451. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178846 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 6:31 am

Keith

I've got to admit that I'm a bit confused about this idea that the problem is with Islam, not with Muslims.

I think the distinction between being a cultural muslim and a religious muslim is a lot more blurred compared to Christianity. Even more so for Jews. I can imagine me saying that "the problem is not Jews but Judaism", since many Jews (so I understand) are basically atheist even though they still call themselves Jews (I know a few who celebrate christmas).

I guess the statement is intended not to alienate the average man in the street, who may be muslim because of circumstance, but generally just goes about his day, rather than the ranting Imam or daughter-murdering zealot.

452. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178837 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 6:11 am

Scooternyc

Morals and morality are personal and subjective, they come from the individual.

However, your civil liberties to impose that personal subjective moral philosophy onto others ends where another's begins.

So long as one individual is not infringing on the other's civil liberties to freedom, choice, pursuit of personal happiness at no cost to you, then you can believe anything you want in life.

I see a slight inconsistency between the first two statements and the third, but please correct me.

I would say morals are subjective, but also collective. You understand the need for collective agreement on the rules we should all live by (stops murders and theives getting away with it), as the third quoted comment shows. This does not dovetail with the second quoted comment where we should not allow our morals to be imposed on others.

(I'm not antagonising here, I'm genuinely interested).

453. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178811 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 5:13 am

Artful_Dodger

As I said before, it is you lot who are side-stepping my questions.

Please address posters specifically. "You lot" covers many people on here who would have answered any questions you had put to them specifically, or indeed had not been asked one.

Any listen to Epeeist. Stop using the god of the gaps. Its really childish.

454. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178782 by Peacebeuponme on May 12, 2008 at 3:15 am

Awkward Question_Dodger

The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God, of human beings setting themselves up as gods, of human self-deification leading to human destruction

Why must you confuse non-belief in a god with having a god complex? It is possible to be an atheist and humble you know. In fact, the people who seem to have the most difficultly with humility are the robe-wearing classes.

455. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177118 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Crazy bitch
Bitch, stupid ass bitch
Old punk ass bitch, old dumb ass bitch
A bitch is a bitch, just a bitch

456. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177115 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Diacanu - I almost tried to follow that link then.

Never underestimate the power of putting "www" ahead of a string.

457. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177112 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 3:24 pm

God is not a "fact in the world" as though God could be treated as "one thing among other things to be empirically investigated" and affirmed or denied on the "basis of observation".

If Christians really believed in the mystery of God, we would realise that proper talk about God is always difficult, always tentative.

I want to encourage people of faith to regard those without faith with deep esteem because the hidden God is active in their lives as well as in the lives of those who believe.

CUNT

458. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177107 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Diacanu

But until then, Diacanu stays gone, and you'll never see him again.

That's what they call a "Morgan Goodbye".

459. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177093 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Diacanu

Maybe she consented, maybe consent is a grey area even when you do consent under those circumstances.

Agree. I don't think 'consent' for female slaves was something you could actually conceptualise.

460. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177090 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Diacanu

Oh, it's not the shagging that raises my eyebrow, it's the slavery.

Sure. We can't justify it in any way. I bet if he were alive today though, he would think slavery as terrible as me and you do.

That honor of course, goes to Norman Borlaug.

Depends on how you define greatness. Norman's academic field led him to introducing farming methods that saved lives. No question brilliant. Prefer Thomas Jefferson's way of cutting through the crap so eloquently and seeming to understand everything though.

Then of course there is Hannibal's pincer movement...

461. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177073 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Diacanu

Well, except for his shagging of a woman he literally owned as property, but hey....;)

An unfortunate byproduct of greatness seems to be womanising* in many cases.

*With apologies to Oscar Wilde and Marie Curie.

462. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177058 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 2:01 pm

exquisitetruth

In the words of Thomas Jefferson,

He really must be pretty much the greatest man ever to live. Every time I read a quote, I'm in awe.

463. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177038 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Richard Dawkins

Do people think it is worth bothering to go on the radio to talk about it?

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor once said (of The Da Vinci Code):

"There is a real danger that people will believe this fairy story."

Enough said for me. He's really not worth talking about seriously.

464. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #177029 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 1:34 pm

The Reverend proclaimed

I proposes, humbly, that the Wooter be adopted as the standard unity for measuring creationist inanity.

I was proposing "Wooterism" as being any poorly executed deployment of the argument from design, but happy to go for a new SI (perhaps alongside the "Bergson", measuring unfounded arrogance?).

One question - does this mean Wooter will have to be held at constant temperature and pressure in a room in France? Surely, this is too great a punishment?

465. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176805 by Peacebeuponme on May 8, 2008 at 5:06 am

Chato

but ultimately it fails to answer the big questions.

I guarantee I will answer any question you throw at me, big or small. Go on...try it...anything you like.

How life started.
Why we are here.
Who is going to win the Champions League.

My worldview and opinions are superior to any other in this regard.

466. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176408 by Peacebeuponme on May 7, 2008 at 9:02 am

Well there's also Amargeddon.

467. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176403 by Peacebeuponme on May 7, 2008 at 8:48 am

Bonzai

Excuse me?! Is there anything wrong with making passionate love? Me think Mr. Slim Shady has some issues to deal with.:)

Ha!

I said "What Eminen would call." I know he has been accused of homophobia before (I'm not so sure about that, though he is in a pretty homophobic part of the music industry). Its clear that he did not mean that line literally...

As a gay person I would like some serious ass fucking but unfortunately haven't gotten any action lately because I spend too much time on Rd.net ...

As a gay person you should be ashamed! :) The best thing about being a gay man much surely be the ease of finding some, surely?

468. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176393 by Peacebeuponme on May 7, 2008 at 8:30 am

al

The clairevoyant abilities of the regulars here are getting quite good.

Glorious isn't it?

ADH
Omega369
Artful_Dodger
Seeker_of_Truth
Fides_et_Ratio

Spot the difference? I can't.

469. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176392 by Peacebeuponme on May 7, 2008 at 8:25 am

seeker_of_truth

I believe I have received what I came here for.

You high-handed twat.

If you really came here to attempt to gawp at closed-mindedness, then that really says a lot about your character. There is of course no justification for that attitude. You have been thoroughly found out.

I belive what you actually got was what Emimen calls "some intense, serious ass fucking"

470. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176359 by Peacebeuponme on May 7, 2008 at 7:52 am

al-rawandi

Classic theist, with a new twist. Pretended to be open minded for several days.

In fact he is the usual theist... refuses to or unable to understand the evidence.

Same pattern as all the others I would think. Makes plently of bluster about just wanting to follow the evidence where it leads. That he's not as sure of himself as the average atheist. Then transpires that he gets all his evidence from AIG. Any alternative evidence will be ignored or classed as irrelevant to religious matters.

Has he said "I don't have much time" or "I have better things to do" yet?

471. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175619 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 5:53 pm

_riverrun_

'The most dangerous, I think, are secular state worship.'

Agree close to 100%

Good luck defending that point of view. Ideology in all forms can be equally dangerous. Its impossible to make a strong case for any particular ideology being "the worst".

472. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175616 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Rational_G

I like Mr Condell's sarcasm. The religious types deserve it. I don't put Condell in the same league as a Dawkins or a Carlin - I'm not trying to - there's no need for him to be in that league for me to appreciate his contribution. And he does make me laugh.

Good for you. I don't think we disagree too much actually about Pat's merits.

He is promoted on the main page of this site at the moment though. I'm just wondering whether that's a good thing.

I quite like Johnny Ball. However, do you think it would look good for Stephen Hawkings if Johnny did the Introduction to A Brief History of Time?

473. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175609 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Crazy_Steve

Of course, it isn't a perfect idea, (or even well formed idea) but certainly worth considering as a starting point.

I just can't see how. You happen to have had a tough week at work and haven't had the time to mug up on the election. So you get not vote?

I really think that it should be considered a privilege to vote.

Couldn't disagree more. Voting should be a basic, mundane, immovable right open to all. "Privileges" are things you get based on circumstance or acheivement, none of which should apply to voting. To me its analogous to access to food. I do not feel privileged when I eat my bacon sandwich in the morning, and nor should any hungry person feel that way when they finally get given food. Privilege seems to suggest we should be grateful to the person allowing the vote. Nope. Not at all.

