that fine Scotsman David Hume - but that doesn't prevent us as a society from adopting a collective morality. I would be amazed if you found anyone here defending, say, the regime in Iran on the ground of moral relativism.

And thirdly, the absence of justice doesn't follow from moral relativism. Even if "substantive justice", whatever that is, would become an even vaguer concept and subject to different moral systems, formal justice would survive. I've already been through this in my reply to you on the "word to non-believers" thread: [link].

390. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191633 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:42 am

457. Comment #191625 by al-rawandi on June 11, 2008 at 10:28 am

Let me fix that for you.

The fact that the blood found at the murder scence was OJ's (one in 170 million) was air tight proof that OJ's blood was in OJ's old house. And if you poked around one of my old patios, you'd probably find my blood there too.

Nicole's blood was on OJ's sock. (1 in 9.7 billion Caucasions). However, the prosecution couldn't establish a proper and uncorrupt chain of custody that would show it was on the sock when they found it.

Both Nicole's and Ron Goldman's blood (traces) were found in samples taken from OJ's bronco, but there were the same problems with chain of custody.

Simpson's hair was found on Goldman's t-shirt, which was in a house in which OJ previously lived.

Etc. etc. See the other problems with the evidence referred to in the Wikipedia article you cite.

DNA evidence only proves that one sample of DNA matches another. Unless you can convincingly show where you got the samples, it doesn't prove anything.This is where the prosecution went pear-shaped.

I understood that Dershowitz acted pro bono, will check that.

[EDIT - re Pollard, I'm not familiar with this case, but presumably Pollard was legally innocent at the time Dershowitz was defending him. Even alleged traitors are entitled to a defence.]

391. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191627 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:30 am

Thanks AllanW. I thought that story was in TGD and was about a scientist, who at the end of it decides to reject the evidence instead of the bible. I don't quite remember though.

Confetti. Hmm. Now there's a use for all those bibles that won't be needed after the atheist revolution.

392. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191623 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:26 am

MaxD - I saw nearly all of the case live. (I was a student on holiday and had nothing else to do. The internet hadn't been invented, at least in my house.)

What evidence do you think was presented that would be sufficient to get a conviction? And if it were you on trial, do you feel you would have any legitimate complaint if you were convicted?

393. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191612 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:09 am

Better make that 13 morons.

The evidence against him was pathetic. Not even a Surrey Magistrates Court would have convicted him on the basis of what the prosecution produced, and I've seen them believe stuff that would embarrass devout Catholics. Important parts of the evidence were planted and many of the police involved are found to be corrupt.

If he did it, he somehow managed to dispose of both the murder weapon and the blood-stained clothes such that they have never been found. I'm not saying this is impossible, but it at least gives some grounds for doubt.

And even if he did, that doesn't mean that it's wrong for any given lawyer to put his case. I have no particular liking of this character, but pro bono work on difficult and controversial cases is something for which lawyers deserve bouquets, not brickbats. You might one day find yourself in need of it.

394. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191604 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 9:49 am

Why would Alan Dershowitz regret defending OJ?

395. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191522 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 5:56 am

6905. Comment #191511 by Philip1978 on June 11, 2008 at 5:19 am

Surely its not the size of the hubris that counts, its what a person does with it thats important! :)

As someone once wisely said to me, "Stop worrying about it. You can still do great things with a big hubris". I think that's what she said, anyway.

396. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191519 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 5:41 am

Bonzai - You are not the first to notice the similarity between the arguments in this article and wooter's meanderings. Several posters have commented on it.

And when I say "arguments" ...

397. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191468 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 2:53 am

Steve, two fine compliments from you in a matter of days. My head will not go through the door. What happened to the new Steve With Bite?

That was almost unbearably tedious, but I've amended worse contracts (ahem, DC lawyers, ahem).

398. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Comment #191463 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 2:48 am

I missed this last time round.

This is bad news if you like to cold-cook your beef by marinating it in lemon juice.

Although, I suppose, we could always start buying meat that has been properly butchered and doesn't have shit in it.

(That whooshing noise was the sound of the point missing me.)

399. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191454 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 2:13 am

In response to AllanW's suggestion, here's the annotated article. I'm sure the proper philosophers here can do a more complete job, but there's not much left anyway:

One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels. By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.

Yet even after a detailed case is made for the illogical side of the argument, it can instantly be deflated like a balloon with the simplest poke of clear logic. It can also be attacked piece by piece with even greater skill and logic, stemming from a steadfast pursuit of the truth.

