551. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98696 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 4:28 am

I can't see that much new or interesting about what he is saying.

I think many people here, for instance, re-cycle their thoughts. However, he does have a way with coining new ways of seeing and saying it.

"Thats what happens when little men get hold of big ideas..." sums up perfectly the mindset of the troublemakers. A valuable insight.

552. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98681 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 3:13 am

Hitchens is right when he says religion will not go away. Somehow, the concentrated poison, that is Islam, needs to be diluted to safer C of E levels. Internal reform seems the only safe long term solution. TGA's "bridge" makes sense. However, it is rickety, and underused.

AHA has the key. Actively condemn medieval behaviour whenever it occurs and legislate for the removal of indoctrination of kids through their education. Future generations will find the bridge for themselves.

TGA knows AHA is right. Appearing to complain about her is a disgraceful attempt to create a fig leaf for his own liberal, PC sensibilities.

(Atran I find worse. He treats humans as a natural phenomenon. A typical post modern social scientist, he believes what people naturally are is what people should be allowed to be. This eviscerates our distinguishing features as a species, free will and moral choice. We and everything cultural we do is the definition of unnatural.)

553. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98660 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 2:12 am

Zamboro.

Your approach is the only way we can cajole moderate Muslims to undertake the long overdue reform of their own religion. Only by confronting moderates repeatedly with the grizzly texts AND (might I add) the shameful fact that there is NO formal and authoritative modern interpretation, can the reform process begin.

Counter-intuitively for us we must encourage the formation of strong Islamic religious institutions that may have the authority to formalize a moderate position and be able to "excommunicate" the mad, bad and dangerous.

Its a f*****g risk, though.

554. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98650 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 1:43 am

I think both approaches are valid and they can compliment each other.

Me too. But for that to work TGA has to stop undercutting AHA and effectively ignore her. Good cop, bad cop. (The good cop walks away when the bad cop is working.)

555. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96557 by phil rimmer on December 10, 2007 at 5:51 pm

gr8hands.

Nah! I refuse to cede "holidays" back to the holy. I've never had a vacation in my life. Like most Brits I have holidays. During the winter break I go wassailing (well I get pissed) and have a yule tree to put presents under.

[edit]Besides there is no need for it to be CTVA's holiday. Also you need to remove the "atheists for Jesus" thing before the Prof. sees it. (I believe someone has some incriminating pix.)

556. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96534 by phil rimmer on December 10, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I'm just sorry the sign wasn't a bit more pertinent to the season. If it were more pertinent it would appear less...well, petty, less dismissable.

Perhaps something like...

For real peace this holiday

IMAGINE

[pic]

NO RELIGION

(A holiday wish for all from CTVA)

[Edit]As it is it just comes over as party pooping.

557. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92719 by phil rimmer on December 1, 2007 at 10:07 am

I think it is the moral smugness that makes me want to be rude as much as the forays over Jefferson's Wall.

558. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92630 by phil rimmer on December 1, 2007 at 2:10 am

Steve,

I would have been happier of Pat had specifically targeted preachers, bishops etc.

Agree here, but there are many, many religious pro-active individuals, who would promote creationism in schools, deny access to condoms or good sexual health education, deny gay rights, demand sharia law etc., etc. And Pat really does target precisely the pro-active.

..many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist.

Many of these people think they automatically have rights conferred on them by their faith. The rude, unapologetic, flat denial of those "rights" is a necessary first step and wake-up call that society has a new political agenda and that all people need to start thinking about that. The Rudeness of likening an anti-contraception stance to the desire for capital punishment for apostasy may be necessary to show there is no limit if religious dogma is to be imposed upon others.

Steve, I am most dismayed when people relentlessly pursue another's belief in God for its own sake. That is fatuous. (I even had a pang of remorse reading David Robertson's "Dark Night of the Soul" in his church magazine, and that was brought on by "Polite" atheist debate. The remorse soon evaporated when he reverted to his [mildly] malign influencing of others.)

