401. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #108125 by Corylus on January 6, 2008 at 4:35 am

"If any ESP processes exist, then participants' brains should respond differently to ESP and non-ESP stimuli,"

Why's that then? Am I alone in smelling the reification fallacy here?

If so is this experiment:-

a) Making it;
b) A response against others making it; or
c) Researchers not addressing this issue and/or and not clearly stating their definitions?

I admit I am unsure. (I have looked at the PhysOrg site and there are no further details than given here).

---

For info: the series of Edge articles on 'Changing your Mind' features one by Susan Blackmore (ex parapsychologist). It's a very interesting read:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_13.html#blackmore

402. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107499 by Corylus on January 4, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Hmm 1970 – this triggered a dim memory of a book first published in 1941 that I have just had to rummage through my shelves to find. (I wasn't born on either date, but I like old books)

It was called Let the People Think . Here is a quote from it.

My father was a Freethinker, but died when I was only three years old. Wishing me to be bought up without superstition he appointed two Freethinkers as my guardians. The Courts, however, set aside his will, and had me educated in the Christian faith. I am afraid the result was disappointing, but that was not the fault of the law. If he had directed that I should be educated as a Christadelphian or a Muggletonion or a Seventh-Day Adventist the Courts would not have dreamt of objecting. A parent has the right to ordain that any imaginable superstition shall be installed into his children after his death, but has not the right to say that they shall be kept free from superstition if possible.

Bertrand Russell

Yes, you can say that 1970, 1941 and especially 1876 (when the events described above occurred) were a long time ago, and in a different country. However, thinking and understanding advances slowly: occasionally, it even goes backward.

There is indeed "nothing new under the sun" and it is always worthwhile to keep an eye out for old mistakes.

403. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107080 by Corylus on January 4, 2008 at 3:34 am

Wooter,

If you think About many cells's varying and mutation in different places and times, skipping how they do that without any genes' passing information differently for different creatures, exact number of the chromosomes, our world will be, hypothetically, full of monsterts like creations. (Please watch evolution movie).

Are you referring to the David Duchovny movie, called "Evolution"?? I have watched that film and it is a lot of fun, but it is a fiction comedy.

If you are not and you have something else in mind – please tell us the exact title of the film.

404. Changing my Mind

Comment #106297 by Corylus on January 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Best of luck Paula :)

405. Changing my Mind

Comment #106278 by Corylus on January 2, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Um, dealing with religious canvassers at your door (I won't use the term Jehovah Witness, because there are other groups that do this).

Personally, I just put them on the back foot morally by simply and very gently talking to them about their 'cold-calling' techniques. (I don't mention God at all)

1) I ask them if they have ever considered the possibility that elderly people, those living alone or the otherwise vulnerable, might be very frightened to see two complete strangers on their doorstep.

2) I talk to them about the role of trust and whether it is a good thing to encourage said vulnerable people to invite them into their homes.

3) I ask them whether they are willing to admit the possibility that some people might find strangers telling them how to live, well, just a teeny bit impertinent.

4) I point out that many people will only agree with what they say, and accept their literature, out of misplaced politeness: making a large proportion of their work irrelevant.

5) Finally, I ask them whether, even if they knew for sure that they would convert no-one with their actions would they nevertheless still continue to knock on doors?

This last one is the killer. If you see a slack jaw at this point, then ask them if they are doing this canvassing for the good of others or merely to fulfil some need of their own. This question hurts.

I have seen the glimmerings of pennies dropping with this technique.

They are trained to disregard anti-religious arguments and wave them away, shields firmly in front of them. They are taught to accept and even enjoy abuse as a way to glory.

Approach them calmly via their unprotected flank and watch them crumble.

406. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106256 by Corylus on January 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Idle curiosity here, but zdravko

Why do you lay out your posts like poems?

Is it because they look pretty? Or is it a deliberate strategy to get people to read your posts carefully and slowly, because they are unthinkingly looking out for rhymes and meter?