Nowhere does the above hold more true than with regard to the existence of a Divine Creator. Proof of a conscious Creator is readily available. The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn't write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.[Argument from personal incredulity]

The atheist, on the other hand, needs to build a plausible case for this irrational scenario.[Attempt to shift the burden of proof by unsupported assertion] But first, let's examine how irrational it is:

No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form[False premiss; Big Bang Theory posits only two elements being formed during the initial phase; other elements necessary for life are demonstrably formed in stars], may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about. [True, so not stricken; fallacious in that it attempts to suggest that such coincidences are "more unlikely"; fallacious analogy dealt with below]

They believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously[Equivocation; this suggests planets appear from nothing, which is not the case, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do[False premiss], that they have gravity[Attempt to mislead in that it suggests that gravity is not an inherent property of all matter], that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life[False premiss; most known planets are known not to contain such conditions] all happened by mere fluke. Yet the same people would (rightly) denounce as preposterous the notion that the Egyptian pyramids built themselves. They would point to the structure and detailed design of these impressive inanimate objects. Yet they outrageously chalk up to coincidence billions upon billions of times more detail and design[Unsupported assertion] in all parts of life found in this universe.

To be sure, someone can build sandcastles in the sky on how the spontaneous coming together of molecules, then turning into bricks, changing further into buildings, culminating in 10,000 perfectly aligned skyscrapers all built with no builder is a plausible scenario. They can form intricate arguments to support this theory. But in the end, the entire proposition remains offensive to logic itself.[Argument from personal incredulity]

While there are complex proofs of the Divine, some dating back to the philosophical writings of Plato and others using modern science[All proofs of God were disproved by Hume. Insofar as this posits new proofs since Hume, unsupported assertion], the most clearly logical concepts are all readily apparent and simple. An entire world does not create itself.[Unsupported assertion / argument from personal incredulity.]

Furthermore, proof of a Divine creator can be seen more readily in the strike and intricate details of the universe than by considering the enormity of the universe as a whole.[Unsupported assertion.]

Consider the following:

Even if all the planets somehow formed themselves, all somehow staying in perfect orbit and possessing gravity, even take for granted that all the chemicals needed for life were so how there as well, by sheer happenstance[Rehash of above (still wrong)], would it then be possible for billions of species to spontaneously come about, each with a male and female of each kind so that they could exist in the long run?[Argument from personal incredulity]

Even if this were possible, would the simplest of animals have been able to survive were it missing even one essential organ?[This is not an argument. By definition, an animal cannot survive without an "essential" organ. To the extent that this posits that all organs must come into being at the same time, unsupported assertion.] Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced, even after somehow being otherwise perfectly formed with no designer?[Same, and also unsupported assertion that humans are perfectly formed.] The simple fact is that even if humans were so perfectly formed, if food, water, sunlight or any one of a host of details necessary for life to exist were somehow missing, human life would have lasted on this planet for a maximum of a few days.

The contention of atheists, that life simply adapted to the conditions it found itself in is also irrational, as were this to be the case we'd have animals that could solely subsist on snow and ice in some regions.[Argument from personal incredulity and unsupported assertion] By contrast, the ability to adapt to strike conditional changes is also a fascinating aspect of the body, one that shows that much detail was put into its design[Unsupported assertion].

The central point of the atheist, that all somehow came about randomly through evolution, does not help them either. While a separate column will deal with the scientific arguments for creationism and evolution, the topic is not germane here.[Number 10, hence unsupported assertion] Going back to the example of a set of encyclopedias, a set of Britannicas does not write itself, not from one massive ink blot and not starting out as dots, which form letters, which align into perfect phrases, paragraphs, books and sets. In fact, it's even more incredulous to say that they aligned so perfectly, step by step and dot by dot than it is to say that all appeared at once.[Argument, if it is an argument, from personal incredulity] Yet that's what the atheist contends when he chalks up life's existence to gradual and detailed formation with no Creator at the helm.[Application of analogy to non-analogous matters]

However, despite the fact that even after much debate on the issue I have yet to meet an atheist who can make even a feeble argument to counter any of these points[Wishful thinking], they often feel that such grounded proofs aren't complicated enough[Unsupported assertion. And irrelevant. And illogical.]. Just as a man who spends years coming up with a thousand reasons why an elephant is really a duck will not be persuaded of his error without first addressing all of his complicated fallacies, so too the atheist's contentions must be addressed in detail.[Not an argument. This is prejudicial material of no probative value. And it asserts the existence of unspecified atheist "contentions" without evidence. Apparently an attempt to shift the burden of proof] For this reason, we will also address some of the more detailed proofs of the existence of the Divine.

