501. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92835 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 2:43 pm

RationalThinking

to quote Corylus in the response he posted to etny,

I only quote people when I am personally responding to their views/questions.

If I want to make a point I use my own words.

P.S. Why assume I'm male?

502. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92796 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Ludacrispat26

Thank you for your hard word organising this. I am watching now and it's very interesting.

I thought your intro was fine and well balanced :)

503. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92709 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 9:20 am

Don't try to obfuscate my questions by steering the debate toward issues of gender.

Sigh.

I wasn't trying to obfuscate. It is just that in any given situation; about which it is possible to make a moral judgement; it is informative to ask yourself "What if x,y or z were different?"

That way you can assess what aspects of the situation are eliciting the most response.

And I'm not sure that we would be as offended and prudish as you are pretending to be.

I am not pretending to be prudish - not sure prudish is the right word:)

It is just that respecting other people's privacy is a thing of mine. I don't ask people what their bank balance is either.

504. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92696 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 8:45 am

ADH

You know as well as I do that even kids educated at the most rigorous faith school (at least of the Chritian variety) end up believing what they want.

Fascinating. So faith schools have no effect on belief. Why is then that when people argue schools should be secular institutions the clergy protest so loudly??

Call me a fundamentalist atheist if you wish, but I do feel that the time spent putting kids through compulsory religious services could be better spent on other things.

Like maybe teaching them some of the practical things that they seem incapable of doing these days like cooking a decent dinner or balancing a budget.

[EDIT]: Groan, just had one of those experiences when you catch yourself talking exactly like your own mother. I must be getting old :(

505. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92685 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 8:14 am

ADH, said

...just as it is very long time since the powers that be (or any other powers) used force to "impose" belief in God on anyone. If you don't want it, forget it.

[Coughs]. Faith schools. Present government.

506. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92683 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 8:07 am

Dear Richard, you have a daughter, I have two. Would you really like or be absolutely indifferent to your daughter.......

[Setting aside the fact that that is a spectacularly impertinent and intrusive question to ask in a public forum, bad enough to ask someone about their private life without prompting: unacceptable to ask them to discuss someone else's]

I must say that I find it interesting that daughters are spoken of in this instance. OK RD has only one child, a girl. However, ETNY do you have any sons? Would this sort of thing it be any more / less of an issue when male offspring are discussed?

Daughters are no more property than wives are.

Adults make their own decisions.

507. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92623 by Corylus on December 1, 2007 at 1:35 am

ADH

Needless to say I'm sure Dinesh will win, not because he's a better debater but because he has better arguments.

Dear me. You might want to look at one of his 'offerings'

http://richarddawkins.net/article,903,Where-Is-Atheism-When-Bad-Things-Happen,Dinesh-DSouza-Aolcom

and a response to it.

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

Generally I have time for religious people when they are kind and polite and make an argument for their beliefs through their words and actions (I am thinking of the lovely CHeard who posts here sometimes) even if I do think that they give God too much credit and themselves too little.

One of the best arguments for religion being man-made is made when you realise how the God that any individual tends to believe in is a reflection of their own personality.

You might want to compare and contrast the notion of God that some of your friends have. Now look some of the religious people you don't like so much – what are their notions of God like?

I wouldn't like to meet the God of D'Souza, - not only do I doubt his objective existence :) I simply don't think he would be very nice.

I would choose a different champion if I were you.

508. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92531 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Spinoza

EPISTEMOLOGY IS THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT ONTOLOGY!!!

Doesn't ontology come first though?

Sorry - only playing, but you make me smile when you're wound up :)

509. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92525 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Denevius

....if your are talking from a purely evolutionary understanding of why religion survives you might like to check our Dennett's notion of the 'intentional stance'. This concerns how we tend to assign motivations and feelings to things around us.

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

If we do not do this when we should we are at greater risk of being eaten/killed or otherwise misused by prey.

If we do this when we should not, then we rarely suffer adverse consequences.

We survive more when we assign agency.

510. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92518 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 5:10 pm

There is another aspect to this, the central question is:

"Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?"

OK, RD spent some time talking about adultery in this context, but if you are talking in a purely literal sense ALL sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Why is it that we consider adultery a bigger sin than sex before marriage? Neither act is sanctioned by God – tis all about getting down and dirty without His say so. The reason we feel more emotional about adultery it is due to our empathising with other people in a given situation. We wonder about people who might be upset, and feeling that promises to them (either implicit or explicit) are being broken.

