501. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128866 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 6:03 am

Actually, on the snowflake thing, didn't Stenger make an interesting point?

That, given the absence of thermal influences from bodies such as the sun and earth, H20, a simple combination, necessarily moves towards complexity (snowflake 'design')? Does this not indicate movement from simple to complex in devastating rebuttal of wooter's et al idee fixe?

Stenger also posited that 'nothing' is inherently more unstable than 'something', thereby allowing quantum mechanics in all of its incomprehensible glory to take 'nothing' to something.

Have I got this right?

I remember being excited by the idea, anyway. :)

Best,
Styrer

502. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128863 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 5:48 am

How about:

Flag as [Offensive] [Troll] [Spam] [Wooter]

?

Nearly did meself an indignity reading this. Fantastic.

Oh, but would not such a list be endless...? :)

Best,
Styrer

503. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128858 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 5:41 am

The "Other comments by..." helps a bit in this regard, but it is still a pain to track it all though. It would be good if you could flag your comment as a response to another comment, as in some others websites.

I was a member of catstevens.com for six years until its demise and John Gibbons (the site's frankly wonderful webmeister) had a useful little addition - a 'quote' button (here we must use 'blockquote' etc) you press to bring up the reply box. Loved it.

Sadly catstevens.com was bought out by... Yusuf Islam, and his fandom declined in measure with his new, shite, no-members, no-forums permitted site.

Still love Cat's music above all others', though. What a loss - another reason to hate religion and its effects.

Anyway - back on-topic - Josh could handle anything we throw at him, if Richard is prepared to pay!

Best,
Styrer

504. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128848 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 5:05 am

I have arranged to set up some web pages with "quick rebuttal" links, I thought it could also be a sort of "FAQ" for some of the questions that often get asked.

I realise there are some good pages out there, but there is such expertise on this site that I am sure something could be put together that is rich in information and also based on dealing with the specific questions we are frequently asked.

I did have another idea, which was to keep track somehow of who has asked what and when. Some of the worst offenders in terms of irrationality "thread hop" - they will give up on one topic, then start again on another as if no-one had answered. I think it would be quite effective to be able to say "As has been pointed out to you 5 times before in the following messages...".

As long as such FAQs are included on this site, I'm in favour.

Links to outside websites for such issues as have been raised here should not be permitted, of course. This website is also a business, let us not forget, and encouragement to seek advice elsewhere would equate to a shop-owner advertising in-store his competitor's shop next door!

I'd be extremely reluctant to go down the 'anti-thread hop' idea you propose. Those 'sinning' can quickly be recognised and thence ignored, quite without creating an e-surveillance camera watching all our moves. Let's do it for ourselves.

Bring 'em on!

Best,
Styrer

505. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128842 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 4:44 am

Steve

Smugness and self-satisfaction be damned. You're thinking far too much about possible irrational responses from this website's visitors.

Let anyone coming upon this site make his or her own way through it. Whether they decide to stay and learn or leave in ignorance of what's on offer is of absolutely no concern.

See off with alacrity those you discern as unwilling learners, and those armed with anti-reason agendas. They are wooterly clear. What I like about this site (as distinct from some others which I come across) is its relative lack of formal 'moderation' from an on-high administrative 'e-Big Brother'.

Within limits, we are our own moderators.

At some point last year I suggested setting up a resource which would contain quick rebuttals. For example, if someone says "the appearance of order in the universe must indicate a designer", we could provide a rebuttal that was as brief as "see this link", "see note 100 on this page". Instead, this seemed to morph into "general discussions on how to respond to the religious", which, although useful I am sure, was not what I felt necessary.

I am not quite sure either why such a marvellous proposal was not acted on. There may be constraints we're not aware of (Josh and Wayne could clarify) but the principle remains - quick dispatch of old, well-worn, untenable positions serves the ethos of a site whose aim is the very opposite of support for well-worn, untenable positions, fallen into obsolescence.

However it pans out - come back to those who value you and tell the Wooters to fuck, swiftly, off!

Best,
Styrer

506. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128834 by Styrer- on February 18, 2008 at 3:41 am

It adds nothing to the argument, except for encouraging people to back away slowly from the speaker.

May I ask you, Steve, why you repeatedly fail to follow your own great advice here, and simply 'back away'?

You are consistently fuelling the Wooter fire by granting him your time in replying to him.

I am a member who values your educational responses to those here who genuinely want to find out more about this world, and I hence resent the amount of time you are spending rehearsing, repeatedly, legitimate arguments on an irrational, illiterate imbecile fanatic such as Wooter.

Best,
Styrer

507. Defying Gravity in Science Class

Comment #128787 by Styrer- on February 17, 2008 at 11:47 pm

22. Comment #128779 by Steve Zara on February 17, 2008 at 11:23 pm

There is no other advantage.Wisdom reminds me of the fact that one must remain humble ...it is the most difficult skill to learn for any knowledge seeker.


