451. 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?

452. 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

453. 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

454. 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

455. 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?

456. 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.

457. 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.

458. 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?

459. For the Love of Christ

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

Anyone else suspecting 'roid rage'?

460. 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 :-)

461. 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.

462. 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..]

463. 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 :-)

464. 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...

465. Happy Newton Day!

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

Female, but a natural alto/contralto :-)

466. 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 .

467. 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 ;-)

468. 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.

469. 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??

470. 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]

471. Why do atheists care about what others believe when it doesn't affect atheists?

Comment #98359 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Anyone really interested in this question might like to check out the essay linked below.

(William Clifford's, Ethics of Belief)

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

If anyone wants to believe any proposition without evidence, then that is, of course, their perogative.

However, they need to be aware that their beliefs inform their actions.

The more that people seek to restrict the freedoms of others; or to cause them harm; then the more that evidence for the rationale behind this needs to be demanded. (N.B. This relates to all forms of dogma)

This is not about policing the thoughts of others: it is about protecting the freedoms of all of us.

472. What are your qualifications to question religion anyway? Just who are you?

Comment #98346 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 1:50 pm

If you don't need qualifications to believe - then you don't need qualifications to question.

473. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98334 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 1:37 pm

I have to agree that this a very polite site – the politest (largely) unmoderated site I have ever seen.

I try to be well mannered (I fail-sometimes when really cross, but I'm human). I know I am one of the more long-winded and verbose posters, but I have no problem with the short and sharp types. Sometimes I am astonished at how unerringly they hit a point.

Conversely, if anyone has a problem with my style I am perfectly happy for them to scroll past and ignore me. I don't demand that people listen to me. Or they can talk to me – that's fine too.

Different styles: I like variety [shrugs].

Yes, there is pig-rudeness sometimes demonstrated, but I would also say that this is the most self-moderated forum I have ever seen. If someone says anything really awful (or daft) it is jumped on. I don't play the Manners Police often, but I am not frightened of doing so.
---

B-(

I am tempted to ask why use a "B" instead of a colon for eyes, but after the neuroimaging thread I'm scared to.

474. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98018 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 1:57 am

Verylee

Hello...I have only been posting for about a week and new to forums. What is trolling?

When in doubt run it through the Urban Dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

475. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #98014 by Corylus on December 13, 2007 at 1:50 am

I have never seen a human being make a bigger jackass out of himself than Richard Dawkins Ruht in my six three decades of life.

Fixed!

----
Only the second time on this site that I have marked as 'troll'. Had to be done though.

S/he will never believe it, but part of my reason was concern for Ruht's state of mind.

Some people should avoid agitating triggers for the good of themselves and others.

476. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #97722 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Ravy

As a UK Anglican most of the people I know accept evolution and as far as I can tell so do most of our clergy.

Cool :-)

Let's keep it that way.

These idiots are trying to get into the UK. They have American funding and are not to be underestimated.

http://www.newlife.co.uk/delusion/index.html

The (tiny) bit of research I have done is enough to scare me.

You don't like it. I don't like it. Strikes me that we both need to keep our eyes open.

477. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97661 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Denoir

Modern day liberalism is unfortunately a very distorted version of the original. The inviolable rights of the individual have mutated into universal tolerance. The irony is that while the mistake is simple to make, the two concepts are actually complete opposites. Tolerance of anything is guaranteed to violate the rights of the individual.

Well put.

478. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97655 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Sam, well done to you and your fellow authors.

How about putting some philosophers through this...

Ah, but is it justified belief...


dloubet

You know what they say about a guy with a lot of equals signs...

Big feet??

479. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97401 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 2:59 am

Shrommer
Just catching up with the conversation on this thread (blimy some people type fast!) can I ask you to read another link?

You say:

Have you studied Rene Descartes' philosophy?

I say: have you studied Ryle? His Descartes Myth is great fun.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CPKHKvge3Z4C&dq=classics+of+analytic+philosophy&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JK8sC1gT06&sig=opvHvLMU7eaW0yFdnz6rUsS6HSs

(Click on "preview this book" - it is Chapter 13 and starts at page 296)

Sorry for the long ugly link, but I am still working on my formatting skills.

480. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #97397 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 2:51 am

Stommer thanks for the reply and reading the link I posted.

Anyway you say

Nihilism does not seem to me to be a "humane" philosophy, but that doesn't make it wrong. We shouldn't pick and choose our philosophy based on what comforts us or what feels good. We should base it on reason and evidence.

Actually, I substantially agree with the statement above.

Where I take issue with you is the implication that nihilism is a 'rational' philosophy. It is nothing of the sort. Nihilism is an emotional reaction not a rational one.

Why presume that just because there is no superbeing deciding the meaning of life for others that the lives of others have no meaning?

Let me demonstrate this with a thought experiment. A little furry creature (I like them :)) has a long and fulfilling life, it explores it's environment, it loves, it has baby furry creatures, it writes bad poetry etc. Etc.
One day a latex covered huge hand comes from the sky, picks it up and injects it with a compound that kills it instantly. It was part of a drug trial. Bummer.

We can say that the creature's life had a purpose* (as an experimental subject). Can we way that just because it was one that it had never considered that its' existence had no meaning? Of course not. We can say that that is the cosmic sense of things it was a tiny creature. We can't say that it didn't enjoy its' furry little life.

Nihilism is the reaction of a wounded ego when it discovers that the world is much bigger than it, and that others can be just as important as itself.

This is why nihilism is such a favourite philosophy for teenagers – they spend their childhood being pampered and cared for, then suddenly they are expected to begin to fend for themselves and compete in the big scary world. It takes a fair amount of hubris to be a nihilist "If I am not cosmically important – then nothing is!" [Puts on some bad music]

Nihilism is not only an emotional, arrogant reaction (which is bad enough) it is also intellectually lazy which is dreadful.

*There is a difference between meaning and purpose BTW.

481. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #97183 by Corylus on December 11, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Goldy said

Sexist too. Coupling "atheistic 'progressive' woman's movement" with your comments on rape, I think you are dangerous. Josh, get rid of him. He is criminally insane.

I agree Goldy.

I wish I weren't so cynical, but I have to say that I am considering the possibility that Ruht is actually female...

Not getting any. Never getting any. Bitter and twisted - sitting in a back room and hugely fat. Hating other women, for the having the life she never can.

This is the harshest thing I have ever said on this site or any other.

However, I have to say that this person is demonstrably vile.

482. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97160 by Corylus on December 11, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Sigh.

John Gray. He has been spouting this drivel for a while. As Whig rightly pointed out his book Straw Dogs (a critique of humanism) is somewhat irritating (to say the least)

He says that he doesn't like postmodernism but spews out the passe Foucault type "where there is power there is resistance" arguments like nobody's business.

Atheism as a response to christianity. FFS!

Nihilistic, relativistic bollocks.

N.B. He is not a theist: just a f&*kwit.

483. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97149 by Corylus on December 11, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Don_Quix

This is what happens when people form opinions based on beliefs and not on evidence. I doubt we'll see any retractions from the theists who were blaming atheists for the shootings, though ;)

Um. Atheists being blamed for mass shootings. I wonder who encourages that type of thought??

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?101407/101407_ff_links&FOX_Friends&School%2520Shooting%2520Links&School%2520Shooting%2520Links&US&-1&News&236&&&new

484. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96431 by Corylus on December 10, 2007 at 2:19 pm

When there is disagreement and confusion misuse of words is often at the bottom of it. Generally, but not always, this is when different people use the same word in differing ways .

This is why it is so important to sort out your definitions before you start.

Accordingly I looked up 'offence'. (OED)
Offence (US offense)
1. An illegal act; a transgression or misdemeanour.
2. Wounding of the feelings (no offence was meant)
3. Resentment or umbrage.
4. The act of attacking or taking the offensive ; aggressive action

And 'offensive' (adj)
1. Giving or meant or likely to give offence; insulting (offensive language)
2. Disgusting, foul-smelling, nauseous, repulsive
3. a)Aggressive, attacking b)of a weapon (offensive weapon)

Right. In the context of this lets look again at this sign.