This is further evidence that our sense of morality is all about the avoidance of pain and distress to both ourselves and others. God is once again found to be superfluous to our moral judgements.

Objective morality my $%^&!

Watered down Euthyphro, but I think the point is relevant.

511. My life under a fatwa

Comment #92203 by Corylus on November 30, 2007 at 3:43 am

Thanks for the reply HungarianElephant.

At the moment there is no way to which one of us is right (one of those social experiments yet to be fully tried). I can understand your point that less women about might lead to those that are around being in a better bargaining position...

if the monetary price of a girl goes up, the rational thing for a man to do is to be more attractive in other ways..

Trouble is, sexual desire has a habit of messing with our rational through processes. A shortage of women might just make men more vulnerable to the lure of the 72 virgins. Or willing to consider more desperate measures.

But, like I say, the only way we will know will be when this is tried. It will be if sex selection drugs become available. When people are given the ability to choose the gender of their children they will use it. Eventually, of course, it will even out. Equilibrium and mathematics will rule.

The only question will be whether the temporary disparity will be empowering for women or the cause of their subjugation.

I admire your optimism and I really hope you're right.

512. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91885 by Corylus on November 29, 2007 at 1:58 pm

...love of Chateau Margaux does not preclude love of a fine Hock, and we don't feel unfaithful to the red when we dally with the white...

Glad to hear it's a fine Hock and not a Blue Nun.

513. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91609 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Bluebird

Down the pan is another way of saying flushed down the lavatory/toilet...

:)

514. Megachurches Add Local Economy to Their Mission

Comment #91603 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 pm

Why are gullible people sinking their money into this?

Even if I had money(I wish!) I wouldn't want any of my pennies going into any church run business.

This is not just because I would be looking to ethical investment. (E.g. secular organizations who, even if they do not actively help people, do not grind them down)

Purely practically, you only need a couple of big payout child abuse cases won against a particular church and your money is down the pan. (Unless the church has some high level insurance - in which case why should you pay their premiums?)

Rather buy lotto tickets.

Oh dear - getting all cynical recently - just in a bad mood today.

Ignore me.

515. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91586 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Don't underestimate Dennett – he's scary when pissed.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,635,Response-to-Orr,Daniel-C-Dennett

The only possible problem will be if Dinesh is too damn stupid to realise when he is being spanked.

516. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91578 by Corylus on November 28, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Don't often disagree with you Hungarian Elephant , but I am worried about this one...

The issue of demographics is real, but there is a fairly simple solution, at least insofar as it consists of Islam treating women as breeding machines.

Science is very close to developing sex-choice drugs. Instead of getting sniffy about this, we could actively encourage it, and make it available cheaply. You can guarantee that the nutters will always assume that it is some other family's job to produce seven daughters for marriage to their seven sons. And within twenty years, supply and demand will ensure that women have become immensely valuable. .

I agree that the aim is for women not to be seen as breeding machines, but I reckon this could be a big home goal.

When there is a shortage of women then they viewed even more as commodities and not people. The women that are about will be pressured into marrying younger (often to the much older men who can afford them), there will be kidnappings and forced marriages. Women and young girls will be purchased like chattel (either by their families or criminal gangs). Vulnerable immigrant women will be shipped in to fill the void and will often be dreadfully mistreated.

This is already beginning to happen in China.

http://www.worldchildrensfund.net/default2.asp?active_page_id=116

Sending your female children into further education will be even more seen as a waste of money, in that they can have their pick of men so what's the point? Women will be further encouraged not to study and not to be aware of the possibility of living (if they so choose) either alone or with another woman.

If the disparity becomes really extreme then other worrying factors will come into play – women are more often carriers of genetic disorders than the full blown recipients of them, add that to only a few men reproducing (and those few individuals to excess) and you have a potential problem for the health of the gene pool.

Eventually a women's fecundity will be seen even more as not only a possible part of her life, but the only reason for it.

If you want to encourage societal stability the very, very last thing you want is a shortage of women.

Humans can more often manage to be calm and rational when their biology is making not extreme demands upon them. Part of the problem with Islam and (to a lesser extent) other religious ideologies, is that it fosters sexual repression and division. When this happens we all get a bit jumpy. Jumpy equals more likely to pick a fight.

We can sit here and argue about the level of culpability of the West in terms of Islamic terrorism, we can worry about the difference between secular and religious ideologies and the effects of this on our world view. We can have fights over varying interpretations of texts... we appear to be doing this rather alot of late ;-)

However, if we forget we are animals with some basic desires and drives we miss out a big piece of the puzzle. Sorry to come over all Freudian :) but the facts of life are inescapable.