Of the many philosophic and scientific arguments brought forth for the existence of the Divine, three stand out. The anthropic argument contends that the universe is too complex to have no Creator.[Argument from personal incredulity] This is in effect the central point of this column, although explained in a more common manner.[Because some things just need to be underlined] The cosmological argument maintains that finite matter (original matter, which was clearly finite) cannot create a universe that is greater than itself.[Irrelevant, since science posits a total energy sum of zero. To the extent that this distinguishes matter from energy, unsupported assertion] Especially compelling is the teleological argument, that the existence of a Creator can be seen from the fact that the universe works in perfect harmony, as would a giant machine. Gravity, orbits, chemical atmospheres and all other ingredients needed for life to exist come together in unison to allow such existence to happen. An enormous machine that works like clockwork needs to have a Creator.[Argument from personal incredulity and unsupported assertion]

The atheist would also do well to read Anthony Flew's latest book, "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind." For decades, Flew was one of the leading proponents of atheism. But he eventually decided to give everything a second look and found that all he'd believed and so vociferously advocated for so long was wrong. Upon real analysis, he found that there is, in fact, proof of the Divine.[Argument from authority]

THE TRUTH OF OUR SIDE AND THE REAL CHALLENGE TO DEBATING ATHEISTS

But all of these reasons, in reality, are unnecessary. The youngest school child can tell you that a building does not build itself and that, by extension, neither does a universe.[Argument from personal incredulity / argument from youthful certainty] And this is the beauty of self evident truths. After all the proofs and reasoning in the world, they remain just as self evident, just as they are also, on the deepest levels, thoroughly profound. Here too, all that is needed to demonstrate proof of a Creator is that the world doesn't create itself, not instantly and not over time.[Repeat] All other issues can then be examined in that light.

However, we must realize that while the sophistry it takes to purport a falsehood can be easily countered, the person who has upheld such notions for decades must have each of his or her counterpoints addressed. This is able to be done smoothly, in light of the inherent logic that necessitates the existence of a conscious Creator, but it must be done thoroughly.[Rehash of above]

Encouraging atheists to open their minds to pure logic and to possibilities that they hitherto only sought to counter or to avoid on any pretext also involves an emotional challenge for them, as they must open themselves to the possibility of having to shed preconceived notions that they've held firm for decades. And that, rather than facts, is the primary challenge to exposing them to insightful logic. However, if they are willing to address the issue honestly, a search for the truth should be of paramount importance and enough reason for them to take an open look.[Not an argument; prejudicial material of no probative value]

NOT RELIGION AND SCIENCE, BUT RELIGION AND SCIENTISTS

Scientists as a whole are increasingly open to the idea of a conscious Creator.[Argument from authority. And false.] They realize that science points to the complexity of the universe, a complexity that dictates the inevitability of a Creator.[Same, and wishful thinking] However, some stick to old ways and old dogmas.[Not an argument; assertion of "dogma" is also unsupported] A question that arises is why these seemingly logical people possess such illogical beliefs.[Unsupported assertion of logic] This fact alone has prevented many from considering the existence of a Creator. But when we understand the reason for their animus to belief, their bias comes to the forefront as opposed to any reasoned argument.[Unsupported assertion]

Throughout the 20th century, many scientists were enthralled with the progress that science had made. They mistakenly believed that the physical universe, instead of being a creation, contained all answers in and of itself. Any questions would be resolved by science. To look beyond that was viewed in disdain. The fact that logic necessitates that physical matter must have originated at some point and that a formed universe cannot emerge without a designer was overlooked in the hope that physical science would prove the impossible.

Other scientists, today a greater number than the more dogmatic former group, conceded that there may well be a Creator. But they were wholly disinterested in the subject. They too did not realize that our physical universe points to the fact that it was consciously designed. And many of them had the same rigid disdain for religion as the former.

What's true of both groups is that they refused to consider the subject. As such, their rejection of a Creator does not stem from some well reasoned research or thought, but rather from the absence of such reasoning. Their knowledge of religion and philosophy was on par with their knowledge of economics or any other subject that they had never studied. They knew as much about religion as they knew how to paint a house, the only difference between the two being that had they delved into the former instead of reflexively dismissing it, they would have found it to be of profound logic and give depth to their other areas of study.