So for me-

Polite with private faith.
Robust with intrusion into secular matters. [Edit I am very happy if they receive a bruise walking into Jefferson's Wall.]

559. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92418 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 1:05 pm

I think its possible we all have someone (or some type) in mind when Pat Condell is describing what he would say to an offending religite.

I have occasionally mentioned here a good friend who is a staunch Roman Catholic. From his conversation, you couldn't tell. When challenged about this he explains the privateness of these matters and adds that it would be ridiculous to argue or discuss matters from a religious perspective with others, because there has to be a common vocabulary and common concepts and plenty enough exist in common parlance. I don't know how, but his brilliant conversation seems utterly without dogma. This is a man Pat Condell himself would treat with respect.

However, I know exactly the sort of person I would be brusque or rude to; the Wee Flea, who comes looking to "mix it", to prove himself and the merit of his ideas. But, always the rude dismissal is to the idea not the man.


PS
As Condell is disinterested in a persons thoughts he can only be concerned with their behaviour.

560. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92372 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 11:17 am

For example, I would imagine that most people think that 'first person' experiences, such as feelings, dreams etc. can be evidence for God, or the supernatural or whatever. They think they are being reasonable when they try and explain their faith to others. To simply mock them, which is my reading of this video, is inappropriate

But to be fair to Pat, he is targeting Dogma. He doesn't care what people believe. He scorns when others push un-evidenced belief in his face. It is their behaviour he seeks to comment upon.

[edit]Steve, I've just been over to PZ's place to look at the Condell stuff. My Goodness, now they were rude. Gosh, I like here quite a lot too. Maybe in knowing the people around you and being known a little more, saying nuanced stuff isn't such a risk. Maybe when I talk about being impolite, I mean "robust".

561. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92174 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 2:28 am

Vinelectric.

I have passionate debates with my friends. We respect each other, but we don't respect each others ideas. They spoil their kids. They vote for idiots. AGW's a joke/not a joke. Onlookers are quite aghast. However, we take turns to buy a round of drinks and come back for more next week.

Simply saying we want to be able to debate the role of religion in society and that we want to call you an idiot when the occasion demands it, is part of snatching religion back from self-serving priests and putting it into the hands of individuals so they can decide for themselves. I see no pressing need for politeness per se. Impassioned, earnest, and honest discussion and lots of it is what I crave. How can it be wrong?

562. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92165 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2007 at 2:03 am

Once you've dealt the extremists the verbal fingers they deserve how do you plan to enlighten the masses?

Precisely by showing that religious belief is no more worthy of respect than any other set of beliefs.

563. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #92005 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Or...

With apologies to Natalie, I think there's a kind of a silliness to banging away at people's capacity for murder, when in fact, if you're an evolutionist, the only way you would want to evaluate this is to examine what it causes people to do.

We have now reached a stage in our evolution where we can start to consider transcending our evolutionary heritage. From prehistory through to today we have managed to reduce murder rates by an order of magnitude.

Ah! But its not natural is it?

564. Why debate dogma?

Comment #91989 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 4:57 pm

"What a waste of an Enlightenment."

Priceless!

There is a deep joy in seeing someone so profoundly sane.

565. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91974 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Is it really reasonable to refer to these people as 'fleas'?

Yes.


Its like the plethora of Da Vinci Code books that came out. Any sales potential depends on the fact of the existence of the "original".

My experience of the three that I have read so far, and the reviews of the others. is that these are slap-dash and ill-considered ripostes that have been rushed into print. They appear to be surprisingly inattentive to the specifics of RD's arguments. I suspect a number of the atheist and religious people who post to this site could do a better job.

566. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91677 by phil rimmer on November 29, 2007 at 12:51 am

Phill Rimmer, if a man murders another man for whatever reason, what or whom do we need to hold to account - the action of murdering, or the murderer? Think about this.

All murdering individuals are to be held to account for their actions.