There is no need to discriminate based on race, intelligence, religion etc, just to be knowledgable about what it is that you are voting for, and the context in which you place that vote.

Cards on the table, we both know that the world would be better for all if it were run by a handful of benevolent dictators. We know that the majority view is idiotic in a lot of cases (which artist cares about the people's choice award and not the academy nomination?). However, what grounds can we have for justifying our opinion being more important than others? By setting a test, any kind of test, you immediately discriminate based on intelligence. That cannot be right.

474. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175581 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Keith

Chomsky's fine distinction between 'being a racist 'and 'acting on racist motives'

Is that really a line somebody has tried to take? That somebody can act on racist motives, but not actually be racist? What kind of mental contortions must someone go through to maintain such a position?

Consider the sentence

"I absolutely see the black man as my brother, but want to subjugate him and therefore support white on black slavery."

475. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175576 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Crazy_Steve

I think we should have voter quizzes which you have to score at least 80% on to be allowed to vote. It should contain questions about current events, general knowledge and the platforms of the candidates

Cartomancer was joking earlier, but you are not are you?

476. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175575 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Mitchell Gilks - I just accidentally tagged your post #175113 as "offensive". Sure nothing will happen, but have seen comments moved to the Alt. thread by accident before, so apols if it does!

477. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175573 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 4:00 pm

AllanW and UncleJJ

'his pretty simple smug routine would be vulnerable to any decent theist'. Again, you need to show where, with particular reference to details of his speeches, this would be true.

Just to make clear. I don't see how referencing or providing details will help here. I say I find Pat's delivery smug. You don't. What would be the point of me pointing out a particular sentence?

(btw Allan - the tone of my last post was not directed in any way towards you.)

478. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175567 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Diacanu - that was the best post I have read in ages. One thing though, I hope you don't use the phrase

snoosh-splooshing

when you are in the bar on a Friday night.

479. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175561 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 3:39 pm

UncleJJ

Peacebeuponme: your posts here are irritating and have many discrepancies. Your judgement is severely flawed.

Wow! Given that all were are talking about here is our impression of somebody, I must say I'm surprised, both by the vigour of your defence of the venerable Mr Condell, and your determination in finding a factual (I should say objective) grounding upon which to take issue with me. I don't find the guy funny or intelligent (at least in the 3 or 4 videos I've seen, but maybe I did pick ones where he was having an off day and the other 36 show a gentleman who combines Oscar Wilde, George Carlin and Dorothy Parker into a side-splitting virtuoso comedy performance the likes of which the world has never before seen). I'm therefore struggling to see how we can move a conversation forward - am I supposed to pick lines out of his work and say "look see, this here is not funny or intelligent", only for you to come back with "Yes it is you irritating, nasty person"? Where would we go after that?

I dislike the way you try to besmirch fellow atheists who you disagree with (e.g. your treatment of Rational G)

Jesus mate, you should meet Styrer, al-rawandi or Keith! You are a sensitive soul. If you care to re-read the exchange, you will see that Rational_G was serving that game, and opened by calling me uptight. I merely returned the ball. (Incidentally, since you have opened by remarking that I am irritating, I feel gloriously free in writing this response). Kudos on the word "besmirch" though. I almost felt transported back a few hundred years.

and the way you try to belittle Pat Condell.

Is he a friend of yours? Am I not supposed to voice dissenting opinion to anything you like? I'm sure he can take the critique. Being a comedian, he will be well used to what they call in my job "real-time oral feedback".

The arrogant presumption that because you do not appreciate the sophisticated style of humour in Pat's videos Richard Dawkins should not endorse him is particularly telling. RD obviously considered the consequences of an association with Pat Condell before deciding to publish the DVD?

I'm sure he has. I disagree with that choice and chose to air my thoughts. I don't see why I should refrain from doing that. I disagree with the "sophisticated" identifier, natch.

I just can't understand why some people voice these concerns about Pat not being worthy of RD's approval. Similar things were said about Christopher Hitchens about a year ago. A significant minority on these boards accused him of hurting our cause, being a loose cannon, being a warmonger and a drunkard and similar unpleasantness.

