401. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172740 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:51 am

Benjamin,

Nuhr can be quite good at times, but he tries to compromise between low-brow comedy and high-brow politisches Kabarett, and I hate low-brow comedy.

I do like Pispers comments on religion:

You have to realize this. For a believing muslim, the stationing of infidel troops in the lands of Mohammed, where the holy places of Islam are, is like stationing Taliban in the Vatican for pious Catholics.

Ah, now you're laughing... well, I don't know... what do you believe? Do you fancy trinity, or virginity? Do you attend the Mass? What I mean is: Do you nibble on the body of Christ?

See, it's pretty easy to make fun of people's religions. Me, I believe that all of these people are just too lazy to think for themselves.

402. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172737 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:42 am

Great, thanks Steve.

Say, will this be the last part of the debate (after all, you should get the last statement, since he got the first)?

I think it might be prudent to include a short paragraph on the impossibility of aseity plus personality and agency.

Man, I have gotten no sleep tonight and have to go to uni from 2 to 8... maybe I'll skip the 2-4 seminar... otherwise I guess I'll just fall asleep... which is kinda embarrassing when there's only 8-12 people in the room :)

403. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172734 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:31 am

Well-articulated rants? The early work Dennis Miller (before something ate his brain) is what I would call well-articulated rants... I agree with Steve, and would like to add that I mostly find him just rather boring.

Btw, Steve... I hope my comments on your blog-entry meet with your approval :)

404. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172721 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 1:46 am

Benjamin,

MPhil: Err... Pardon. Rether intellectual? For him every criticism of Islam seems to be a form of racism or intolerance.

Yes, I know... and I disagree with him strongly on this issue. That made me think less of him. But that doesn't detract from the fact that his style, his angle of approach and the points he makes (whether correct or not) are rather intellectual. His subtlety, his metaphors and allegories are at times absolutely brilliant, almost poetic... reminding me of Heinrich Heine.

I think "Vorzeigelinker" is in its subtle irony almost comparable to "Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen"... take the last line: "Beim rechtsabbiegen setz ich keinen Blinker" - absolutely brilliant.

Or take his Nazi-like armlet, only with the Arbeitsamt-symbol instead of the swastika.

Subtle and intellectual, yes... always right? No. Very wrong in his defense of Islam. But that is no contradiction.

My goodness - Craig, Plantinga and Swinburne are also extremely intelligent, and very respected intellectuals. I think they're completely wrong, but that has no bearing on the issue.

And besides, most criticism of Islam is a form of intolerance - justified intolerance of the dangerous and actually harmful.

405. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172680 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I wouldn't call seeker_of_truth a troll - he did engage in debate. And I didn't mean to say that he was, nor that bunny was.

406. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172661 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm

No one forced or even asked her to leave, or tried to censor her...

Still, I do think she behaved irresponsibly and unethically (in lying) - but I feel the situation could have been handled better.

But then, I thought she was cute, so maybe I'm biased :)

You have gotten rid of another "undesirable" from this esteemed oasis of rational thinking and clear thought. (Hmmm, why does this reminds me of what Al said in his first reply to Bunny about the Nazis?)

I think that's unjustified - there's nothing wrong with treating real trolls (wooter, remnant) like the trolls they are. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have rational discussions. And as we have demonstrated with seeker_of_truth, TheTruthID (recently) and many others - rational debate is sought and encouraged here. It was even attempted with remnant, wooter, (Robertson) and others over and over again.
In general, people on here treat others well unless they start insulting, denigrating and/or trolling and spewing pure idiocy.

People on here are generally far more open for debate and reasonable than on most other fora I know of.

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

Comment #172658 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I guess the same answer holds for both what you and what I described... because they feel it is an attempt to undermine the autarchy of their religion.

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

Comment #172652 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:42 pm

I know... terrible.
I also don't quite get how the same people who say that religion has the answers, and is to be protected are the ones that attack Evoluton/Neo-Darwinism and Atheism as being some kind of religion, which it - of course - isn't.

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

Comment #172646 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:30 pm

(research strongly suggests any ID theory is wrong)

Logic and philosophy of science are absolutely clear on the matter that ID isn't science, no testable predictions, no parsimony, either ending in an infinite regress or in the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena (category mistake and contrary to the methodological naturalism of science) - as already admitted by TTID (very commendable).