Note also that one can only insult people, not ideas.

I can insult both the American Flag and an American. It is true the only possible reaction to the insult resides in another persons mind. But the evil of ideas is the thing to attack.

567. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91571 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm

FK

I strongly disagree with your phrasing. I've now edited the original post to try and explain what I mean. Hope this helps.

568. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91558 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 2:43 pm

phil rimmer it is perfectly acceptable to judge people based on their ideological and religious affiliation, especially when it comes to one as transformative as Islam. And especially when a stated policy by Muslims is to use immigration as a weapon to islamize the West.

It is perfectly acceptable to judge the actions of an individual in the light of their ideological and religious affiliation, especially when it as transgressive, fascistic and medieval as Islam. And especially when a stated policy by many vocal Muslims is to use immigration as a weapon to Islamize the West.


[edit] To be clear, if you can agree to the above then we can agree. It is peoples actions I am worried about. That their brain is reduced to jello by believing nonsense, I couldn't give a fig for. I am not the thought police. I feel completely free to attack any and every idea, however, and call ideas for how I see them. Finally, I know some good Muslims, who also know some good Muslims. To say simply "Muslims use immigration as a weapon", is to overstate the case.

569. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91548 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 2:28 pm

An English mother, who had a child in one of the other classes in Unity, said: "I was just gobsmacked. And when I talked about it to colleagues who were Muslims, they felt the same. They were amazed.

Do we have any idea how many ordinary muslims were offended, compared to how many petty officials? These latter derive much of there power from Islam. Could we expose how much of a power play this all is? Get people angry about being manipulated?

570. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91532 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Muslims must become inured to insult, denigration and blasphemy being heaped on their religion.

Nicely put. But we must be clear, the insult is to Islam and not Muslims. We must police the distinction if our point is not to be lost.

571. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91512 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Comment #91507 by epeeist

They recognise our right to free speech would be sufficient.

Fair enough. I think I misunderstood your intention.

572. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91509 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm

What seems dangerous about Geert Wilders from these few "quotes" is his inability to distinguish the people from the possible poison in their minds. Comparing parts of the Quran to Mein Kampf is legitimate. A "tsunami" of Islamic immigrants, is wholly unacceptable in my mind. Individuals are not to be judged before you meet them.

[edit] I downgraded Wilders from wicked to dangerous. I can't attribute "wicked" on so little information.

573. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91498 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 1:06 pm

So, they can have theirs [cultural sensitivities], providing we can have ours.

So, how does that work precisely in the Netherlands, or France or the UK? "They" recognize "our" right to free speech so long as we watch what we say?

574. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91104 by phil rimmer on November 27, 2007 at 8:28 am

As for Dawkins, after arguing in this 2006 video that religion is the "root of all evil"

For crying out loud, Dianelos! RD hated the title of the video foisted on him by the producers. The best compromise he could get was to have the question mark in.

This has been oft repeated. I am sure you are aware of the fact, as you are aware of your deliberate deception in omitting the question mark in your post above.

Very early on he did the Atheists for Jesus thing and the "gentle" interview with the Bishop of Oxford.

Your thesis is duff.

More likely you just started listening to what these guys were saying instead of merely reacting to it.

575. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90826 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 1:21 pm

I am not even sure his ideas have that much merit.

Too true. There is only one aspect that I find really attractive. It is only implied in this article and explicitly stated in a single throwaway remark in the Beyond Belief lecture and it is this-

To be free of all "super levitating turtles" we must question all given axioms and laws.

This must count as one of the least dogmatic, most anti-religious mindsets it is possible to have.

576. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90789 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 11:13 am

What if he is trying not to make religites not scary of the results of science?

Nice thought. But I honestly believe he is addressing his fellow scientists, consciously insulting them with the "F" word and trying to get them to notice him and acknowledge his theories. If he can gain some more Templeton dosh on the way, then so much the better.

His language dishonours the merit of his ideas.

577. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90682 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 5:49 am

That may be what he is talking about but what he is asserting is that "scientists proceed on faith".

His language is loose and deliberately provocative. burn0gas provides a better formulation substituting Trust for Faith.

Davies' description of how science is done completely fails to show that, in order to work at all, scientists must take certain things on trust to be able to test related ideas. Nor can they work at all levels at once, particularly where opportunities for evidence currently don't exist.

We must be careful, however, to tease out from his work what is valuable to us. That he is able to (legitimately!) tar some scientists with the same brush as religites is a warning that we should be on our guard against lazy thinking. We should be clear, our various "faiths" are empirical, contingent and most likely transient stepping stones to greater knowledge. He actually urges us on.

578. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90652 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 3:17 am

Davies' article is almost entirely self-serving. By way of damage limitation, I say we should embrace it as an anti-faith piece, pointing out that it is only the side of the scientist that has the tradition, the methodology, and the desire to make progress in the matter.

Is there ever a time to stop asking why?

Religite: "When we've found God."
Scientist: "Never!"

Not only are there known unknowns and unknown unknowns, but our future ability to comprehend is unknown.

579. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90647 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 2:19 am

gr8hands:If Davies has a problem with physicists saying "the laws just are", then he should equally have a problem with people who say "God created everything, but nobody created God, God always was." Thus far, he's not pointed out how that is illogical. Any guess why not?

Davies from NYtimes article:It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence.

[EDIT]To illustrate Steve's point.

In fact, the more I look at what his intentions might have been in writing the article, the more I see it is an anti-faith polemic. His target is a certain set of (what he sees as) lazy thinking scientists. His tone and language have been set to "rankle".

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

Comment #90550 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 1:44 pm

46. Comment #90536 by Goldy

Best Bill Maher I've seen. Brill.

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

Comment #90546 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm

As a politician, to talk openly about one's religion, is to state for all to hear that one's moral's are as good as any person's could possibly be. There is no other reason to do so. It is not to engage in arcane discussions about theology. It is to say, morally speaking, I am one of the best.

I have been repeatedly shocked by posts here from religious moderates about their feelings of moral superiority (though often not expressed in such immodest terms).

My good Roman Catholic friend is appalled by such bandying around of religiosity. He does not believe himself morally anyone's superior. He does not believe he has the right to express his views on matters of morality or personal conscience to others in any religious terms at all, as he can't imagine why they might accept that as conferring any merit on them, whatsoever.

Why can't religious politicians understand that it is hugely disrespectful to talk in religious terms to the GENERAL public?

582. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90529 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm

My only concern with Paul Davies' article was this-

For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This is a disingenuous comment even if his thesis is that some scientists need to loosen up a bit as it were. The magnitudes of the failures are not equal, nor the rate at which those magnitudes are changing. Further, I would have thought that growing numbers of physicists, at least, were "loosening up".

The shock though is that contributors here have been shocked at these ideas (of mutable laws).

Steve. Don't go. Rationality will lose.

583. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90243 by phil rimmer on November 23, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Theists (like Tibor ?) often view atheists as the zombies, and not just as relentless, rabid converters of non-zombies to the faith/non-faith, but more completely zombie-ish, i.e. missing some vital spark of common human decency.

Its why we can't be president of the United States.

Atheists can never be truly self-sacrificing, they believe.

I wonder if such theists secretly take heart from 9/11?

584. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #90239 by phil rimmer on November 23, 2007 at 4:18 pm

320. Comment #90220

GIGO

585. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90233 by phil rimmer on November 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Tibor

Anyhow just look at how much bad things people have done in the past. Do you really think that conscience works? Why doesn't it work or all the bad people?

In your view are things getting worse (in the last 1,000 years, 100 years, 10 years)? Specifically are morals getting worse? And where is the worst moral behaviour coming from?

586. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90062 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 2:59 pm

"turning the other cheek" -- could be argued as simply "unbalanced,"

And yet the Amish are not more often mugged than others, are they?

587. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90061 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 2:50 pm

There is a level of altruism that really works (works here means that you get back more than you invest)

The evolutionary benefit is to the replicator, not the host.

588. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90055 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 2:10 pm

The problem as I see it is that people are trying to justify feelings. I believe that our sense of morality is fundamentally emotional. We refine and negotiate our emotional responses in order to co-exist with others in society, but there is nothing fundamental or absolute about them.

For me this is crucial. In fact, things go horribly wrong when morality is domgatized (Sorry for the neologism.) Our behaviour "improves" as we better discern hurt to others. This is how most moral progress is made.

589. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90046 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Re: empathy.

I've questioned several of the God-of-Love-and-Niceness Christians on this site and to a man they have always commented that their empathic acts to others have often been disappointing to them [EDIT i.e. met with unkindness in return]. I sometimes wonder if it is this that might set us apart on the "from whence morality?" question?

590. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #90041 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Why should he listen to emphaty when that doesn't benefit him while he can listen to the selfish parts of his soul (or brain or whatever)?

Because empathy works. The moment we gave a damn about our fellow ape, the troupe worked better as a team. Millions of years later its still working. The more damns we give the more it works.

591. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89898 by phil rimmer on November 22, 2007 at 4:53 am

That other creationist, Dianelos, thinks...


EVERYTHINGDIDIT!


...which is helpful.

592. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89779 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Even if he can't prove evolution wrong, maybe, by his very existence, he can prove it doesn't always culminate in intelligent life.....

593. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89776 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Even Bizarro wasn't this dumb.

594. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89766 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Even J's simple lesson in logic defeats him.

[EDIT]

_J_ thanks for your general notice to all about the radio play Stardust (BBC R4). I've had a sneak preview. Sounds good stuff. Thats my lunchtime filled tomorrow.

595. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89763 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 4:38 pm

"Attempts to provide evidence (such as Behe's irreducible flagellum) have been clearly shown to be wrong."

You ask for evidence, and then you dismiss it because you refuse any evidence that contradicts darwinism. You create your so-called 'scientic method' to purposely exclude anything but darwinism even if something is the truth..

And THAT was the evidence? C'mon you must have more. Behe's evidence was that there were no possible viable darwinian evolutionary stepping stones to the flagellum. Behe made the Darwinian argument. He ultimately failed when viable stepping stones were demonstrated.

Now this is the key thing that makes scientists suspicious about IDers claim to be scientific. Behe, in contemplating the lack of viable evolutionary steps to the flagellum, didn't immediately set to work studiously looking for what those steps might be. He simply asserted that he could find no evidence. A scientist, by contrast, wishing to find the truth, rather than merely confirm a prejudice, would construct means by which he could prove himself wrong, imagining, perhaps how other unlikely biological features had been imagined to evolve.

Behe like many unsophisticated thinkers failed to imagine that non-flagella features that merely looked like flagella but without the movement could very simply evolve into a functional flagella.

[EDIT] In fact, a failure of the imagination, I think, is what this is all about. Dismal, dull, unimaginative, crapulent brains.

596. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89723 by phil rimmer on November 21, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Fact is not subject to democracy

As ever Steve's nailed it. but to expand a little

Facts result from corroborated evidence. In a sense, quite a democratic process. The sheer quantity of corroborated evidence for evolution is astonishing. For ID?? One example of corroborated evidence in its favour would be a start...

597. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #89399 by phil rimmer on November 20, 2007 at 2:24 pm

#89193 by Dianelos Georgoudis

He claims that cultural evolution has had a profound impact on our individual and collective cognitive capacities.

The idea is (imperfectly!) expressed in Susan Blackmore's book The Meme Machine, where she argues, for instance, that conscious experience is a "memeplex" (multiple meme) mediated experience and that the intense introspective qualities of Western conscious experience is to be contrasted with the more diffuse experience of Far-Eastern cultures. Recent experimental data has shown that presented with the same scene (e.g. a fish in a tank) American observers notice the fish first, Japanese observers notice the setting. Culture affects our saliency landscape, which in turn directs our cognitive capacities and the interior models we form.