As a general point though, I must admit that the issue of gender selection is a problem for me in that; as a general principle; I would support any couple's desire to chose the gender of their child (as long as no harm is caused).

However, when the majority of couples would chose males (because of backward ideologies that view males as inherently 'superior') I admit I do worry about the consequences of this practice becoming widespread.

[Edit] Groan!: That link above, is to a charity that on further investigation is affiliated with Liberty University. That's the trouble with doing quick google searchs to back up stuff you have heard from several sources :/

However, Unicef agrees about the problem-

www.unicef.org/china/children_1142.html

517. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91186 by Corylus on November 27, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Nothing wrong with going commando.

OK, no magic spells, but also no VPL in the photoshoot.

...Just sayin'...

518. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90896 by Corylus on November 26, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Different film kaiserkriss :)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ

519. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90844 by Corylus on November 26, 2007 at 1:46 pm

kaiserkriss

we are ALL individuals

I'm not ;)

520. Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock

Comment #90648 by Corylus on November 26, 2007 at 2:29 am

I can't believe this guy Ross.

Marcus Ross, meanwhile, is thriving in his teaching job at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.... Each semester, Ross teaches a huge, mandatory survey course called History of Life. Most kids in the class are creationists, but Ross finds gaps in their world-view. His aim is to make their creationist logic more consistent, and his surveys show that he succeeds. At the beginning of the class, only 54 percent of students say the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years. By the end, it's 87 percent. The biggest shift? Did dinosaurs and man live at the same time? That one moves to 80 percent from 40.

I see, and how does he feel about what he is teaching??

At the conference I asked Ross whether he still believes what he wrote in his graduate thesis... "Within the context of old age and evolutionary theory, yes. But if the parameter is different, portions of it could be completely in error."

Someone else put it way better than me...

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.
Thomas Paine

Utterly shameful.

If I were a Christian I would be furious reading this. What about 'The truth will set you free?'

It's heartbreaking, there are so many young minds at Liberty working to get a degree and paying fees to do so (if there is one thing I am willing to bet on about Liberty, it's that studying there isn't free). There is a possibility that some of these minds have the potential to advance knowledge for all of us.

What happens? Dishonesty and indoctrination. Minds polluted and potential squashed. I don't know if Bizarro is reading this (sounds like his kind of thing). This article demonstrates why; although I often find his comments annoying; I spend much more time being angry for him that at him.

521. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90567 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Jeepyjay

But he may indeed be after another!

Not an unreasonable aim – tis indeed a great deal of pennies :)

Generally,I think the thing that I dislike most about whole Templeton prize business is how the amount won is 'adjusted to be more than the Nobel prize'.

This IMHO seems to be a crass and vulgar assumption that:

a) People will want to win because of the monetary value alone and

b) Advances in "divinity" are more intrinsically (and maybe objectively?) valuable than those in medicine, physics etc.

A strange mixture of intellectual snobbery and self-interest.

If I were a religious person winning this prize (pretty unlikely, I admit, but I like to think of myself in different roles :) then I believe I would feel quite insulted by the assumption that I could be entirely motivated; or even partly swayed; by filthy lucre.

In response I would calculate the amount that it exceeds the Nobel prize, add one pound and very publicly give this amount of money to the first needy person I met.

I would accept the rest of the money though. My overactive superego causes me to do peculiar things at times, but I am not a complete idiot :P

522. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90553 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Goldy

I think it is a glitch that happens after you have logged in and commented.

Try logging out and looking again.

523. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90549 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Interesting

"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system," Mr Blair said. "If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith ...it is something they respond to quite naturally...You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter."

I really don't think that it is as clear cut as that though. I don't think the majority of Brits think that religious faith is 'nutty' per se. There are a couple of other factors at work here.

1)Without reducing to crude stereotypes, I have noticed that we appear to be a little more cynical in Britain and Europe as a whole. When someone brings God into a political speech, we do consider the possibility that they might be fibbing in order to get into power. [Gasps]

2)Also, there is the social convention that religious matters are private matters. In certain circles (especially in the middle and upper classes) you would no more discuss your religious convictions with all and sundry than you would regale a total stranger with tales of your recent haemorrhoid operation.

When people start talking about religion - against this sort of social conditioning – the assumption is that the person concerned is under the grip of extreme emotions. Not a good character trait in a leader with a great deal of power.