First "offence"
1. Is it illegal? Nope.
2. Is wounding of the feelings taking place? (mebbe – but as the definition implies that has nothing to do with culpability)
3. Resentment or umbrage? You bet people are taking it and expressing it, but again this is a separate question to whether offence was meant.
4. Aggressive action? Unless the sign is designed to fall on people, I don't think so.

Second "offensive"
1. Bit one size fits all this definition 'giving or meant or likely to give offence' this could mean anything and is useless as a classification. Insulting? This more useful, but begs the question "To whom?" and, in this case, "How can one insult a concept?"
2. Disgusting, foul-smelling etc? Nope.
3. Aggressive, attacking? The injunction to consider a scenario an attack?? Nope.

So, from this we can say that the sign is not "offensive". We can say that people might take 'offence at it". However, we can also say that this offence will have to be taken in an active fashion. The person expressing 'offence' will not have been the victim of an illegal action or an aggressive attack.

This level of offence is impossible to completely guard against because people take active offence at all manner of things. For example, this situation is mirrored when people express horror at, for example, images of prominent prophets , public nudity, etc.

Should we act in a manner that prevents people from being the victims of illegal acts or physical attack? You bet.

Should we act in a manner that prevents people from taking active offence? Impossible, impractical and undesirable in that you would have to stifle all dissent.

So, after giving due thought to this one, I have to say that it is back to comment #9 for me too.

485. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95989 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Ungodlystheist

Send me a picture and I might be willing :-)

You first, sunshine.

486. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95986 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm

RickM

Try "blockquote" :)

487. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95962 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Roger me rigid!

This is getting even more stroppy than the global warming threads.

I was considering writing a thoughtful post about the reasons for my vegetarianism (hippy that I am), but I see that people are getting very wound up so I will wait till Brian says 'Jehovah'.

P.S. Just to show that I do not slavishly follow either crowd I feel constrained to point out that, although vegetarian (for over 20 years now) I have NEVER managed to cultivate a liking for tofu.

I'd rather eat my grandmother's old sofa cushions that her pekinese piddled on - probably taste the same.

488. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95954 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 2:30 pm

ADH

Blimy, you've been posting all over the place with lots of people disagreeing with you. Bet you're knackered. Two things.

1) Nothing wrong with saying 'I'm off to bed now'. Tis OK to sleep and come back to fight another day :)

2) When you type into the little comment box you will see a clickable link above it called 'comment posting guidelines'. Click on that. It will tell you how to put quotes into little boxes and write in bold the names of the people you are responding to. Makes arguments easier to follow for those of us who read more than post.

489. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #95865 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 11:28 am

I am having a very interesting time using the new and exciting "view other comments by" button. Absolutely fascinating. Case in point: I have just looked at the comment by an individual named Peter633 (#43159) held up as an exemplar of the atheist materialist viewpoint by Shromer.

Seems this is someone who posted something unbelievably daft and was never seen again. This sort of thing makes me suspicious not only of the intellect of the poster, but also their motivation... Ho Hum...

Anyway, Shromer.

I wonder whether you will answer a question for me?

I see that you think that:

Dinesh makes a very good point

Needless to say I disagree with that.

However, I am not going to talk about that for the simple reason that the response given to Dinesh by an atheist professor at at Virginia Tech says it all - with an eloquence that I could never hope to match. I do urge you to read it.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,904,Dinesh-DSouza-says-I-dont-exist-an-atheist-at-Virginia-Tech,Mapantsula-Daily-Kos

My question is different. Ok you feel this point is 'a very good' one...

However, I ask you "Do you feel this was the time to make it??"

Do you think that this article was written with any thought or care for any relatives of the beareaved that might be reading it? (Irrespective of their religious views)

Do you think talking about an English biologist (who has made no comment concerning the incident) was relevant? Do you think that the utilisation of the death of teenage students (recipients of their family's pride, hopes and love) merely to make a rhetorical point is acceptable?

Do you think that the article Dinesh wrote was the work of an honourable, man? A humane man?

Personally, I would say that this article has the air of a vulture cackling at the sight of carrion. This disgusting mixture of faux sympathy and opportunism frankly has me suspecting sociopathy by the writer.