I don't consider believing you know far more about physics and the nature of gravity than people who have been studying this for years as being humble. I am only an amateur in this, but even I can see that you are just putting vague ideas together with little understanding.

Perhaps you could explain how God is supposed to fit into all this?

Steve

What the hell are you doing?

Please stop giving the likes of wooter and dkv reason to perpetually come back at you with vacuous inanities.

If, Steve, you would distill all your possible retorts to the illiterate, innumerate, inconsequential numbskulls as you provide them, these may form, independently, nuggets of information worth reading.

But do not expect me to go through the pain of sifting your gold from their shite.

Think on, good Doctor.

Best,
Styrer

508. Sharia fiasco

Comment #128718 by Styrer- on February 17, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Much interesting comment has taken place since I last visited - some of the stories have been a valuable education, for which I'm grateful. I was excited at several points, believe it or not, that I might be encouraged to change my mind on some of my earlier comments. The informed comments of Oisha, Al-Rawandi et al gave me pause.

But I haven't. I could almost accuse you of being 'unpersuasive' if I did not think you would throw the word 'unheeding' (or 'stupid', if you wished to be crueller!) right back at me.

Was I really attempting a re-definition of the term Islam and of Muslim? Or does not my use of the terms simply follow axiomatically from an adherence to the 'holy scripture' which is mandated by Islam itself? Perhaps the nomenclature idea of Sauveture carries weight, but Oisha's idea that my ideas are in some way letting the moderates off the hook by permitting them to 'shirk.. responsibility all too easily' can surely be seen as the precise opposite of my words 'Moderate, fundamentalist, mere 'nodder-towards'; I remain fearful of them all. They are all, in potentia, life-threatening conditions.'

Some here seem to think I was simply reserving the word Muslim for those of Islam's adherents who take the Koran and the Hadith as infallible indicators of the word of their supernatural deity, in the most diligent and closely-followed readings of these texts. The basis for this seems to be the comment I made ('those adherents whom you have decided to separate from the tenets of Islam are not, in fact, Islamists or Muslims as we usually understand') relating to the excellent Steve's apparent appeasement technique of divorcing Islam's tenets from its more moderate adherents. This was, you may recall, a point on which I took the good Dr Zara to task.

No. I define even the 'nodder-towards' as a Muslim, and urge as strong and robust a condemnation of this, more 'moderate' believer's selective acceptance of the Koran and of the Hadith as I would ask us all to reserve for the so-called 'fundamentalist' reading of these texts.

Mine may be a 'zero-tolerance' approach (is this not really what my liberal naysayers here cannot accept?) but it is one which I think is intellectually honest, and which refuses to fall through the dreadful and dangerous trapdoor of propitiation, which some here seem to be creeping ever more towards.

Best,
Styrer

509. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126460 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 9:35 am

I hope that it will one day become as socially unacceptable to say you believe in gods as it is now to say that you keep a slave.

Let us pray. :)

Not sure you entirely got my point. But the above comment drags you somewhat back from self-inflicted marginality.

:)

Best,
Styrer

510. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126449 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 9:11 am

Sort of the way my father did feel an overwhelming sense of terror from the Soviets.

Big difference, Al-Rawandi. The soviet regime was headed-up by humans, who could at least be shot.

Try the same with dogmatic, unshakeable belief in gods.

I thought our outpourings on this site were at least partly a recognition of this.

Best,
Styrer

511. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126447 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 9:06 am

My guess is Styrer neither knows this nor cares

So your 'guessing' condemns me, before you ask me.

What an example you set for the principles of this site.

You are at least half right - I was aware of this, and I do not care.

My reasons are (fairly) plainly stated here, if you care to replace venom towards me with inquiry into the comments I've made.

Styrer

512. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126440 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 8:53 am

I don't disagree here.

Allow me to be clear. The tenents of Islam, as expressed explicitly and implicitly in the cannonical texts are nasty and inhuman. Anyone accepting these as a basis for their lives, needs to be questioned and dealt with in a reasonable and appropriate manner.

I would always qualify that with, Islam is a variegated way of understanding the world. One which I hold to be wrong in all instances, but only evil in some. There are plenty of Muslims who do not seek the destruction of western civilization. I would like to think we would support those who seek reconciliation, and denounce those that support violence. It takes a degree of investigation to understand what seperates these people.

I second oisha, you endorsed a comment by someone who has on this site, repeatedly expressed hate and contempt for all Muslims. Who has never really accepted the idea that there are moderates and who sought to eject the intolerant ones from the country. If none are moderates, and the immoderate ones are to be expelled, what is the conclusiong we are to draw?

Now, you may not have known all the background or read all the posts, so I understand if there is a misunderstanding. I happen to know many British Muslims who are really decent people, who enjoy the occasional beer, who renounce jihad as a violent act, etc... So I would hope they aren't expelled.