410. Museums teach society lacking in science literacy

Comment #172645 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I volunteer every other weekend at my local science & nature museum.

That's wonderful, Elles!
I would love to do this as well, but the bureaucracy here is so bloated that you have to apply via form in triplicate for nearly anything... volunteering isn't easy in Germany.

411. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172640 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:17 pm

I like to point out to my wife that China is like a European country of about a century ago. She hits me, but agrees.

Well, in some aspects, yes... but in General, within the middle-European societies a century ago, the repression and violation of rights weren't quite that bad. Constitutional Monarchy and the Chinese System are still somewhat different.

But in general, yes, quite.

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

Comment #172638 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I'd submit that this isn't exactly the best place for philisophical issues (unless you are talking philosophy of science).

There are several people here who have studied philosophy, Frankus and me for example. Steve also has philosophical talent.

I have studied logic, philosophy and philosophy of science... so I think I am qualified.

Unless you mean by "philosophical" something other than what is covered in academic philosophy.I once went to a bookstore and asked if they had philosophical literature... they told me to look under "esotericism" - I nearly vomited.

Little could be more antithetical to philosophy than esotericism *shudder*

413. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172632 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:07 pm

I think you've pretty much got it right there.

See, that's one of the things that I think modern Germany (based on the de-nazification) got right...

Most people here do fully stand by the historical crimes committed in the name of "Germany", they know about the dangers of nationalism and patriotism.

No mainstream politician would make say things like Bush about God or Religion, or "patriotism" as such... though the conservatives talk about how we can be proud of our rich culture.

Anyone saying "I am proud to be a German" would get looked at as somehow suspicious. And rightly so... Being glad to live in a country with such a rich cultural heritage is great, but pride is only justified when there is some real achievement. And there's no achievement in being born in Germany, or Austria, or the United States etc...
that's pure arrogance.

There is little rallying around the flag or national pride here, thankfully... but much awareness of how patriotism and nationalism are dangerous and arrogant.

414. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172627 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:57 pm

I get to hate Jews (didn't luther despise them)?

Yes, Luther did... but Lutherans don't (none that I know). They are either ignorant of what Luther wrote about the Jews or think "well, those were different times, and you gotta see this in context". Which is a total cop-out of course, since they also believe he knew theological "eternal truths", and got his theological ethics right. My blood-pressure always rockets when they do this... just recently, I heard the usual about the bad stuff in the bible:

"Well, you gotta see this in historical context - and the moderate interpretations are much closer to the truth"...

I said "Really? How would you know? It just adapted to the moral zeitgeist, but why would you say that was a theological move? How would you know it's closer to the truth...? If you cannot in principle test theological assertions, how would you ever know that one was "closer to the truth" than others?"

To which I got the reply: "Does everything have to be provable?"

No, but statements of fact about the world better have some logical, conceptual and/or empirical justification - otherwise they're arbitrary.

I can already feel my blood-pressure rising.

Yes, I was baptized a Lutheran... but my father never cared much about religion (in fact, I think he's agnostic and thinks religion is useless), my mother is just naive when it comes to religion and belief in god, seems to believe but doesn't go to church or talk about religion much.
I think they did it as a social convention.

May one inquire what your mother did? If it's too personal or you don't want to disclose it for other reasons, I totally understand.

415. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172625 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Doc,

Yes, it was dead...

... and I really had to fight an urge to present my opinion, for which I would certainly receive a lot of flaming. Well, I'm going to do it anyway: Nationalism and patriotism are unethical and unjustified, pride in one's country is unjustified because being proud of something which one hasn't accomplished oneself is always unjustified... joining a military that has fought in and was used to start unjust wars is not entirely ethical.
Violating international law is not good, abducting and torturing people is unethical, detaining people without due process is unethical, aiding in this is unethical. Nationalism and Patriotism have always been used to get people to support unjust wars, too get people to be complacent when laws are broken or liberties taken away, to keep silent when others' rights are violated. From the Spartans, Greeks and Romans to the European Wars in the Dark Ages, to Napoleon to Hitler and Bush, it has always been used for this.