So it is not the holding of religious opinions that is treated with suspicion it is the expression of them in public that is problematic

(N.B. I find myself wondering whether this might also account for Northern Bright's point that the public would not be comfortable with an openly atheist Prime Minister?? E.g. Don't ask: don't tell??)

In ignoring this distinction (which he is smart enough to understand) I find myself wondering whether Mr Blair is typing to paint himself as an 'oppressed' type in order to deal with the flak he gets from people who disagree with some of his policies and the aftermath of them.

Passive/aggressive self-justification is a great emotional coping strategy.

Maybe I am over-analysing here, but I have to say I have always found Blair a difficult person to get a handle on.

EDIT: radagast7
I have just noticed your post. So nice to have an honest nutter on here :) We have more than our share of dishonest ones I'm afraid.

Generally though, most people are a little nutty: it's the human condition. Although, I have met a few people who would be deemed completely sane and normal... dear me, they were boring.

524. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #90347 by Corylus on November 24, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Other people have answered this question far better than I can (Spinoza, Russell and others) It is all about evidence. So I won't expand on this.

However, I do feel the need to make a secondary point here.

I am always astonished at the sheer gall and impertinence of people asking and relying upon this question in debates.

I wouldn't quiz someone about the nature of their most personal relationships unless they have indicated a desire to talk about their private life and most certainly not in a public forum. This demonstrates a complete lack of delicacy and respect for others. I am sorry, but this question is bloody rude.

Apparently, atheists are rude and crass because they do not show proper respect for the religious beliefs of others. What about a bit of theistic respect for another person's privacy??

NB. The asking of this question is also deeply ironic, because it presumes "faith" and certainty in an area of life in which many people are frequently and cruelly deceived.

E.g. "So Rev. Haggard, can you prove you love your wife??"

Hmpff! Stomps off in a huff.

525. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #89029 by Corylus on November 19, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Thank you for making these available.

526. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89025 by Corylus on November 19, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Keith
I enjoyed your post no: 70 . A great attempt to lighten the tone.

Josh
Your work is appreciated. I can't imagine the hours you put in.

Logicel

And some of the comments here sickened me also so much, that I am seriously considering not posting here anymore.

That would be a great pity.
___

N.B. I have no problem with people who politely asked for more information before making up their minds. Fine.

However, I have to say that the 'just the pretty ones' comment was unfeeling, sexist and completely unacceptable. I am glad to see it put into a troll thread. I will be checking this thread for the apology that is, I hope, forthcoming.

527. Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

Comment #88581 by Corylus on November 18, 2007 at 12:07 am

The victim's lawyer was suspended from the case, has had his licence to work confiscated, and faces a disciplinary session.

Below is an interesting article about this particular lawyer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201579.html


No wonder the powers that be want him out of their courtrooms. Sounds like one of the reasons they are torturing (there is no other term for it) this poor girl is to get to him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7098480.stm

So much for justice.

528. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86882 by Corylus on November 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

Flagellant

Alternatively there could be a famous father and son pair of politicians who might be persuaded to help out properly...

Huh? Tony and Hilary Benn? Surely not, they're vegetarians. No sacrificing of goats for them!

... Arrh – not the father and son politicians you meant ;)

529. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86721 by Corylus on November 10, 2007 at 2:57 am

I found the emphasis on 'young atheists' very interesting.

If you are talking about the charitable deeds of the religious vs the non-religious then the age is irrelevant.

(Except that maybe the young as a group don't donote so much for the simply reason they have less money)

So why this focussing on spotty youth? I think I know why. Every generation has a tendency to worry about the one that comes after it. E.g. "The youth of today - no manners - no standards!" People who do this have a tendency to forget some of their own actions and views at this age.

I think the subtext of this article is about fear. Fear of young people, what they get up to generally, and what they might or might not do.

This will be used as justification for drumming religious teaching into the young.

530. D'Souza - Nothing to Refute Here

Comment #86710 by Corylus on November 10, 2007 at 2:36 am

Well done Kelly

Nothing to add. Sits back and claps.

531. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86551 by Corylus on November 9, 2007 at 2:26 pm

flying goose

ps how do you get an avatar

1) When logged in look at one of your comments. Click on your name.
2) You will be taken onto a blue page with 'Viewing Profile' on it. At the top left hand side you will see 'Board Index' written. Directly below this you will see 'user control panel'. Click on this.
3) On the 'user control panel' page - which is laid out like a card index - you will see a tab with 'profile' on it. Click on this.
4) You will now see a page asking you to 'edit profile'. On the left hand side you will see the option 'edit avatar'. Click on this.
5) On the 'edit avatar' page in the middle is an option to 'upload from your machine' with 'browse' on the side of it.
6) Click on 'browse' you will then be able to download/upload (don't ask me the difference) a presaved picture from your PC's memory.
7) Make sure your file is not too big (the maximum dimensions are given on the page).

N.B. You might want to check the properties of any picture before you try to download - you may have to crop or compress accordingly.

Steve
Lovely to put a face to the name :)

532. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #86153 by Corylus on November 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Free Rorschach inkblot test with every book cover. Mmm.. Rusty dagger?

And

Close - its actually an Italian foil with a cross-bar and a ricasso blade ;-)

No! Always, always say it's a butterfly – no matter what it sodding well looks like.

You will be deemed thick, unimaginative and a dozy hippy, but at least the buggers won't admit you to the ward ;)

533. Washoe, the sign-language chimp dies

Comment #85650 by Corylus on November 6, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Blimy this takes me back. I remember hearing about Washoe as a baby psychology student.

I am not going to comment on the language abilities. Sodding complicated and I am not up on the literature.

However, I will note how animals can become a part of your life and your world. No matter in what way they chose to make their feelings known.

My sympathies to all those who dealt with Washoe. A loss - I'm sure.

534. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85641 by Corylus on November 6, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Silent Mike. Comment 60.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll respond. I would be really hypocritical of me not to take criticism on the chin when we are expecting Kelly to do the same! (Who BTW – if I didn't mention it before - I think is really brave to throw her work to the wolves on here).

Reading through my post again I can (partly) see how you have come away with the impression you did. This was not my intent.

I agree that should have added a few more provisos. For example, I should have mentioned how, if you find a point in an article that you agree with, you should say so. (In my defence I didn't think of this because there was nothing in D'Souza's article that I agreed with :-) It is always important to be fair – this is why I advocated at the beginning clear and non-partisan exposition.

What I was talking about above was persuasion. The whole point of a piece of writing in this context is about persuading the reader of the validity of a point of view. D'Souza had a bash at persuading people and then Kelly had a go. Like two lawyers pleading a case. Ultimately it is up to the reader to decide who they agree with (or for the jury whether or not to convict). This is both fair and gives the readers the opportunity to make up their minds.

I was not advocating dishonesty (a word I have to say I take an exception to your use of).

If so I would have advised the following:

a) Not bothering to report what your opponent actually said
b) taking quotes out of context,
c) 'fiddling' the figures
d) Repeating commonly held but fallacious viewpoints (e.g. that the founding fathers were Christian – like D'Souza did)
e) Playing on prejudices that you think your readers probably hold
f) Using logical fallacies in your argumentation.

I don't recall doing any of that.

In regard to 'leading your reader' well again I can partly see your point. Yes, I can understand how you think that: -

Pretending you don't have an opinion and then sort of "leading" your reader ("making him feel smart" and the like)... I don't know, I just don't like it.

Yes and no. This can be taken to extreme levels (and I admit that I didn't make myself clear). However, this isn't only about persuasion: which people can take or leave. There is another facet to this. Let me explain.

One reason I write like this is because I always enjoy reading work when I can go along with a writer's thinking process. This is why (unlike some on here) I really enjoy reading philosophy. You get the sensation of being taken on a journey by another mind. You may completely disagree with the starting point – making the whole thing invalid- but it is a trip nonetheless.

You are aware that the writer has spent months (years even) working this thing out. You are not daft enough to think that they are working it out as they go along, but you like to see how they got to where they are. It is like how in mathematics exams you get points not just for the correct answer, but also for demonstrating how you worked things out. Sadly, in relation to mathematics I have to admit that I have a history of getting points for neither:(

A lot of it could work if one adopts an ironic/sarcastic style of writing (where sarcasm resides what would usually be seen as dishonesty is permissible), but when writing a serious article I'm afraid it just won't fly.

Depends on what you mean by a 'serious article'. If you are talking about something that you present for an academic audience – well, of course, keep rhetoric to a minimum and concentrate on dry facts. If you are talking about writing for a newspaper, this is a different matter, if for a blog or a forum post, different again.

Kelly is trying to reach people who will have read D'Souza article and been swayed by it. Unlike you, I am not "feeling a bit on the snide side" today, but I can't resist asking.

Just how smart do you think these people are??