Or is it just a glitch on your computer?

Not being critical – merely curious :-)

407. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #105657 by Corylus on January 1, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Thanks for checking out those links Shrommer. It is good that you will are willing to look at them. Two bits of friendly advice.

1) Listen to Roger, he spends a great deal of his time dealing with these people.

2) Get broadband and ditch dial-up. You will get no work done for a while, but it's worth it. :-)

408. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105648 by Corylus on January 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Steve, checked out the Telegraph page. It's nasty.

What I just don't get is when you get a sequence of posts like this:

1. "Homosexuality is unnatural, and against God's will"
2. "Actually, it is common in Nature"
3. "Homosexuality is unnatural, and against God's will"

Tis the old 'appeal to nature' drivel. What they spectacularly fail to comprehend is that "majority" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "natural". Also, "natural" does not necessarily mean "desirable".

They need smacking over the head with Moore and Hume.

Then they need to told that bolstering their own flimsy egos by looking down upon and demeaning others only serves to give an insight into their psyches to anyone with the wit to notice.

Stuff 'em.

409. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105647 by Corylus on January 1, 2008 at 11:55 am

Brain hurts.

Does this mean I shouldn't date golfers??

---

Happy new year to Josh and RDnet staff who are busy putting up articles on New Years Day: appreciate the work at busy time of year :-)

410. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #105447 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Epeeist

Why is it when I hear the name "de Sousa" (British Spelling) I think of bad, loud music mostly created with a lot of (hot) air?

Maybe because a sousaphone is an ersatz instrument that has no place in a proper brass band.

It's a while since my childhood days of being the only girl for miles around to play an E flat bass, but dammit, there is such a thing as tone.

411. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105423 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 2:12 pm

For info:

The script to Submission is written out in AHA's book The Caged Virgin.

A very interesting book.

412. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105422 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 2:04 pm

"Blwyddyn Newydd Dda" one and all! :-))

_J_

On which thought, I rather fancy a Dawkins.net Review of The Year - 2007 in News, Views and Abuse at the RD Site's Article Discussion Threads. Any high (or low) points to contribute, anyone?

Ooh, ooh! I do hope someone more techno savvy that me can set this up in the forum - I haven't a clue how to.

Under "abuse" I want to put a vote in for Benway bragging to WeeFlea about having an enormous cock. Sadly, it now appears that bragging was all it was. Sigh, tis often the way ;-)

413. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105265 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 3:12 am

TeeHee - Evidently ;-)

414. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105261 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 3:02 am

Suggest you enrol yourself some in some anger management classes, Styrer.

Wipe the spittle off your screen before you go.

[Edit - occurs to me that you might have been joking above - please say if you were!]

415. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105257 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 2:37 am

Speaking of gender stereotypes I thought it was women that were meant to be oversensitive and prone to flying off the handle emotionally?

Also, in relation to the careful use of language, I think a reduction of the amount of times some posters use the word 'fuck' might be a good thing.

Nothing against it in the abstract - it can be a amazingly useful word at times. I very occasionally use it myself. This is because it can cut through bullshit like a sword.

However, when swords are overused they get blunt.

416. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105248 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 1:58 am

Billy Coconut said

Steve Zara is determined, isn't he, to compensate for his inability to hold his own in debate with Billy Coconut.

People who talk about themselves in the third person are generally best avoided.

417. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105244 by Corylus on December 31, 2007 at 1:47 am

Oriole said

So I say, "Well done, Bishop! I disagree with you, but I am glad to finally find someone on your side of the debate who is capable of arguing honestly and fairly."

Well put. I don't agree with a fair bit either – especially the notion of access to some form of 'perfect' morality.

However, it is refreshing.
===
Logicel

How far are we living on moral capital?

This is a concern that seems to come largely from elder critics. In part, the elder folks feel that it is a duty to pass on religion-based morality because it has always been that way.