Do you not see how the astonishing lack of "Christian charity" shown by one of its' major proponents could lead people to doubt the existence of it?

490. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #95184 by Corylus on December 7, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Duff said.

This guy is simply hustling the Templeton Foundation. He's tired of living in his van and wants the million bucks.

Agreed Duff he is trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. He is using the language of both groups in order to blur the lines, in the hope that neither realise the inconsistency.

In the unlikely event that he is kidding himself and doing this unknowingly he will eventually find himself caught in a snare.

If he is doing this knowingly (I am going for the latter) when pressed he will pull post-modern language out of the hat.

E.g. What is truth? What is a theory? Different paradigms is all.

Sits back and waits...

491. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #95126 by Corylus on December 7, 2007 at 11:59 am

I appreciate the heart of what intelligent design people are trying to do, but it's a dead-end road. It's not science; it's philosophy.

Is it bollocks.

I appreciate the heart of what intelligent design people are trying to do, but it's a dead-end road. It's not science; it's philosophy theology.

Fixed.

Philosophy is about working forwards: theology is about working backwards. This is why theologians make fuckwitted mistakes like assuming evolution is teleological...

Evolutionary theology talks about evolution in a way that gives people a sense of purpose as part of something infinitely meaningful.

...and philosophers don't.

Sorry to get grumpy, but really.

492. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94740 by Corylus on December 6, 2007 at 11:50 am

This injunction against alcohol in Islam is interesting.

I have wondered whether this is due, not to wanting people to keep their bodies and minds pure so that they may contemplate God, but more to avoid civil unrest and revolution.

Only a teetotaller could react to a wailing call to prayer at a disgustingly early hour of the morning with obedience and equanimity.

493. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94580 by Corylus on December 6, 2007 at 2:16 am

I find myself torn between feeling sorry for her (how awful to be deemed the thickest on daytime TV) angry for her (where were her teachers?) and absolutely astonished at her lack of shame.

If I have made that flat earth faux pas, I would no longer be on TV. I would have changed my identity, had plastic surgery and be hiding out somewhere in South America.

494. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94573 by Corylus on December 6, 2007 at 2:06 am

Had to go for the Bishop of Carlisle.

That he spouted such homophobic drivel needs to be publicised wider. This was not Phelps but an Anglican bishop.

This could be an object lesson is showing how important it is to ask the nice moderates exactly what they believe and who they would consider demeaning and discriminating against in the name of faith.

If the answer is 'no-one' - then fine. However, I do think it is important to routinely ask for this assurance.

I was tempted by Chuck Norris. However, on reflection, I realised that my antipathy was due not to his reasoning skills, but crimes against insomniacs. What's on when you can't sleep? Walker Texas Ranger or the shopping channel.

Not good.

495. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94052 by Corylus on December 4, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Edkabr

Oh come now you bunch of atheists! Nobody is good enough for you, these debates are pointless, who do you want to take on now, Mcgrath? Even if God himself were to come down to earth to argue for his his own existence, you would dismiss him as a fool, "same old arguments" you would say. Why do you spend so much time watching these debates if nothing, absolutely nothing makes you think other than your position?

[Cough.]

McGrath - been done.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

It's a good job I'm a kindly sort, or I would tell you to read the comments on there to see whether 'absolutely nothing makes us think'.

Give some examples of what you want people on here to think about (politely please) and you will find plenty of people happy to chat.

Unless of course, you just want to let off steam and be insulting??

496. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94045 by Corylus on December 4, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Janus said

I'm curious to see if anyone here disagrees with the following statement:

No public institution should use any of its ressources to make accommodations for cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence.

Interesting question Janus :-)

How about psychiatric hospitals where some non-evidentiary beliefs are accommodated in order in give people the time and space to slowly and carefully recover (or learn to live with) whatever ails them?

Another scenario - two vegetarians in adjacent hospital beds. One doesn't want the beef burger because he dislikes the cruelty of the meat trade (evidence based reasoning). Another is a strict Hindu and thinks cows are sacred (non evidential). Who gets the nut cutlet? Neither, both??

I reckon you are demanding a standard of rationality that humans don't possess. Most of us, when tested, have a few psychological glitchs.