Also, consider for a moment when my strategy above would work and when it wouldn't. It would never work with someone who doesn't make idiotic points, who doesn't give a surfeit of errors to address. Responding to say, Chris Hedges, would be a completely different story than addressing that nasty little low-life Dinesh.

Yes, I agree there is a line between persuasion and propaganda, sophisticated arguments and sophistry. The line always stops with clearly and absolutely with misrepresentation. I don't advocate this and I never will.

In the light of this I thank you for pulling me up and giving me the chance to make myself clear. Honestly.

Sits back and sighs... Thing is, people like Kelly have to deal with people who not only ignore the line of decency, but limbo dance under it.

I don't envy her the job.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

535. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85455 by Corylus on November 6, 2007 at 12:39 am

I glad some people liked my little guide.

I have to make it clear that I am not a professional writer. I would hate to seem to be claiming to be what I am not! My essays are geared towards persuading academics and passing exams. (I do have some stuff I would like to submit for general publication – but dammit it needs work)

I am currently having a break from my serial studying to pay back debts – so I would count myself as an amateur too.

My work is not widely read. Umm. That's not strictly true either! There was that letter to the Beano a couple of years back :)

536. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85370 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I have to say that I would have found D'Souza's really article hard to respond to, not because I would have nothing to say, but because there is just so much fallacious bollocks in it that it is hard to know where to start. It is a tirade with hardly any discernable structure.

The phrases 'silk purses' and 'sows ears' spring to mind :P I wouldn't have known where to start.

So bloody well done to Kelly for giving such a hard job a good bash. Quite a commitment too, to plan to respond in-depth to a variety of people.

Kelly
Can I might make some constructive general points?? This is meant in a good way – it took me a disgustingly long time to learn to write detailed essays. I can be really thick at times. Total trial and error on my part .

This is how I do it - and I have found it works. Take as little or as much as you want from my comments. We all have our own styles.

1) It is always good to start with completely unemotional and non-partisan exposition. Give a brief overview of what someone has written with a few quotes. This is really important because it:

a) shows that you have read it
b) demonstrates to the reader that you are fair.
c) not all readers will have the intellectual honesty to read the article that you are responding to so you won't lose your readers early on.
d) helps you to work out which points are really awful and which points are just the 'junk DNA' of an essay. (Waits to get flamed by the scientists on here for misusing the term!)

2) Then gently coax your readers towards a viewpoint, maybe express 'surprise' or 'bafflement' at some of the really fuckwitted points – all in calm language. Your reader will supply your answers for you. He feels smart and will thus give you credit in return.

3) A bit more exposition (showing up more idiocy) is needed then. A few mild-mannered jokes at the mid-way point never go amiss. Keep those with short attention spans going.

4) Get serious again, become worried even at what you are reading. Pretend to suddenly 'realise' what you knew all along. That the person you are talking about is a total idiot.

5) End game. Supply the reader with all of the points they were thinking of against the original article. Vindicating how they were thinking. Then finish with one or two killer points that 99% of your readership will not have thought of - preferably a really terrifying consequence of your opponent's line of thought. Your reader will be amazed at both your insight and their own in agreeing with you.

6) Finish with an expression of sadness that this process took you so long so needlessly. Express the hope that this resistance is never repeated.

7) Retire victorious.

Above all, remember it is your readers that you want to win over – not the person you are responding to. Cut out any insults put there just because you hope that one person might be reading – it is not him* you want to snare.

Short arguments are like a quick kiss. Longer essays are a seduction – I like to take my time.

*Urh!! Sudden nasty, nasty mental picture concerning d'Souza . Corylus rushes off for her shower. I didn't mean it that way honest!

Bad. Bad.

Bangs head on wall. Scratches out own eyes :P

537. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85291 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 12:34 pm

Steve

Sorry - I should have indicated irony!

Doh! :-)

Personally I am sitting here amusing myself wondering what handle he is going to use next.

It will have a Scottish slant, I'm sure. Not nice Scottish though like 'Heather Honey', or 'Single Malt' .

More in the line of 'Glasgow Kiss' mebbe...

538. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85290 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Children whose mothers die bearing them; or from complications following childbirth; often have a dreadful time emotionally.

There is a sense of guilt at having 'caused' the death of their mother, a feeling (sometimes real, sometimes imagined) that they father blames them. Sometimes their idea of their mother can become 'perfect'. A saint that (if they are male) no other woman can ever match. Throw in a well of repressed anger and resentment at being 'left' and you have a recipe for a lot of baggage and problems with relationships.