I wonder whether it is part of the human condition for people to bemoan the actions and morality of the younger people that come after them? It does seem to be a common thread whatever the time. (I am only just over thirty, but I catch myself doing this already). I suspect it is because of a tendency to "forget" or gloss over the actions of their own generation and their own teenage antics.

Either that or (as is unfortunately my case) they are bitter and twisted at the missed opportunities they were too daft and self-absorbed to notice ;-)
====
Generally
I see that the Bishop has a forthcoming book on ethics on the way. I suspect it might be a fascinating read.

I am put in mind of when Richard Holloway (ex-bishop of Edinburgh) published Godless Morality: Keeping Religion Out of Ethics (an interesting and humane book – I recommend). I seem to recall that Holloway copping some flack for that one from the, shall we say, more conservative members of the Church. I believe he is quite disliked due to his lobbying for gay rights. Maybe Harries is in for the same treatment.

N.B. I note with interest that he chose to quote a gay poet. Although Auden is always worth quoting anyway, I really do wonder whether this is a deliberate snub to the fundamentalists....

418. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105006 by Corylus on December 30, 2007 at 10:20 am

Re: Post 26.

Interesting. I have noticed again and again that those who quote Psalms 14.1 as some sort of killer knockdown argument generally have the reasoning skills of a squashed teabag.

OK correlation does not equal causation, but I really do wonder whether there is some sort of intellectual inferiority complex going on with these people.

419. The Evangelical Rebellion

Comment #104824 by Corylus on December 29, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Shrommer – I believe that you are sincere when you say that:-

This statement is the most ridiculous and alarmist thing I've ever read about the Christian movement in America... Nothing could be further from the heart of Christianity.

However, please can I ask you to consider the possibility that there are people, ostensibly Christian, who are keeping their ultimate aims very, very quiet?

I am posting several links below. I know it's a pain to trawl through links posted by a complete stranger (and I know I am a particular pain in that regard!) – so I will only ask you to look at one. The choice is yours.

http://vimeo.com/251385

http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/HowardAhmanson

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lWKiP6Qfflo

It would be great if you could comment on at least one of these.

Thanks.

420. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104697 by Corylus on December 29, 2007 at 6:17 am

What's going on behind the scenes at the Vatican?

I have been wondering for a while if the pope doesn't have a case of power drunkeness. It's a nasty affliction, only cured when the individual in question loses power – sometimes not even then- if they are allowed to exert their will in other ways.

Evidence?
i) The obsession with the trappings of power (clothing, ritual etc.)
ii) Violent dislike of the 'competition'- see his recent Islam faux pas.

And now

iii) The cynical and blatant rewarding of old allies and friends that helped him gain power.

(I wonder if this is the real story behind this hastily retracted exorcism story – nothing to do with demons, more about giving increased power to his old department??)

If I am right, (and if it gets worse, as it often does) then I predict increased rumours coming out of the Vatican. For example; tales of mood swings (especially bursts of incandescent anger at any form of teasing or ridicule); lack of tolerance for any other individuals within his organisation holding significant power; the turning against former allies due to thinly veiled paranoia, and; worst of all; a complete lack of concern for the welfare of the people over which he has control.

Really hope I'm wrong on this one. As if I'm right, he will not only do a lot of damage to the Catholic Church as an organisation (which deserves all it gets) but also to the people of the world with the misfortune to be born poor, unable to access good education and also members of his 'flock'. It's always the innocent and the powerless that suffer first.
-----

Comment #29.

Ooh, ooh - Good Dio picture SG.!

Holy Diver – what a blast from the past. Fun fact, it was the first album I ever bought as a spotty eleven- year- old. I was sadly corrupted by Tommy Vance and the Friday Night Rock show. All downhill from there. (HeHe - maybe Ratty's right after all!)

Aren't you proud of me? :-)

421. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #104500 by Corylus on December 28, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Suggested emails to Al-Qaeda:
-----
1) Are you spending too much money on prescription medicines??