Indeed, and I disagreed with a lot of those, but they were absolutely right to raise issues they felt strongly about. I did however, manage to engage them in chatter without calling them "irritating" or "flawed"...

By all means disagree with RD and others but don't then go on to show us how poor your judgement is. Save yourself the embarrassment.

Oh, I am allowed to disagree? Well, I did, so...well, its getting tricky now to see what your point is. I can disagree that Pat is articulate as long as I don't show poor judgement. But poor judgement would be assessing Pat as inarticulate. Hmm, this is a bit of a head scratcher.

The rest of your post is a commendably spirited defence of all the wonderful qualities Pat has. Can we not just say we disagree? If you viewed Pat the way I do, I think you would agree that his mug should not be on the main page of the RD.net site (put any comedian that you find rubbish in his place to see what I mean), so I think my point is valid in at least that sense.

hopefully, in your search you'll discover what many of us already know . . . that Pat Condell is a class act.

If I don't, I'm sure you can come up with a whole range of new and exciting insults for me next time.

480. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175538 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 2:51 pm

Teratornis

It is troubling that Sam and the other Horsemen tend to remain silent on the petroleum issue, perhaps because all of them are personally fond of petroleum-fueled jet travel. This is one of the most egregious forms of petroleum addiction, because the product being moved is nothing more than information, and information can travel cheaply in wires resulting in drastically lower donations to Middle Eastern oil barons.

I'm sorry, but I disagree that the same information can be transitted in wires. Richard would be far less effective if he swapped personal appearance for webcasts and blogging.

481. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175522 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 2:36 pm

exquisitetruth

In a world where I so often find myself saying "Are they for real?!", or, "Are you ****ing kidding me?"

Some of the theists on here hold positions that I couldn't make up - my posts just then were pretty unremarkable in comparison.

Check out Wooter/Clearmind for the absolute gold standard of bollocks. However, ADH, Omega369, Artful_Dodger do pretty well. Most of these don't post now as they don't seem to do to well trying to respond to searching quesions.

482. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175517 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 2:24 pm

exquisitetruth

Peacebeuponme,

I smell a troll.

3/10

You lose points for the unconvincing self righteousness.

Almost. I'm being...sarcastic? ironic? The (bad) joke's on the theist. Check out my previous posts: been around for a while and 100% atheist.

Plus...a theist using the name "Peacebeuponme" would show them up a little, non?

483. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175511 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Diacanu

Ohhh, I've had an epiphany!

Most popular places for an epiphany:

1. The Grand Canyon
2. Kenai Peninsula during an aurora borealis
3. Hiking in the Andes

Least popular:

1. Standing reading a quarter-folded paper at 7:30 on a packed tube train
2. Watching the evening news
3. In the queue at the supermarket

God always chooses the right setting when he speaks to you.

484. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175497 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Diacanu

Yeah, only after God stepped in saying "kidding! Kidding! I was fuckin' with ya, man!".

God could not have been just "fuckin' with" Abraham. He is perfectly loving and just. You're just not getting the message because your mind is closed.

485. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175485 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Abraham and Isaac, anyone?

Oh come on, Diacanu. You can't just cherry-pick stories to quote out of context.

And anyway, the whole point of that story is that Abraham didn't sacrifice Isaac. Don't you get it?

486. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175409 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 11:05 am

al

I guess there have been other hook ups on the site,

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2270,A-match-made-on-RichardDawkinsnet,Yorker-Veronique

Ranting about theism must get the circulation going...

487. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175400 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 10:47 am

al - you've been a gentleman on a number of occassions. Please don't let my tongue-in-cheek remark become any more than that.

I've deleted it now anyway, since the intention of the post was just a quick "congrats".

488. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175394 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 10:40 am

al

fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest anything negative.

489. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175382 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 10:32 am

I know. It just not a nice read!

490. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175378 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 10:29 am

Cartomancer

We could adjust it from the other end too, by increasing the number of votes a candidate gets by a percentage equal to how far their IQ exceeds 100 (And reducing it likewise if their IQ is below). That way it becomes much easier to elect intelligent candidates as well as those who are popular with the intelligent voter.

What a horrible thought, even if you were joking.

491. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175377 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 10:27 am

al-rawandi

Thanks. But your face is in the way of me on the other one

Seems I'm pretty slow on the uptake, but congrats to you and Anna.