I cannot imagine how knowing that their mother (and their father) could have prevented this situation will impact on this.

Poor scraps.

539. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85259 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 11:31 am

Baron Ochs Comment 87.

I see your point – it depends on what type of academic she is, and precisely who her book is aimed at. I just reckon that mention of the word 'twilight' in this context is too weird to be a co-incidence. I will let you know when I read her book: it's on order. (I will wait for the postie every morning - I have ordered along with a recipe book with nice cakes in it. A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down... la la :)

Wee Flea/Calvin/David Robertson. Comment 125.

I did not say that no one had read them. I did say that no one would recommend that anyone else would read them.

What is offering to post free if not a recommendation to read?? (My comments and 14 and 74.) You have a particular habit of scanning over and ignoring my posts – tis enough to give a poor dormouse a complex :(

Steve99. Comment 129.

You really don't follow this site much, do you?

I very rarely disagree with you Steve, but I think he follows it a great deal – obsessively even.

Evidence? The almost instantaneous response to certain triggers (flea books etc.) – never misses. I had a bet with myself before I went to work today that he would turn up on this thread and "low and behold". Further evidence? He even sent RD a birthday message (snide little git).

http://richarddawkins.net/bdayTextD,page7#664

Not the action of someone who only occasionally looks in.

540. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85097 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 1:15 am

I'm reading that 'Twilight of Reason' phrase as a snide little reference to Nietzsche,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_of_the_idols

Because as all sophisticated, subtle, snide and snarky theologians know... atheists are (at heart) nasty, nihilistic, Nietzschean and no-good.

McGrath pulls this trick too, he has written a book called 'The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World '.

It's a sotto voce aside and a sly wink to the Christian 'intelligentsia' readership.

Condescending, insulting, patronizing little prat! Sure no-one else wants to read his 'delusion' book?? Lovely chrimbo prezzie.

Dr Benway! Welcome back :)

541. Rome playing politics

Comment #84966 by Corylus on November 4, 2007 at 11:27 am

Comment 27. By kaiserkriss

Or is this too simplistic?

No it's not too simplistic: it's a very interesting point :)

542. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #84958 by Corylus on November 4, 2007 at 10:46 am

Utterly heartbreaking when a philosopher's mind goes.

As for the people exploiting him, they take the epithet "Liars for Jesus" to a new level. Maybe "Vultures for Jesus" would be more appropriate.

Dishonourable and despicable.

543. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84954 by Corylus on November 4, 2007 at 10:35 am

I haven't read all of the flea books, but out of intellectual honesty I have read some. I think I will read this one and post a review.

Just, looked this book up on Amazon: the blurb reads

... In this lively and provocative contribution to the debate the leading British feminist theologian, Tina Beattie, argues that the threat of religious fanaticism is mirrored by a no less virulent and ignorant secular fanaticism which has taken hold of the intellectual classes in Britain and America. Its High Priest is Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, but its disciples and acolytes include well-known public figures such as philosophers Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and A C Grayling, journalists Christopher Hitchens and Polly Toynbee, and novelists Martin Amis and Ian McEwan. Theologians such as Alister McGrath and Keith Ward have defended the rationality of Christian beliefs about God, but both sides neglect wider questions about faith, science, power and justice in a postmodern world, which impinge deeply on all our lives. The New Atheists calls for a more wide-ranging and creative dialogue across religious and cultural boundaries. It will intrigue every open-minded reader, believer or non-believer.

It does appear to be the same old thing (i.e. atheists are fundamentalists too), an utter inability to move outside of a theist frame of reference ("disciples and acolytes" FFS!) with an added dose of postmodern drivel. The unique selling point looks to be the 'feminist' theologian line.

Sigh, I expect I will get cross, but someone's got to do it.

BTW – Does anyone want to read the McGrath book "The Dawkins Delusion", but not want to buy it? I will post free to UK or Europe (it's lightweight!) on the understanding that the recipient does to same when they are done. Send me a PM if you are interested.

544. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #84578 by Corylus on November 2, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Comment # 191. by Dianelos

... thanks for that link

Thank you for reading and engaging with it DG.

I agree that being an apologist is not an easy job: I wouldn't care to try it. ;-)

545. The truth in religion

Comment #84206 by Corylus on November 1, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Rev. Polkinghorne

Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it.

Jeepyjay

But unfortunately It's rather to convoluted for me to follow. Can anyone translate it?