Further concepts to consider are the cultural inputs into the early childhood regime of neural apoptosis (cell death). This is a process of neural wiring where "surplus" neurons and their connections are "pruned" away to create a more effective (i.e. more specifically adapted) brain. The process is to be distinguished from the standard Hebbian learning associated with memes (crudely, cells that fire together, wire together), in that it is a truly irreversible process.

The process of apoptosis (or rather its incomplete execution [sic]) is thought to explain phenomena like synaesthesia, where "inappropriate" cross linking of cognitive processes are left intact. Inappropriate (excessive?..insufficient?) apoptosis is thought to have occurred in feral children, devoid of necessary cultural input at the necessary time and now irretrievably wrongly wired and incapable of many normal cognitive tasks.

We might imagine that appropriate cultural input might yield a higher preponderance of synaesthetes or those predisposed to improved topological mental manipulation (like the aborigines of Australia). Indeed they might well be the very people to best imagine Twistor Space.

The force of Plantinga's argument resides precisely in the scientific validity of natural evolution, and studies what its implications are under the assumption of naturalism.

Steve dealt with this perfectly in 502. I simply reiterate, in support, that you have failed to identify what is the recipient of the selective benefits of evolution, to whit the gene / meme. (And the Selfish Gene was one of your favourite books!) The offset nature of this feedback loop produces all manner of "unintended" consequences. The formulation you offer is still bogus.

[EDIT. A slightly less impressive topological capability than the aborigines is evident in the Hebbian only skills of the London Cabbie who's done the Knowledge. Scans show appropriate bulging bits in his brain]

598. AAI 07 DVDs by RDFRS are Now Available!

Comment #88981 by phil rimmer on November 19, 2007 at 11:44 am

Irate,

krisking asks good questions. That you know the answers and are impatient is a little unfair. We'll have to tell our story many, many times yet. It'll be a long time before people understand that the ideas in religion, as in advertising, always follow the zeitgeist rather than lead it......

599. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88977 by phil rimmer on November 19, 2007 at 11:02 am

Brian,

Lets be absolutely clear about the "Dianelos Problem". We can have no concerns about his philosophical musings as to whether he is Neo or not. These thoughts follow the general form of the Thursday Liquid Philosophy sessions at my local pub, especially towards chucking out time. No it is the fact that, such musings, fueled by his first person data and the disparaging of ours, seeks to tell us that we are less holy than he, less moral and will remain inferior until we solve for ourselves God's Puzzle of spotting the friday-afternoon-job he did on reality and mend our ways.

This dangerous idea he seeks to clothe in moderation. No, we won't go to hell. Everyone shall have the same reward averaged over this life and the next. (Bit of a bummer when you're on your deathbed after a perfectly lovely life.) These spurious, imperfect and distinctly twenty first century human ideas fail completely to cover the indecency of his primary conclusion-

Atheists can never be completely moral beings.

My good Catholic friend is appalled.

600. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88680 by phil rimmer on November 18, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Comment #88673 by jasminerose

Welcome. I hope you find some useful things here.

I think hitting the delete button to free up all that lovely space is a great, liberating feeling. Spring cleaning the mind is something we should do at every available opportunity and not just every spring.

Having said that it does tend to fill up again rather quickly, and, darn it, some of the stuff that fills it turns out to be useful. Like knowing how to create vaccines or understanding why people have amygdalas and are therefore "wired", despite their best efforts and intentions, to be xenophobic. These insights come from knowing that life is an evolved phenomenon.

True knowledge of this sort helps us better care for our children and helps us learn how to be better people, in spite of our evolutionary inheritance.

How do we choose what not to delete? Look for corroborative evidence. Look for evidence from all sorts of different people and people who have little to gain personally from it. Pause just a little when you come across that stuff....