Go to drugs@pills.com

2) I am a young homeless Nigerian girl of good character. My uncle left me millions of pounds, unfortunately I am too young and friendless to claim the money. Please email me the following:

a) You date of birth
b) You credit card details
c) Your mother's maiden name.

I will send you half of the money forthwith!!

3) Do you often suffer from erectile dysfunction??

Your solution is at hand!

Just go to *Viagra*@droopy.com (remove asterisks)

---

I'm sorry for lowering the tone, but I have been spammed something chronic recently and it's driving me nuts.

422. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104492 by Corylus on December 28, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Philip

Naughty boy.

I have to admit though that I am a brilliant cook (especially where baking is concerned) so I won't tell you off too much.

However, I am a little concerned at the implication that I should cook... um... nekkid.

Nothing intrinsically wrong with this of course, but I have a gas oven with strong jets... and there is such as thing as health and safety awareness. ;)

423. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104476 by Corylus on December 28, 2007 at 3:20 pm

I'm such a geek, but I reckon these tv preachers have just been reading these:

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

I draw attention to, well all of them, but special attention to the following:


#82.
#104
#144
#239
#284

424. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104465 by Corylus on December 28, 2007 at 2:37 pm

To be 100% fair I am pleased to see a church leader with an environmentalist message: long may this trend continue.

If only he could realise that:

a) You don't need God for that
and
b) You can 'live in joy' without a skyfairy giving you permission to do so.

Again and again we see these people giving God so much credit and people so very little. I happen to find this quite sad - and they say atheists are the miserable cynics.

This brings me to another point....

Another example of association by default via inconguous conflation and misplaced flattery.

Trans: The Church and God get credit for the good shit even when / especially when they haven't earned it.
---
P.S.. Anyone else noting that noting with amusement that the author of this piece is making a subtle hint... ??

The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who has seen the number of Roman Catholics in England surpass Church of England worshippers because of the surge in migration from the EU accession states, said that Britain should do more to welcome the newcomers.

Tee Hee.

425. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103506 by Corylus on December 26, 2007 at 2:36 am

Sticks head over parapet...

The feeling of disgust men express when they see other men kissing – very common. So why does it exist??

Man watches his two children playing in a crèche with lots of different toys available...

"OK, Sally you play with the fire truck if you must"
"Harry, put that doll down this instant... and don't even think about styling the hair on that My Little Pony!"

The shrug of the shoulders concerning lesbianism and the fear of gay men continues for yet another little boy.

A lot of men have a fear of their sons turning out gay – nothing to do with the boy, more about a reflection against the masculinity of the father.

The reactions we have to events and concepts that we think are merely instinctive and unchangeable often have their roots in childhood conditioning, both classical and operant.

If we want to talk about making moral judgements or defining legislation we have to realise that our instinctive reactions need to be open to scrutiny, by both others and ourselves.

Maybe we can agree on that one.

426. Man and God

Comment #103360 by Corylus on December 25, 2007 at 9:19 am

Diacanu

I've googled, there's only like, 5 of me on Earth.
Terminator would find me pretty quick.

Heh. There's only four of me and two of those are very obviously dead.

Come with me if you wanna live :P

427. Man and God

Comment #103356 by Corylus on December 25, 2007 at 9:07 am

I'm sorry.

I am way too drunk on Xmas booze to respond to this article coherently. Unlike some journalists I never write at length when I feel my judgement is impaired or my emotions stirred.

However, I would point out that:-

a) Some of the misrepresentations in this article border on libel.

b) I cannot see who the author of this article is - accordingly I will direct analysis to the individual who is behind both The Times and Fox News.

c) I would be amazed (and saddened) if at least some Christians are not shocked and appalled at the venom and bile directed towards a significant proportion of the population at what they themselves deem to be the season of 'goodwill'.

Donning the shining armour of belief, they have sought to smash down the atheists' contentions, one by one.

Nothing like a bit of bellicose imagery to go with the slaughtered fowl.

Dreadful.