How about:

"Public institutions should only make use of any of their resources (to make accommodations for cultural beliefs, religious beliefs, or any beliefs which are not supported by evidence) when doing so is not detrimental to the service provided to other users."

The turning of the beds to Mecca is out for both of these statements.

(Edit: Bugger! Just seen your most recent post - looks like you were ready for someone demanding the above ;)

497. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93717 by Corylus on December 4, 2007 at 1:52 am

ADH

It is great that you are willing to think and question. Yes, I can understand your following comment:

Yet on these forums I always get the impression that dissent is not welcome, theists have no business even listening in, let alone contributing here.

I would make a couple of points about that. I would concede that we have a couple of people on here who can be rude. However,

1) We fight each other too :) I have disagreed with several people on here, but I really don't hold a grudge against any of them*, (and I hope they would say the same of me) because discussion helps you to learn. The trick is to disagree civily.

2) You might want to compare this site to a few others. I know this does not excuse bad manners, but, this is a remarkably polite site compared to the competition. It is also self-moderating. If someone says something completely out of line, they will get told off.

Can I make a suggestion?

On the top right hand side of the home page is a 'search' box for the site. Because new stuff gets added so often, it is easy to miss some amazing material. There are a huge amount of videos, interviews and articles to look at. Search via your interests. (Brian has done several good videos the You-Tube star that he is :)

Also, if you find a poster on here that you like, why not have a look at their other comments? There is a function at the bottom of their posts for doing this.

While there are many people on here that I enjoy reading (too many to name!) I would particularly recommend _J_ for general reading and poetic use of language, Dr Benway for humour, Steve99 and Epeeist for learning about science , Russell Blackford for philosophy and Philip1978 for sheer cheerfulness.

C.

*Actually, there is one that I continue to dislike. Not because of his faith, but because of his lack of humanity, but that's another tale :(

498. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #93375 by Corylus on December 3, 2007 at 1:14 am

Well, she has just been pardoned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7124447.stm

Muslim peers went over there and sprung her because of a "Muslim to Muslim" plea.

Much mealy mouthed noding by the talking heads on the news at the moment saying this was about politics and not religion.

Hmm - Without religion would this have happened?

Of course, I am glad the peers took the action they did and I am glad that this poor lady has been released.

However, I remain digusted by this whole sorry afair.

499. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92885 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Russell
(Re 'fine tuning')

The challenge for atheists is to come up with a response that is cogent ... yet simple and clear enough, and sufficiently independent of other assumptions, to be expressed in real time in a live debate.

I would talk about needles in haystacks.

When people say:
"How likely is it that we are in this given environment with so many things just right?"

I would say:
'Yes. It is almost like looking for a single needle in a million, million haystacks, isn't it?'

[Furious nods]

I would then ask how long it would take to find the needle if we were actually the pointy item in question.

Answer: not very long.

Ok this would need clarification and work, if further questions were asked, and I admit not by me as my understanding of physics is simplistic, at the very best :-)

However, the sudden switch in perspective could elicit the queasy realisation that it is possible to couch questions in inappropriate or simply meaningless terms.

Also, it could also make the point that, in terms of the universe, we are tiny beings indeed.

To automically presume that this is all for us has always struck me as the height of hubris, as well as an error of reasoning.

500. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92854 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

ADH

You say

That is why I accept that the human "person" does not begin with birth.... but with conception.

Presumably you also take the view that with the beginning of human life [at conception] one also gets a soul. I am assuming that for you a defining part of 'human life' is ensoulment (correct me if I am wrong on this).

I would be interested on your view on MZ twins.

Seems to me that either:

1)Ensoulment accurs at conception in which case the identical twins share a soul even though the egg has split in two and two babies are born.

That being the case it doesn't matter how virtuous one twin has been, if the other has been bad they are both heading for the hot place. (An unpalatable conclusion)

Or...

2) One can be given a soul at any given point during gestation or birth (at God's command). That being the case your insistence that 'human life begins at conception' seems to be at varience with God's actual actions.

I don't want to accuse you of deciding God's actions for him, but...

How do you resolve this problem?