BUT, being proud of one's own contribution to a community is justified, being glad to live in a country with a rich culture is a very good thing, actually fending off an invasion to save the people one cares about is a good thing and coming to the help of people innocently under attack who welcome the help is also a good thing. Defending a just constitution is good. But this is not patriotism under my definition... patriotism involves pride without justification, and always (even studies have shown that) an overt or tacit judgment of "Americans/Germans/Arians/Greeks/Spartans being somehow better than others"... remember the phrase "God's chosen country?"

Well... awaiting the flaming...

416. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172620 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:35 pm

What denomination do you recommend?

Lutheran Protestantism... very prudent, because it avoids the embarrassing transsubstantion and in general is very open to "murkyism"... almost cannot be pinned down.

417. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172618 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Of course god is self-referential... he is aseic... and god exists because the bible says so and the bible is true because it is the word of god and we know that it is because it says so...

To quote "Kissing Hank's ass": "Now you're getting it!"

418. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172613 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Why "doubly"?

There is no double self-definition... it just is logically impossible.

As I said, something "creating itself" or being the source of its own properties is simply impossible because the "something" to which the first part of the sentence refers, ie that which determines its own properties, since it is an entity would be defined by its properties. The temporal dimension doesn't enter into it.

As far as I know, they don't address the issue. Maybe they just think "well, god can". Or they think that god "simply" exists without having his properties defined by anything. Of course they usually think that god is a necessary being, so there would have to be laws (at least those of logic) that constitute this necessity.

Maybe they deny that there would have to be laws (of logic) for something to have the property of being necessary?

419. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172604 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:14 pm

I am not even sure if those questions are meaningful.

Same here... I think if the problem of universals is meaningful, then I would tend to trope nominalism, but I'm not sure it is... in fact I doubt it.

Of course this means that in any case, I think metaphysical entities are non-existent.

420. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172602 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Well - something "just being" with no antecedent cause is not a logically silly idea... but an agent creating himself is (an agent as an entity defined by its properties defining its own properties)... so, as such... absolutely.

421. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172599 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:09 pm

:)

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

422. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172595 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm

[Platonism]is not particularly hospitable to the idea of a creator God.

Setting aside the fact that a non-physical agent is a category mistake, and that the idea of a creator of metaphysical entities is incomprehensible, I could imagine a god that "created" the universals.

But since Platonism says that the universals are independently existent, and the Judaeo-Christian concept of god includes that everything depends on God, and only god has the property of aseity, that is incompatible with Platonism, as Craig correctly notes.

423. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172592 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:59 pm

I thought Goedel showed that any formal system of a certain 'strength' had to have some intuitional elements that were true but couldn't be proved in that formal system. Thus showing that Maths can't be purely formal or something.

Not quite. Again, differentiate between the process of mathematical 'research', 'investigation' and discovery and the formal language (system) of mathematics.

Gödel showed that in any formal system strong enough to code its own syntax (Peano Arithmetics, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (with axiom of choice), First-order predicate logic with identity for example) there are true statements the system cannot prove.

Humans can nevertheless know them to be true, so it was thought that this shows that the human mind is more than a turing-machine. This was even used as a defense of dualism. But that would include the premise that the human mind is entirely and absolutely coherent... which is highly doubtful.

424. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172588 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:54 pm

You should differentiate between the process of mathematical investigation and discovery, and the formal system in/with which it is done.

Platonism (of any variety) is supernatural pure and simple, postulating metaphysical entities and thereby an access of our minds/of our understanding to a metaphysical realm. I find that terrible, not to mention that Platonism has been defeated over and over again.

But we've had this discussion and know our respective positions... not interested in doing that again :)

425. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172580 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm

For the laws of logic they will claim that we do not get to use the laws of logic to force a loose on them as in all the other battles.

I usually get either something along the lines of "Maybe God isn't constrained by logic" (which means I've won, because they in their beliefs are, and thus implicitly affirm: POSSIBLE: p and ~p)

or

"But God is logic/But the laws of logic come from god"

Heard that a hundred times.

426. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172577 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:44 pm

I think they can at most claim that there is a Platonic world of mathematical form and people like Ramanujun have an extra sense which allows him to access that world. Mystical, but not necessarily a case for ID and God. I would think
Platonism probably renders personal Gods redundant.

You should read what Craig has to say about this... he denies Platonism because it denies the aseity of God...