P.S. However, I am glad to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali get some wider publicity. Maybe a few more people will read her books because of this.

428. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #103134 by Corylus on December 24, 2007 at 10:58 am

"Nature, and Nature's laws lay hid in night;
God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light."
(Alexander Pope).

It did not last; the Devil howling, 'Ho,
Let Einstein be', restored the status quo.
(J. C. Squire)

429. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103107 by Corylus on December 24, 2007 at 10:06 am

Sigh.

Don_Quix and al-rawandi

I really hope neither of you mean that.

I dislike religion because it fosters out-group hostility and lack of care concerning the suffering of others.

I try not to turn around and make the exact same idiotic mistake.

430. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103093 by Corylus on December 24, 2007 at 9:51 am

I can't help but think of Romeo and Juliet when Juliet took a drug to fake her own death and it ended badly...

There is a possibility that this individual wasn't quite as daft as he first appears. Who knows whether this wasn't a staged publicity stunt that went wrong – a misjudged dosage mebbe?

Sigh, what a nasty, cynical atheist I am – casting aspersions on Christmas Eve ...

[Nibbles mince pie]

431. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103054 by Corylus on December 24, 2007 at 8:59 am

Fighting Falcon

It's only 15 seconds of sitting in silence - is that so wrong?

In abstract nothing, but this is not what this is about. This is about understanding the horsetrading methods used by certain individuals with an anti-secularist agenda. Don't underestimate them.

Two laws of bargaining:

1) If you want something small....

Don't ask for it outright. First ask for something really large. You will be turned down. Then ask for the small thing. You are likely to get it because people like to reward what is seen as compromise and often feel bad about turning down requests.

2) If you want something big...

Never mention your ultimate aim. Instead ask for something really, really small –What's the harm? Then ask for something really small. If resistance is met point out that the really, really small request has just been granted. What's the difference?

432. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102987 by Corylus on December 24, 2007 at 5:48 am

ADH

You could try this one:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Groan.

Not another one taken in by that slimy little weasel Lane Craig!

ADH – you seemed sensible at times. :(

I hereby cut and paste a post I made a little while back to a similar statement (what can I say: I'm lazy!)

For a start his association with the Discovery Institute demonstrates a great deal...

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

I personally would not want to be associated with any organisation that took money from Howard Ahmanson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson%2C_Jr

Oddly enough Lane Craig has just been mentioned in another thread - I have been reading an article by him linked by a poster called Steven Carrwork see below

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

I have to say I find his defence of genocide frankly nauseating.

I share your dislike of christian fundamentalists, however, there are times when I appreciate their honesty. Moderates can be lovely people, but it can be frustrating trying to get them to state precisely what they mean.

Lane Craig is the worst of both worlds - he is a fundamentalist who pretends to be a moderate. I suggest you do further research on him. This man talks about 'reasonable faith' in one breath and makes unjustifiable and frankly peculiar assertions in another. He has spent money on dentistry and a shiny suit, but I feel I know what manner of man he is.

Generally, I am beginning to realise something about 'reasonable faith'.

Unlike some on here I actually have time for the 'Yes, it's not rational, but I believe anyway. That's why it's faith!" line.

Yes, it's vexing, but at the same time you can at least have a sensible discussion about whether making political or legislative decisions on the basis of it is a good thing.

I find myself wondering whether there are two types of people who talk about 'reasonable faith' those who are peeved at the 'delusion' charge... and those that wish to repackage the whole deal in order to chip away at the separation of powers.

The second group worry me. Please do some research on the man.

Anyway,

This Logical Positivism paradigm à la Bertrand Russell has been superseded and is now regarded as old hat by most philosophers.

Oh come on! Yes, logical positivism is a dead duck. However, understanding that the verification principle is self-refuting does not a proof of God make. (Many on here understand this perfectly well – why do you think that we talk about falsification and parsimony as well??)

Anyway #2. What is a Christian doing arguing on an atheist website on Xmas Eve?? Are we corrupting you?? :D

433. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #102646 by Corylus on December 23, 2007 at 10:58 am

Ok.