But these scientists did not give religious or philosophical questions a moment's notice. And what becomes abundantly clear from their statements on the issue is that they have grave misconceptions about religion, misconceptions that stem from their lack of interest. And while it is their right to do so, reflexively and often emotionally dismissing a belief without giving it a moment's thought isn't logic, but rather the opposite of logic.

To be sure, these scientists are indeed very logical and analytical within their main doctrine. It's just that they refuse to examine that which transcends it. As such, anyone who gives credence their views on this issue should beware, as their opinions do not stem from logic. Scientists who have thought over the issue are generally in agreement on this as well.[This is all the same point. It assumes the existence of things not susceptible to scientific examination. This is an unsupported assertion.]

THE BIBLE

One cannot conclude a column like this without mentioning philosophical and logical proofs of the Divinity of the Bible, the Torah. To begin with, the Bible is the only book in the history of mankind to make the claim that part of it was given by the Creator in front of an entire nation (of 600,000 families, totaling a few million people).[False premiss. The bible claims nothing of the kind.]

If someone were to come along today with a book, claiming that its Divine transmission had been witnessed by millions of people, they'd be laughed out of the room. One cannot convince an entire nation, including its greatest analytical thinkers and its most ardent skeptics, that such a transmission occurred and had been witnessed by them when it hadn't. To those who would counter "What if the Bible came along a few hundred years later?" (claiming to have been witnessed a few hundred years back), such a claim would have been met with equal ridicule, just as a book claiming to have been given by the Creator, as witnessed by millions in the 1700s would be met with ridicule today. There would have been a well known history of such a happening. Simply put, a book that claims to have been Divinely given to millions cannot take hold on a widespread level if it is not true.[Same point, concluding with unsupported assertion / argument from personal incredulity]

That's a basic philosophical case. There are also more hard physical reasons that point to the Bible's Divinity. The Bible states in Genesis and in Jeremiah that the stars of the heaven cannot be counted. Scientists believed that the number of stars were only 1,100, those which could readily be seen. The Bible was way ahead of the time it was given and showed knowledge of that which could not have been known or seen by man.[False premiss. The number of stars is finite and hence countable. The bible is wrong on this point]

The Bible also attested to the laws of thermodynamics, a field that science only hammered out thousands of years later. The first law of thermodynamics is that the total sum of matter and energy in the universe can never change. Energy can change into matter and vice versa, but their combined sum is always constant. Until this discovery, the Bible's statement that "there is nothing new under sun" seemed like a statement that was ready to be disproven. Reasoning went that somewhere in the universe there must be new energy or matter developing. But there wasn't. Universally accepted science showed us that less than 200 years ago. The Bible told us that about 3,000 years before.[Wishful thinking. This is an ex post facto interpretation of ambiguous text. It is also common to other religions, Hinduism in particular.]

More compelling is the Bible's clear attestation to the second law of thermodynamics (which was originally the first principle of this field, formulated by Sadi Carnot in 1824). This is that physicality becomes increasingly random and broken apart. Psalm 102 speaks of the heavens and the earth perishing and clearly implies a gradual decay, telling us this law well before it was discovered.[Ex post facto interpretation of ambiguous text. And common to other religions.]

It should be noted here, at least for the sake of accuracy, that the Bible also speaks of a new heaven and earth, meaning a newly fortified one, after the Divine presence is revealed. Such a heaven and earth will exist continuously according to most Biblical commentary, but will reveal their Divine Creator within them. Eventual perfection of the world, after we've been given a chance to do our part, is a key tenet of most religion and is the only logical explanation for the Creation of a world in need of perfection. Such an advent also seems closer than ever according to any study of what the Bible says about its occurrence, especially in view of the rapid and radical changes the world has undergone in the last few decades alone. However, the physical universe as it stands now is in a slow state of decay (before it is refortified), a fact that only the Bible knew for thousands of years.[Unsupported assertion]

It should be noted that although this column is comparatively lengthy, it is still only a column and barely scratches the surface of the clear proofs that evidence the existence of the Divine and the Divine nature of the Bible, the Torah. The reader is encouraged to study further and to ask questions.

400. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191445 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 1:40 am

298. Comment #191436 by ypostelnik on June 11, 2008 at 1:05 am

Can you please demonstrate how you know that "a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself"? This is not self-evident. Also see the excellent post 275. Comment #191190 by sent2null on June 10, 2008 at 10:57 am (link).