Expulsion, kicking out, enforced emigration - let these be gone from the discussion. I want you to grant me the same courtesy in dismissing this pernicious notion as I gladly offered to Oisha on realising my error in blanket endorsement of another member's post.

'Variegated way of understanding the world'? No doubt you are correct. But what surely brings this multifarious concoction of views to an altogether ignoble, dangerous and anti-rational pin-point focus is faith.

Moderate, fundamentalist, mere 'nodder-towards'; I remain fearful of them all. They are all, in potentia, life-threatening conditions.

Some of you give the most unfortunate impression of never having read Harris on this. Or, if read, of having dismissed his notions out of hand in similar manner to my thoughts here.

I equate any proclamation of belief in the tenets of the Koran and any adherence to the Hadith with intellectual nullity. It does not matter whether such proclamation merely nods to, cautiously embraces, or whole-heartedly endorses such ideas. It does not matter if such proponents can sit down and have a pint of ale with you. The very act of granting authority of these texts and ideas over and above independent acquaintance with the world is enough, frankly, to worry me to shreds.

Lest it be unclear - this goes for all fancies of superstitious supernaturalism.

Hopefully I have been clearer here.

Best,
Styrer

513. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126424 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 8:23 am

Styrer,

Ah, well, actually, you quoted Fanusi Khiyal at length and then gave his comments a resounding "Hear, hear" (Comment #126303). In the process, you endorsed the comment, "I see no problem whatsoever in giving them a swift kick out the door, back into the Middle Eastern hellhole of their choice."

How else were Al-rawandi, Steve and myself supposed to interpret this endorsement, except as a statement of your support for the tranfer of an entire group of people?

Absolutely right. My mistake. Sorry.

Got carried away with the thrust of Fanusi's post, which I still endorse.

Best,
Styrer

514. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126414 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 7:31 am

Torture is morally repugnant, it should not be the policy of the United States to engage in torture.

Still, there are scenarios where to paraphrase another fictional character "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one".

So, Radesq - what on earth are you saying here?

If torture is wrong in all cases, then your second quoted statement is redundant.

If it is not, your first quote falls short.

Please explain.

Best,
Styrer

515. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126405 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 7:04 am

Styrer,



It is Islam, and all of its adherents, that is the problem.


Intellectual cowardice.


Have you sat down and asked any Muslim what they think? Many do reject the more unpleasant tenents in the faith. Not all, and the ones that don't should shape up or an appropriate solution needs to be devised. And that solution is something worthy of discussion.

No one here is advocating shariah law, quite the opposite.

But if you would like to begin the transfer of an entire group people, please come out and say it so we know where you stand.

I think I've made my stance on the bulk of the questions you raise quite clear, except for your wholly wrong-headed attribution to my comments of 'a transfer of an entire group of people'.

Where the fuck did that come from, sir? Certainly not from me.

I am proposing that we do not duck or dive when it comes to Islam and its followers. I propose that we tell them, flat out, that their beliefs are not theirs to hold while they insist that they be forced on the rest of us. That we explain, with evidence, why they are wrong to give their own lives, and oftentimes ours, to an unsupportable world view. And to show them - in Dawkinsian fashion - the wonderful truth on offer to them when they allow the despicable scales to fall from their eyes.

Have I, yet, made myself clear?

Best,
Styrer

516. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126399 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 6:49 am

Perhaps, but let me name some Muslims and see if you think these individuals are a real problem for our society:

Jasmin Alibi-Brown, Independent columnist.

"Prince" Naseem Hamed MBE, boxer.
Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi, UK peers who helped end the "teddy row".

Sure, you can name some hard-line fundamentalists.

But surely you would not say that the above people are a problem?

How boorish it must seem of me but yes, I see them as a problem too.

I wonder if the people you cite (and I suspect you can name more) simply fall under the import of my suggestion above:'those adherents whom you have decided to separate from the tenets of Islam are not, in fact, Islamists or Muslims as we usually understand.'

In the same way that I have said here that a theistic scientist is necessarily a poor scientist, I cannot see how any Muslim who follows the precepts of the Koran and of the Hadith can in any way be considered 'not a problem'.

I guess we've gone as far as we can on this, unless you have a brilliant spark to throw my way. I'm out. I think that you're a nice man, and that your niceness is preventing you from dissociating the person from an idea which I think mutates horribly that very humanness you seek to retain as inviolable. You (and I hope I do you no wrong here) see my views as a lack of recognition of the essential and separate human quality which you want to see enjoyed by all.

Thanks for your replies.

Best,
Styrer

517. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126388 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 6:13 am

No, it certainly is NOT all of its adherents.

That is, I think, a dreadful thing to say. We need to stop confusing ideas and people.


I think you have made yourself entirely useless in a debate which Islam will continue to make into a war.


Time for me to shut up on this thread then :)

First, your shutting up would be disastrous to this site (and for me) despite the dismissal overinflated egos such as Scooter's vacuously offer you.