Let's look at the evidence.

1) Knitwear
2) Cheesy words and soft music.
3) A desire to plug up one's ears as soon as he open's his mouth....

Arhh.

It's Val Doonican's love child!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fxiHQJCavC4

434. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102619 by Corylus on December 23, 2007 at 9:56 am

Hmm. Yes Steve,

I do have to agree that I was "less than subtle" there.

Trouble is, I do subtle and I get ignored.

A mouse just can't win :P

435. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102596 by Corylus on December 23, 2007 at 9:23 am

what book do you know has the same amount of opposite words like with man/woman and say/they said?

Lots of children's books do that.

E.g. "Here's the Boy and... Here's the Girl"

It's a trick to teach conceptual thought.

Do you have a liking for books with crayons on the front of them?

436. Bible bashing dying out in Kansas

Comment #102357 by Corylus on December 22, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Markg

Bashing the bible would be saying something negative. Then I realized this must be a British expression.

Yep. 'Biblebashing' and 'biblethumping' are pretty much the same terms.

Another britishism to watch out for is 'godbothering'. This describes people who not only annoy those around them, but those who God (were he to exist) would also consider an irritant.

437. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #102331 by Corylus on December 22, 2007 at 11:27 am

Except for atheists and agnostics, of whom just 15 percent took the virgin birth story as historically true, a majority of all other subgroups believed it to be factual.

One possible explanation for this is that they misunderstood what is meant by "historically true".

Some college educated types brainwashed by postmodernist drivel tend to spew out such notions as "history is merely a series of differing narratives - so simplistic to talk about facts!!"

I smell epistemological relativism and PC bullshit here.

438. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102328 by Corylus on December 22, 2007 at 11:11 am

Coincidence?

What is this the argument from numerology?

and so is the worm "woman" (imra'a)

Freudian slip?

439. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101787 by Corylus on December 21, 2007 at 1:36 am

Anyone else suspecting 'roid rage'?

440. What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith

Comment #101453 by Corylus on December 20, 2007 at 11:30 am

ADH

So why bother with the experiment? I must say I'm mystified.

There are two points I would make about this.

1) In terms of the specifics of the experiment it appears at drastic variance with the notion that 'faith' is a special type of belief. Something with a category all of its' own. Both subjective and objective: internal and externally derived.

Eg:

It may turn out that the brain treats religious faith as its own special category of belief unlike ethics and math.

But that is not what Harris expects to find.

He suspects the machines will show that "belief is belief is belief."
[my emphasis]

When we treat subjects as types of objects we commit the fallacy of 'reification'. This is often unthinkingly made when the conversation turns to God. You might want to look this one up. :-)

2) Also, there is a wider issue here that crops up in all neuro-imaging studies, to wit, that as a subject it is constantly at loggerheads with naive dualistic assumptions.

Religious belief (in its traditional sense) necessitates dualism in that it posits a soul (or an ineffable mental self) that is, in some sense both separable from the physical and able to effect it.

That is why Harris says

The whole thing will seem fishy to anyone who thinks we have immaterial souls running around in our bodies.

The more that you show that thoughts, feelings and beliefs are correlated with physical states that less you see the mind and the body as separate interacting entities and instead consider the possibility that the mind is a physical thing.

Once you accept monism* and a naturalistic/physicalist/materialist understanding of mind (you can argue about which term you like best, but you are pretty much in the same place with all three)... then the notion of a soul disappears, and with it, God.

*Or at the very least radically change what you mean by dualism.

Hope this helps :-)

441. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100267 by Corylus on December 18, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Re the debate about the intelligence level of the interviewer...

Aequitas12345 researched this:

Born in Toronto, Solomon graduated from McGill University with a joint B.A. in English literature and religious studies. In addition, he has a masters in religious studies from McGill.

Absolutely fascinating.