I made a throwaway remark about the "Dawkins Dating Agency" a few months ago. Seems there was actually some truth in there. Good work fella.

492. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175296 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 6:15 am

gd_edi

Well what I was trying to point out was that it doesn't really mean anything for Richard to say that he suspects animals other than humans have subjective consciousness. Scientifically it's meaningless.

No its not. Its a very interesting question.

493. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175280 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 5:00 am

AllanW

Did you see the RRS debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort? They made a complete hash of it. Similar with Brian Sapient's terribly worded open letter to Michael Shermer. Can you see that it is not good for Richard to say "Hey those Rational Responders, wow those guys are brilliant"? Such a comment would not reflect well on Richard. When atheists present unintelligent and ill-thought out positions, its best that prominent sophisticated atheists such as Richard make sure they are distanced from them.

If I for example said that Justin Timberlake was "a great scientist", you ability to take me seriously as a scientist would be lessened, would it not? Yet here we have Richard describing a fairly average youtube blogger as "unique", "suave", "articulate" and "intelligent"! Any theist reading this praise, and then watching and being unimpressed with Pat, is not likely to consider the merits of atheism.

494. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175271 by Peacebeuponme on May 5, 2008 at 4:26 am

AllanW

Ok PBUM, you don't find him funny; is that your only problem with Condell? Or do you disagree with the fact that the RDFRS has decided to promote his videos in this way?

As I've said before, I think Pat would be a great guy to have on your side in a pub debate, but to promote him here alongside the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens does not seem right to me. I don't think he is in anyway as sophisticated (or funny; even Hitchens beats him there and he's not trying to be a comedian) as he needs to be and think his pretty simple smug routine would be vulnerable to any decent theist. I think him being promoted here lessens the impact of Richard (especially with that staggeringly positive strapline from Richard) and this site in general.

No problem with him doing his thing, and if people like it, great. No real problem I suppose with the odd youtube video of his getting put up here, but promoting him so plainly on the homepage is the wrong thing to be doing I think.

495. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175178 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Cartomancer

Whatever it said about me was a gross exaggeration! Don't believe a word!

As long as Soho Slut Girl is not your alter-ego, I think you are ok...

496. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175177 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I like to use my real name, but I also like to get people to work to know it...

Aha, Hazel! Every time I come on here I have to wikipedia something somebody has said. It's great!

I'm probably just jealous of everyone here who can deploy Latin as well as a 14-year old girl can text.

497. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175174 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Cartomancer

You should have seen the graffiti in the toilets of the Bodleian Library before they were refurbished.

well, I saw the graffiti (why are so many such words Italian?) on the doors of G.A.Y. the other week. Now that was educational and funny.

498. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #175161 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Fides

athiests

A minor thing, but something that niggles me as much as your latin name (bringing out the latin is something you unfortunately share with some of my fellow atheists. They seem to turn into freshers when it comes to wannabe pretentious use of latin alternatives.) is your spelling of atheist. The i comes after the e. I know it doesn't conform to the old "i before e except after c rule', but isn't that quite fitting?

Anyway,

I did suggest one, no news on it being posted yet. The range isn't as wide as you think either, in fact it's carefully targeted.

hmm, not sure. Maybe you are right. I've had a few articles refused, and also seen a few fairly bland ones posted. That sounds like most peoples' experience of any other user-generated site to me. I wonder what the theist vs non-theist post-rate is, or more importantly the fundamentalist-theistic article vs "modarate"-theistic article post-rate is. Are you saying you have the stats?

Not everyone on this site is an athiest. Not all athiests on this site think as one.

I totally agree with that. Isn't that a great thing about this site?

499. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175128 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

phasmagigas

thats pretty standard fare im sure, in fact some people probably figure thats the case, do crazy shit and then carry on their 'simulation' of a prison cell for a long, long time.

Yep. And it would dawn on those people, while they were sat in the cell, that it would be fairly illogical to be a lone consciousness which had chosen to experience extended periods of distress. The reality of the situation would become apparent.

500. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175124 by Peacebeuponme on May 4, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Cartomancer - thanks for saying, with your usual eloquence, what I was trying to.