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/kalam-oppy.html

Should be interesting for mathematicians, physicists as well, if only to see how creative a well-trained and powerful but deluded theological mind can be. Craig is probably the prime example of this.

He takes an almost Berkleyian position, that the (supposed) abstract entities are somehow parts of or contents of god's mind. I like conceptualism, but to think the mind whose concepts these supposed abstract entities are is god's? Ludicrous.

427. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172573 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Yes it was, and hadn't it been the addressing, I wouldn't have changed it.

428. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172567 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Quine,

many of them already claim that the laws of logic are either a divine creation or a representation of divine nature...

429. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172559 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Man, that reminds me of the American Dad!-episode where Stan went to heaven and threatened shooting god :) (great episode btw)

430. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172557 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Hey, I love Metallica... have done so since I was 14.
Now I mostly listen to Progrock and Progmetal, classical music, jazz, progjazz and spanish (guitar) music (Concerto de Aranjuez by Joaquin Rodrigo is perhaps the most beautiful piece of music I know, especially the second movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZWO5ROq_aA )

But hey, I started playing e-guitar when I was 13 - and then got into metal, of course I had to grow my hair :)
Okay, then I started singing and playing classical guitar and piano, and the look is somehow at odds with playing Bach et al. :)

So, I certainly don't take offense at that :)

431. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #172546 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Humans are the only animal that has a grammatical language capable of coding its own syntax and being its own metalanguage.

Humans are the only animal capable of inventing artificial languages (mathematics, logic, programming languages)

Humans are the only animal that can construct apparati (machines, computers).

Humans are the only animal that do scientific investigation (the first item on this list is a prerequisite for that).

432. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172542 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Nah, not really :)

433. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172531 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm

You look like Alex from Clockwork Orange (the movie)

I don't know - a girlish looking, homicidal psychopath? Doesn't sound very flattering. Besides, I have a beard :)

I'm quite happy with the animated gif for now.

434. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172514 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Brian,

that bad? :)

435. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172508 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Condell intellectual? O tempora o mores.

The only "comedy" I would really call intellectual is what we call "politisches Kabarett" in Germany. Volker Pispers, Georg Schramm, Hagen Rether...

It's not his best piece (I disagree with a small portion of it), but here is a five-part piece of Pispers on Youtube, with English subs (quite good, but not perfect translation):

(Part I)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo

436. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172502 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm

I don't like Condell or Carlin (yes, I know - blasphemy... don't care, I find him boring, except for his piece on the "big man in the sky")...

Black on the other hand - very good.
The Brigstocke rant was also quite good, yes.

437. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172492 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Oh, I did comment an hour or two ago... and just sent you a PM that I did.

But you already know my position...

:)

438. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172489 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I think Penrose is one of the great physicists of the past century.

I never doubted that.

439. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172486 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I always copy longer posts to the clipboard - I have lost too many over the years on several boards.

440. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172484 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 3:49 pm

damn... I expected more.

Some may even think Penrose is a crackpot.

When he's talking about the mind and when he affirms Platonism (ante rem universals)... yes.

441. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172480 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 3:43 pm

It seems to be mathematics that attracts (or generates?) that kind of mental instability

:)

...that should make for an interesting reply.

442. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172476 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 3:39 pm

There is no point telling people they are wrong because of their speculations contradict some established ideas or philosophical dogmas.

You're right... good thing that I don't have any then.

But still, it's a long way from entertaining speculations as such, and assuming that they are factual when there are other explanations for the observed phenomena that integrate better into the framework of prior knowledge, are more parsimonious and explain the phenomena more fully and from a well-established scientific framework(someone hearing voices in that way).

In that case there is no epistemic justification for believing that the speculation is factual.

443. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172430 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I can still change it if I get more complaints :)

444. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172421 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Good with relativity.
Bad with relatives.

:)

445. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #172413 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm

but had to get help with the math.

... and reportedly treated the women who did this in a true asshole-manner.

446. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172407 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Okay then, how about a compromise?

447. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172378 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

No hat: 5

Hat: 3

(Corylus, you didn't make the votes even :)

448. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172371 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 2:01 pm

I guess I will just take a third, recent picture, make an animated gif with the three and use that :)

449. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172368 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Recent? more than 2 years old.

450. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172362 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 1:57 pm

yep - imgageshack.