Second - and to the point in hand - you're letting that egalitarian feeling take over your clinical analysis again, aren't you?

Stop confusing people and ideas? How? Islam makes a positive fest in equating the two, in attempting to make mockery by its tenets of the most noble values you think we should all embrace. In positively regaling itself with the dehumanising results of its pernicious creed.

I would offer that those adherents whom you have decided to separate from the tenets of Islam are not, in fact, Islamists or Muslims as we usually understand.

I wish I could persuade you - my words here are obviously not up to the task - to see Islam and its adherents as inextricably linked. Your good nature is not a help in this, Steve, I think.

I wonder if you could spend an extra moment or two on explaining to me quite why, without repetition of above comments, I am so very wrong here. I simply don't see my error at the moment.

Thanks and best,
Styrer

518. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126381 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 5:29 am

Right. So point out the Islam-followers intent on killing us, and deal with them. But don't label Islam as a whole as some kind of nasty foreign culture. The vast majority of Muslims in the UK are not nasty people, and they aren't foreign.

You really haven't grasped the nettle yet, have you?

It is Islam, and all of its adherents, that is the problem.

I do not need to label Islam as 'some kind of nasty foreign culture' for its precepts and for its central tenets to speak for themselves as such, and more vocally. Quite without any labelling assistance on my part.

You're on dangerous ground, Steve. Your egalitarian approach is negated, rendered impotent, by the very phenomenon you are seeking to combat with such kindly values as you espouse.

If you are not prepared to offer condemnation in place of understanding (which Islam cannot reciprocate, on foot of its very tenets), then I think you have made yourself entirely useless in a debate which Islam will continue to make into a war.

Best,
Styrer

519. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126373 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 4:55 am

Having read through many of the comments made on this thread, I've decided why Pat Condell could never be a true spokesman, though a significant contributor, for the rationalist movement.

I don't believe for any one minute that Mr Condell is anything other than an irate evidence based reasoner, who articulartly and sometimes with humour, makes many salient points.

His delivery can be misconstrued and appears to sometimes lead to the kind of ill-considered response which dilutes the type of considered discussion needed, in order to resolve some very sensitive and possibly inflammatory issues.

Having read your comments several times over, I must say: bollocks.

So you are proposing that 'considered discussion' aimed at 'resolving some very sensitive and possibly inflammatory issues' is going to do the trick, as opposed to flat-out condemnation, a la Condell, of the murderous intent of all too many Islam followers?

Have you not heard of the dangers of propitiation? Of appeasement? Your 'softly, softly' approach says much more about your own character than it does about the unmoving and immovable tenets of Islam and its followers' intention to convert us, subjugate us or kill us.

You're a nicer bloke then me. And a more dangerous one, by insisting on your expiatory shite.

Best,
Styrer

520. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126368 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 4:40 am

Look - I am strongly against any introduction of new religious-based law in the UK; in fact, I want any existing laws of this nature removed. What I am against is demonisation of a group.

Are you against demonisation of a group at all costs?

Surely not.

What the hell are you saying, in fact? That a hate-filled, sociopathic, homicidally driven group cannot possibly be 'demonised', because it's 'not cricket'?

I can't accept your conclusion to the above post. There are some groups which it is our moral obligation to 'demonise'. Islam-followers intent on killing you and me form one such group.

Best,
Styrer

521. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126358 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 3:58 am

104. Comment #126325 by Paul42 on February 13, 2008 at 1:44 am

Ooooff...

My point stands I think Styrer.

Whether god exists or not, or whether YOUR version of god exists, or what KIND of believer you are; the fact remains that children are being mutilated against their will. Jewish or islamic. Africa or the USA...

The animatronic "rabbi" in this debate couldn't even define in a coherent sense what he meant by "god". But he can tell you the chapters of (his version) of a "holy" book that mandates circumcision. Black and white, on paper, in a book on his desk.

Most believers have a very subjective definition of their god and how it applies to them. This gives "wriggle room" in a debate; ie "that's a good argument but it doesn't apply to MY god".

We cannot disprove god.
But we can say for sure that certain practises are immoral and need to be actively campaigned against.

In my humble opinion circumcision of male and female children is the big one.

Love.

Fine words, and you'll have no disagreement from me in stating them.

But, again, you have not given the slightest nod to the inescapable fact that it is both the definition of and the belief in gods which are causing such atrocity.

The effects are palpable, and appalling, of course. But until you grant authority to the power that faith holds in determining all of this, and until you start attacking that, then I'm afraid I am going to continue to find your comments very much at the margins here, however well-intentioned they may be.

Best,
Styrer

522. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126322 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 1:32 am

I just tried to play along. Came up with a whole paragraph of inanity.

Then I realised it wasn't so far away from the stuff I'm normally pasted for.

Too depressed to continue...

:)

Best,
Styrer

523. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126314 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 1:11 am

As for wooter guy, if you get him, as if you will evolsify him immediately. To me trolling, swearing, insulting will not do any good to undermine him.