Charitable translation:
The world makes sense when purpose is assumed - when a goal is considered. I think in this fashion - therefore (as God made me in his image!) I consider to reasonable to assume that God does also.

Uncharitable translation:
I believe it cos I want to. So there.

546. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84036 by Corylus on November 1, 2007 at 3:35 am

Atticus

But why should any text or even any idea be "sacred"? Genuine question here.

Personal theory:
This is because people often use the word "sacred" not in its proper fashion as describing that which comes from God, but in a different (but related) way.

The use it to describe not what is special, precious and inviolate to God, but what is special etc. to them. (They assume they and God are in perfect agreement :))

What they deem as sacred then becomes inextricably part not only of their worldview, but also their self-view. A person's religion is a part of themselves, a manner in which they can define and identify themselves in relation to, and contra to, others.

Accordingly, when a person questions the theoretical basis of a particular religion they do not just question the religion. They also bring into the cold light of day the self-image of its adherents.

This questioning becomes then not merely questioning – it is an attack upon the integrity of the self. What is rudeness if not a personal affront?

Evidence for this is shown in how those who use their religion as their primary method of self-definition (as opposed to nationality or race say) are much, much, easier to offend.

I think this is large part of the thinking behind the muslim protests over something as trifling as a cartoon.

547. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #84019 by Corylus on November 1, 2007 at 2:54 am

Comment #84001 by Dianelos

There are at least two book length cases: "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and "Does God Exist" by J.P.Moreland and Kai Nielsen.

As yes, Lane Craig, I wondered if you were going to recommend him again. Might I suggest you read a recent bit of moral "philosophy" from this man before you push his work.

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

This man is not a proponent of virtue ethics (as you sometimes seem to be) or Kant (as PaulE said he was) his is not a utilitarian or any other respectable form of moral philosophy. He is a full blown proponent of divine command theory: one of the most nauseating, inhumane barbaric and cowardly forms of moral understanding.

You might want to try to argue that his theist views are superior and the 'logical path to good action'. However, I doubt it.

548. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #83031 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Break a leg Dr B.

Hope the hysterectomy leaves your enormous cock intact. The world would be a lesser place without it :-)

Love, Hazel.

549. Face to faith

Comment #83026 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 3:48 pm

I am always amazed at how those who talk so blithely about the importance of emotional experience understand their own so very little. There is a very simple emotion at work here. (Clue: it is our most basic, instinctive and pervasive feeling).

This emotion is called fear.

The proof lurks in the etymology of the word "awe" (A word Mr Vernon is fond of)

What does "awe" mean? It means:

1. A feeling of fear and reverence. (my emphasis)
2. A feeling of amazement.

Theists tend to use the word in relation to meaning #1 (N.B. I don't swallow that "I'm an agnostic now" line of Mr Vernon's for a moment).

For example,

Think of our primitive ancestors on the savannah, watching a thunderstorm approaching across the plain. As the dark sky splits with light, and the turbulent atmosphere howls with thunder, they feel fear.

And

In the scientific age … We no longer interpret the thunder; we understand it - as massive discharges of electricity. It is still spectacular but no longer mysterious, let alone portentous. The world is a little less awesome, if also less fearsome, as a result.

Atheists tend to use definition #2.

This is for the simple reason that while being amazed, astounded and humbled in response to the vast and overwhelming universe they do not automatically attribute agency to it. The universe is not a person: it is much, much bigger than that.

What does this mean in relation to this article? Merely a simple change of emphasis. The question becomes not 'Do atheists feel less?" the question becomes "Why assume this is a bad thing?"

Do atheists feel less emotion in the face of the marvellous, beautiful, massive, simultaneously complex and simple place in which we find ourselves? No… and yes.

I don't think the reaction of an atheist in the face of the universe is any less intensly powerful; any less likely to invoke laughter or tears; any less worthy of expression than that of any theist.

However, I am willing to consider the possibility that within that maelstrom of feeling and passion there is one particular emotion less.

Fear.

When agency disappears, so does special pleading, so does prayer, so does fear.

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

Marie Curie

Some loss. Some deficit.

550. Evolution to be taught in SA schools

Comment #82883 by Corylus on October 28, 2007 at 5:56 am

They are depicted as short and dark-skinned people. This offended some black teachers. They said that evolution was a racist theory. It "terribly undermines black people, everything bad gets a black colour. It means blacks were apes," they said.

I see. By that analysis the article below is a dreadful example of "ginger prejudice"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7062415.stm