This appears to be evidence against the interviewer simply being a moron. Would McGill let a moron graduate with an MA?

However, he acquits himself terribly. "Fancy Darwin talk". FFS! So, how to understand??

I have a suspicion. I have been reading the flea books for a while* and I have been increasingly struck by something.

Anger.

Anger at people having the temerity to question both the validity and the benignity of the religion they hold. Something that, for them, is hugely wound up in their own self-image. Something that gives them a both an emotional crutch and a sense of superiority. There is a totally inability to disguish between an attack on a viewpoint and an attack upon the self.

Depending on the skill of the author it varies between very evident and thickly disguised, but it is there.

Some people are good at disguising and controlling anger and some aren't. While aggression is a separate thing from intelligence, when it is not contained and controlled for the IQ of the afflicted drops like a stone.

It might be that we have become so used to defending ourselves from the charge "you atheists are so angry" that we tend to miss it in others.

Maybe he's not a moron – maybe he is simply over-emotional and presently kicking himself for his brain farts on this programme.

Just a thought.

*Just finished one written by a feminist catholic theologian with an understanding of postmodernism – I'll post a review after Xmas when I have finished both growling and laughing.

442. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99793 by Corylus on December 17, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Very nice, Krisking.

That's a real women singing, not a Kate Bush or a tinny slimmed down Callas.

guess it depends if you like this sort of thing

I tend to alternate between classical and heavy metal, because I like powerful noise, so that's fine.

[Scampers off before I get flamed by either Kate Bush or Callas fans..]

443. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99780 by Corylus on December 17, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Every heard Jesse Norman doing Strass Four Last Songs?

Nope, but that's quite a recommendation you give. I'll check it out :-)

444. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99772 by Corylus on December 17, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Impressive KrisKing.

Tis indeed the highs I cannot reach, sigh, but I manage the lows with power :-)

Do women have a falsetto range?

Technically, I don't think so, but then again when wearing uncomfortable shoes anything is possible...

445. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99764 by Corylus on December 17, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Female, but a natural alto/contralto :-)

446. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99757 by Corylus on December 17, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Fun fact – another praiseworthy individual born on Christmas day.

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

Plus, bonus, unlike Newton, has a video on Youtube that is kind of festive, but not nauseating.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VJeG5T9ScD8&feature=related

In fact (as I believe she is a Buddhist) both atheists and (welcome:-)) visiting Christians can happily sing along...

All together now...La La.

[sings along.... and squeaks in pain]

Man I wish I had her range .

447. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99265 by Corylus on December 16, 2007 at 6:32 am

Wow - A quote from the article on a British Creation Park,

While the plans for the park are still in their infancy, the trust has big ambitions. A business plan available to prospective investors suggests the park could bring in £4.8m a year - apparently 10 times its estimated overhead costs.

Follow the money.

Makes you wonder how much the American Parks are raking in.

One other quote gave me a snigger though

'Wigan council slammed the door in our faces. You mention the C [Christian] word, and people don't want to know,' Jones said.

I had no idea Wigan council were so prudish ;-)

448. World History

Comment #98441 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Ok Fides we all need our sleep :-)

I would like to know how you feel about gay marriage at some point though.

449. World History

Comment #98410 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Oxford English, Fides, can't beat it :-)

BTW - you haven't answered my question. Is gay marriage legitimate??

450. World History

Comment #98402 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 2:51 pm

I take it you mean chaste, and if so, I'm not bothered what you do.

Huh??

[Grabs dictionary to look up the difference between 'celibate' and 'chaste']

Ok. Celibate means 'no chance' but 'chaste' mean either 'no chance' or 'only within marriage'.

Hmm.

Fides, Do you think Steve should be able to get married?

N.B. I am not talking about the mealy mouthed sophistry that is 'civil partnership' here. I mean genuinely married.

If not I don't understand the distinction you seem to want to make between 'celibate' and 'chaste'.

[Steve - so sorry to talk about you in the abstract here, but I am interested in the answer to this one]