Oh great, a new wanker in the mix.

Why are you guys so hugely incapable of constructing sentences in English?

If this were all, and if I had a clue where your poor suffering words were headed, I might then lend a hand.

But 'evolsify'? I draw the line. My naysayers may have anticipated me here:

Fuck off. Come back when you can communicate in English.

I'm not holding my breath.

Styrer

524. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126308 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 12:51 am

I feel that we can argue and debate forever on the definition or existence of a god or gods. What religious people must be taken to task over are their practises and attitudes. Especially to this uncomfortable subject.

What a wonderfully tickly little puppy you are, Paul42. And a counfounded stupid one, sorry to say.

Do you not realise that those practises and attitudes you cite are directly and intricately linked with 'definition and existence of a god or gods'?

Surely you've got the point of many of the members here by now? The dreadful consequences of faith in religion take horrible effect, as you note - witness severing of foreskins from penises in boys, clitorises and labia from girls.

Get with the programme. Get your cause and effect sorted. You might prove useful if you do.

Best,
Styrer

525. Sharia fiasco

Comment #126303 by Styrer- on February 13, 2008 at 12:23 am

Comment #126299 by Fanusi Khiyal on February 13, 2008 at 12:02 am


Maybe it is just me, but I kind of feel that telling members of a culture that has been present in a country for centuries (and when the majority of that culture live here peacefully) to "piss off" is ... just a bit rude (to put it politely).



Well, actually, about half of them want Shariah law instituted, if you look at the polls. And I see no problem whatsoever in giving them a swift kick out the door, back into the Middle Eastern hellhole of their choice. Again, why should the Muslims get to wreck everything from the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, agnostics, atheists, & anyone else who doesn't belong to their lunatic faith?

N.B.: The original point was about 'all Muslims who want Shariah;'.



What we have achieved since those times is wonderful, and we need to persuade others that this is the right way too.



Yes, but we will achieve nothing by the whole damn business of apologising and bending over backwards for Islam. Our first issue is survival, and that means getting rid of those Muslims who wish to destroy Western Civilisation.



Have you any idea of the scale of the bloodbath that some predicted would happen?



Yes, actually. I grew up there, though I'm not South African myself. And put this in perspective, if you will. South Africa has a murder rate higher than that of Iraq right now. Chew on that one for a while.

It's one of the reasons I am a little fed up with those who prattle "At least Saddam kept order". I assume they're also against the fall of Apartheid.

Hear, hear.

Many here do not understand that anger is an energy.

Dennett is one such example, unfortunately, if we are to read his words in all sincerity in his latest piece here.

My only addition is: you should have gone further.

Best,
Styrer

526. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126298 by Styrer- on February 12, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Styrer,

How very Dennett of you :)

Really? Oh fuck...

Best,
Styrer
:)

527. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126295 by Styrer- on February 12, 2008 at 10:42 pm

I have the honour of having suggested Pinker first in this thread. :)

Steven Pinker has the brains, the charisma and the looks Charles Simonyi's 'manifesto' seeks and implies.

His area of inquiry re-affirms the primacy of humans as the proper study of humankind in a way physicists, mathematicians and chemists may miss.

Pinker's accessibility of language is similar to Richard's own. He simplifies what others complicate. This is the rarest of gifts.

No doubt in my mind about this.

My only doubt is - would Oxford be prepared to pay for him and his uprooting from Harvard?

He would surely jump at the chance to step up a peg to Oxford, in any case.

Best,
Styrer

528. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126292 by Styrer- on February 12, 2008 at 10:16 pm

Wooter

What are you doing, old son?

Please tell me - and may God strike you down if you do not give me a truthful account - when you last doubted the existence of God.

If never, I am not sure why you repeat visits to a site which is known for its anti-theistic and atheistic membership.

Go on, son. Tell me. Are you having doubts? Are they what bring you to us, painful as the experience must be? PM me if you want. Let's get to the bottom of this.

I am here to help.

Best,
Styrer

529. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126280 by Styrer- on February 12, 2008 at 9:30 pm

28. Comment #126095 by al-rawandi on February 12, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Styrer,


No.

Why not? But... I clearly ask too much.

You have evidently been educated to treat ideas which oppose your own in the same way as overinflated bumblers like gr8hands; you flounder as he does in naysaying ideas you cannot quite grasp; and you give spark to the flame of your own betrayal of rationality by refusing to utter anything beyond a wholly unqualified 'no' in response to a proposition deserving of, at least some, consideration.

What a disgrace you are to the import of this site's primary message.

Styrer

530. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126088 by Styrer- on February 12, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I wonder, when on reading this, and particularly Kurt Westergaard's plaintively poignant words: 'I have turned fear into anger and indignation', if Dennett will wish to renounce his contemptible statement in his latest piece published here: 'There is no need, yet, for anger.'

I wonder if those who were flat out against my criticism of his words in an earlier thread may similarly wish to reconsider their positions.

My thoughts are with Kurt and his family.

Best,
Styrer

531. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #125778 by Styrer- on February 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

Happy Darwin Day!

There are some really fantastic e-cards - what a creative bunch you really are!

Darwin would surely have been delighted.

My fave - priest and reflective chimp!

This has turned into a really cheerful Tuesday - thank you all!

Best,
Styrer

532. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125176 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 3:28 am

I'd much rather be "Richard" to you lot.

Thank you for the kind words, but the thread is not really supposed to be about me but about suggestions for my successor and especially about Charles Simonyi's wonderful manifesto.

Richard

That's a tall order, Richard, as your accomplished work has more or less made the manifesto your own since its inception.

There is a welcome - and unfortunately prophetic - warning on not 'dumbing down' in the words 'The public's expectation of scholars is high, and it is only fitting that we have a high expectation of the public.' At least Richard has rigorously stuck to this, if not others. Would it were always so, in every field.

Steven Pinker is my suggestion.

Best,
Styrer

533. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125139 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 2:41 am

...surely words will fail them.

Wouldn't count on it. They'll bang on as is their wont, and at least keep the Hitch happy with fun-filled hours of disputation.

As for Richard, his temperate language (however much the faithheads wish to continuously remind us of their ignorance by terming it 'shrill' etc.) is more required in the public arena than ever. I'm looking forward to his taking his 'stridency' to a whole new level!

Best,
Styrer

534. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125131 by Styrer- on February 11, 2008 at 2:29 am

Don't worry, you are not getting rid of me that easily! Retirement from the Oxford Chair will free me up to be even more strident, shrill etc etc etc. I expect to be busier than ever, with two Foundations to run (the British and American branches of RDFRS), books to write (I have already started the next one) and who knows what else?
Richard

Excellent! The shriller and more strident, the better.

A whole new generation needs your attention, and it seems to me you've never been more in your stride. You certainly opened my eyes, and I hope you continue to perform the same service for many others.

Thanks for everything so far, and Happy Busy Retirement!

Best,
Styrer

535. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124906 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 12:07 pm

What happened to the string of obscenity laden ranting you engaged in last night. Today you sound downright temperate. :)

Ah, but was it really... a string? :)

Perhaps. But I think you'll find that I didn't abuse a fellow member's intellect quite as we've seen here.

In any case, I'll be the first to try to fight against an untenable proposition if I can. I'm sure you'll join me, at least here. :)

Best,
Styrer

536. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #124893 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 11:53 am

Scooternyc

Steve Zara is one of the reasons why this site is such a joy to me. His posts are consistently educational and incisive.

I must tell you that I learn far more from him on most issues than I have learnt from you on reading your posts here.

I think you should re-consider your erroneous and unfair position on this - you are coming over extremely poorly in this thread, and are weakening the import of anything worthwhile you have to say.

Styrer

537. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124845 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 11:06 am

Absolutely superb. Typically thrusting opinions, magnificently expressed.

Keep up the good work, Pat.

Best,
Styrer

538. Blasphemy

Comment #124825 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 10:34 am

Re: gr8hands' comments:

You are in error at numerous points in your post.

You are wrong about the use of ad hominem:

'An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.'

Your earlier comment 'I do not think anything in Dennett's letter was "disturbing." In fact, the only thing "disturbed" appears to be Styrer' is a text-book example of the above definition of an ad hom.

To be 'on the piss', as you inaccurately quote, is quite different from 'taking the piss', which means 'to be joking'.

Your refusal to point out why my ideas are wrong, and your attempt to make a virtue out of such refusal, when you are challenged, to provide a proper account of your disagreement, are intellectually risible and unworthy.

You have unfortunately shown yourself utterly incapable of either 'putting up' or of 'shutting up', as I invited you to do. As a result, you have unfortunately simply confirmed to me that neither your comments nor your approach can be taken seriously and can hence safely be dismissed.

Styrer

539. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124793 by Styrer- on February 10, 2008 at 9:19 am

a) Procrastinatory value in the face of impending thesis deadlines.
b) So that they don't think they can get away unchallenged with spouting such drivel in public.
c) An relish for being patronising to people that is entirely unworthy of me.
d) Lack of sleep.

I think that just about has it covered....

Points well taken!

Work away! :)

Best,
Styrer

540. Blasphemy

Comment #124264 by Styrer- on February 9, 2008 at 1:21 am

By the way, took a quick look at your profile - have you read The God Delusion yet?



No, other than a number of online excerpts, and a few dozen video interviews with Prof. Dawkins. I'm sure I will learn something when I get around to reading it, but judging from the repetition in the interviews and debate videos, I'd guess I have the general flavor already.



If not, why not? :)



Well, for starters I strongly dislike paper. Paper is not quite as destructive as motorized transportation, but it is quite a destructive technology, something like the third or fourth largest contributor to greenhouse gas if we can believe Al Gore's book (itself written on paper), and paper is horribly obsolete compared to what we can do with wikis.

I also hate paper because it represents an inflexible dead end medium for information. Having lots of information on paper tends to force people to build large offices to store and process it. This in turn forces people to drag their brains around in motor vehicles so they can get at the paper. Paper is part of the obsolete communication regime that we must entirely invert in the post-Peak Oil world. Instead of physically transporting brains to information, which will continue to become ever more expensive, we must redesign our processes to transport information to brains, thereby chaining human progress and value generation to the exponentiating goodness of Moore's law. Moore's law is the winged horse waiting to fly us off the dismal backside of Hubbert's curve.

I'm completely spoiled now by the ease of reading heavy prose on a site like Wikipedia, where all the jargon terms have hyperlinks that define them. (And if they don't have links, I can just add them, for the benefit of all other readers!) My brain fully expects hypermedia now, which I am free to improve, and having to go back to flat static paper feels pretty oppressive to me. If I see some word I don't know in paper, or an author alludes to some subject I need a refresher about, I can't just click on it to get the details.

For example, I recently had a go at the Ancestor's Tale, as I felt a need for another Dawkins fix. It's an excellent book, of course, but I found myself running off to Wikipedia to see what Prof. Dawkins was writing about so often that after a while it just became fatiguing. For example, the book mentions the foxes that were bred into dog-like creatures. My powers of imagination are just not sufficient to do justice to the topic from words alone; I had to get the full story:

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

No amount of reading mere text about the tame silver foxes can equal the impact of seeing the photo of them when you click the link. In my opinion, anyway.

I agree with Prof. Dawkins on the wonder of science, but much of that wonder is not reducible to prose. We need to look at stuff. On a wiki, everyone is free to enhance the presentation by uploading photos and illustrations.

It's getting hard for me to settle for mere paper when the whole time I'm mentally shouting at the author: "This needs to be a wiki! This needs to be a wiki!"

Even so, I will suffer through the paper version of The God Delusion when the rather large number of copies in my local library system work off their impressive request backlog. I figure if all those other people have requested the book, presumably some of them are not as far along with the doubt process as I am, and they deserve the first crack.

Perhaps someday I shall write The Paper Delusion.
Just after I finish The Automobile Delusion.

Other Comments by Teratornis

Are you taking the piss?

If you're not, then Christ, you are in for some sorry pseudo-educational years ahead of you.

Wikipedia's good stuff is equal to its crap content.

You simply MUST buy and read books, Teratornis.

You don't read books simply for the knowledge content of them. You learn from them the value of form and content; you learn how better to express those ideas you wish to express.

You acquaint yourself with style.

Is it simply a co-incidence that your posts here are amongst the longest? No. You are taking copious amounts of e-paper to express your thoughts.

Your pro-environment, anti-paper stance has made a long-winded writer of you, my friend. I wish you well in ensuring that this never extends to your thinking, too.

Get some paper out, lad. Start writing a few notes. And read a fucking book.

Please.

Best,
Styrer

541. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124261 by Styrer- on February 9, 2008 at 12:40 am

dkv

Thank You, but I am trying to get in this circus idea for changing, you tell me how, I will thank you for. Godless site and I know you will help me to please this, as I no longer atheist, I am not happy here so I can, of course, without problem simply do this, I am making to you my last ditch effort to find God.

Please help me to answer my question, however, will my God hate me forever? I hear all you choose to do so, you will stand before God as your adjudicator during Final Judgement and He will recall your failure to answer my question. Please no hell for you, my friend! So please answer my question.

Someone told me that I meantime find the Word of the Almighty, and be blessed with the promise that I may sit by His side in Heaven, you may find that your failure to show me the initial way and path is dictated by God as a failure to serve when you could. Is this true?, please and you may experience His eternal wrath through His separation of you from His presence.

Please help me, Wooter, ok yes, help to do what you can.

Ystrer

542. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124256 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Cartomancer

Indeed, a pleasure to read.

For a fellow atheist. But because your comment is filled with reason, sympathy and nicely-turned phrases, it is bound, because of all these, not to reach its target on a faithhead.

Why, may I ask, do you fucking bother?

Are you still really holding out hope?

Why expend so much thinking-time and key-pressing on those for whom your wise words are proven to fall flat?

You worry me.

Best,
Styrer

543. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124242 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Shrommer

I am making to you my last ditch effort to find God.

If you don't answer my question, however you choose to do so, you will stand before God as your adjudicator during Final Judgement and He will recall your failure to answer my question. Should I meantime find the Word of the Almighty, and be blessed with the promise that I may sit by His side in Heaven, you may find that your failure to show me the initial way and path is dictated by God as a failure to serve when you could, and you may experience His eternal wrath through His separation of you from His presence.

Are you really going to risk it?

Answer my question, or else, sunshine.

Styrer

544. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124241 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Let Shrommer answer my twice-repeated question, please, folks.

Don't scare him off.

Styrer

545. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124236 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Last chance, Shrommer.

Can you answer - in one sentence, of no longer than three words, the following question:

Is it possible that your god does not exist?

Best,
Styrer

546. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124232 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Shrommer

Just in case, I'll give you a go.

Can you answer - in one sentence, of no longer than three words, the following question:

Is it possible that your god does not exist?

Best,
Styrer

547. Help Build The Reason Project Archive!

Comment #124223 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 8:51 pm

In principle, this is absolutely fantastic.

What the hell in principle is there to disagree with?

Am I serious about getting the anti-theist anti-supernaturalist message out there? Hell, yes.

Are not you all?

Full marks, Sam. In principle.

But I'll need a stern sit-down with you if you've any intention of banging on about the word 'atheist'...

Personally, and in practice as distinct from principle, I could not possibly be associated with an organ which cited as no. 1 in its submission guideline priorities 'Please avoid material that is too topical or trivial.' I find that my considerations of the more weighty issues of the day stem from both these latter, prohibited areas. But that's just me.

I'll simply stick to the principle of the thing, as a result.

I nonetheless look forward to seeing how it pans out for you. In practice.

Best,
Styrer

548. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124221 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Not so with Dawkins, who has little time for such pandering, and who gets straight to the facts.

Precisely. Well said.

That other 'Horseman' Dennett, after his latest piece, could well do with taking a leaf out of the Professor's book when it comes to intellectual honesty.

Best,
Styrer

549. Richard Dawkins talks about The God Delusion

Comment #124216 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I think the morality argument is being missed here. The point is that we have this fundamental sense of right and wrong. There really is no justification for this if we got here by slaughtering each other for millions of years (or whatever the story says), having concerned ourselves simply with passing our genes on. We could possibly have instituted such morals for the benefit that they offer us, but then there is no justification for giving them any importance beyond this. But I would wager that many atheists, just like many believers, truly believe that it is wrong, for example, to kill somebody in cold blood, or to scam someone out of their honestly earned income. I would wager that these atheists believe this not simply because they think such moral notions are important in order to keep peace in society, but because it is inherently wrong. This is the essence of the argument. Where did this moral sense - this moral intuition, as Margaret Sommerville emphasizes so much - come from? I don't think you can argue that it came out of the context of "survival of the fittest". But this is precisely what Darwinians must argue. It is neither here nor there that any particular atheist feels this moral sense to a greater extent than a believer in Christianity does. The point is that we ALL feel this moral sense, to a greater degree in certain cases, to a lesser degree in others. This is what must be explained, and Darwinism cannot do it.

I make no apology for repeating my idea in rebuttal of your comment, which may assist you:

The realisation by Chomsky (much developed by Pinker) that human babies are born with brains which have a 'universal grammar', before expression of it manifests in one particular (native) language, suggests to me that morality may have similar evolutionarily adapted origin.

If so, it is likely that there is a 'universal morality' embedded in our material brains in the same way as 'universal grammar' is embedded there. This embedded, evolutionarily developed 'universal morality' may then manifest itself (as with language) as a morality based on the more specific environmental and cultural influences (e.g. Japan as distinct from North Korea) of the place where the material brain engages with the world.

The foregoing, based as it is on evidence, is a reasonable candidate explanation of humankind's morality.

Would you not agree that this is more compelling than the notion that holy texts are the ultimate arbiters of what is right and wrong? If you disagree, pray explain your preference for certain 'holy codes' over others. Is it not the case that you bring to bear upon your chosen holy text an independent judgement of what is good and bad, quite independent of the text itself? Your decision to grant more power and authority to one 'moral lesson' in your holy text over another shows that you are, flat out, bringing your own moral values to the party.

You will notice that they are brought to any such party without any recourse whatsoever to the supernatural. Darwin is very much more in the moral picture than any notion of theism can possibly be.

Best,
Styrer

550. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #124199 by Styrer- on February 8, 2008 at 6:00 pm

PZ Myers is by far a better writer than he is a speaker.

His written turns of phrase would leave promising Nobel Prize-winning writers in their tracks, contemplating where they went wrong.

But how atrocious he unfortunately is at public speaking.

Put him in front of an audience and, oh my word! How different he appears from Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. (It is my sorry duty to say that he is not so much worse than Dennett on appearance, but Dennett can take solace from the notion that Myers is, at least, worse.)

His continuous movement from one side of view to the other, his breathlessly enunciated sentences, his absolute lack of engagement, physically, with the audience before him - all make me relieved that, for one reason or another, no place for a 'Fifth Horseman' has yet been made available.

He would actually do the atheistic cause an enormous disservice, I am very sorry to say, if he continues to rise above his most beautifully elegant prose and present himself in public to enunciate such fine letters.

Best,
Styrer