801. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105203 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 9:48 pm

At any given point in time, I think humans can do a fair job holding in mind a reasonably sophisticated representation of about 200 unique individuals. Beyond that, the sketches get thin.

Dr Benway

You seem, according to my scouring through old posts, to be held in some kind of reverence here.

Your posts are often greeted with e-giggles of agreement, and of support.

Can't see it, myself. With regard to your latest comments, and your semi-cryptic one-liners, I have to say I do not understand you.

What, for example, do you mean by the above quoted comment?

When I read crap like this, I wonder if, in fact, you are nothing more than a clever web-based search engine result, whose designer is using semi-appropriate words to support some esoteric desire to be here.

Or are you real, and do you sincerely take a great chuckle when you see some of the well-intentioned on this site respond to your vacuity?

If you are real, Dr Benway, I would hope that you may be able to raise yourself, in some way, and without vacuity, to the level of your reputation here.

Best,
Styrer

802. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105199 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Styrer, please enlighten me with why this is a hole? I'm not religious about any particular presentation style... do you think you can get away with a presentation style where you just stand in front of an audience, hands in pockets, and read verbatim off a prompter and expect to have an impression on anybody? Or better yet, just have a voice synthesizer do your presentation for you, and stay home? Or do you have a better method in mind?

How is what I was taught in presentation training, wrong? How is this a deepening hole?

AtheistJon

Both barrels:

- I despise your industry's contempt for meaningful words in pursuit of money. Money is more forthcoming, I have found, when words are used truthfully, and not as some sort of sorry add-on to visual crap you guys come up with.

- I detest your industry's attempts to pictorialise all manner of human needs, wants, tragedies and pleasures at the expense of words, of common language, in pursuit of fortunes for those who will buy first editions, never read them and sell them on when required, unread

- Above all, I detest how you reduce humankind's most obvious asset - language - to nothing more than a parlour game, where words simply deny or re-inforce the import of your new 'marketing image'.

The 'hole' thing was a rhetorical device. You would possibly have known this already if your work did not take you so desperately far away from the power of language.

Best,
Styrer

803. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105193 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Sexual stereotypes annoy be because they so often don't fit real people very well, yet they do capture something familiar. Example: boys like to play rough-and-tumble games outdoors; girls wear pink and prefer to play in doors with baby dolls.

Each time I fit someone to a stereotype, I know I'm shrinking a 3D person to a 2D caricature. But could I live without these oversimplified, crude typecasts? Sadly, no.

What is stopping you?

Brain power? Not on the evidence of your input over time here.

Imagination? Again, you show no end of ability of evocative piss-taking.

Moral fibre? As we know, you share this with the worst of us.

So what, good Dr, is it? I conclude:

Laziness.

It takes effort to see people as we really want them to see us. We expect them to deliver on this... See the problem?

Enjoy your widened 3D view, if you care to make the effort. It's a pretty nice view.

Best,
Styrer

804. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105187 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 8:44 pm

I think you misunderstood this. What the training was saying is that when you are trying to get a message through to another person only 7% of the message will be transmitted with the words alone. Not that the words were only 7% important.

Correction noted. Thank you. But the import remains. Ever heard, with respect to an ever deepening hole, of the expression 'stop digging'?

Pray do.

Styrer

805. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105180 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Styrer. I wasn't saying that this presentation style is the way humans should communicate. Merely the way we do communicate. Perhaps it's the animal in us that doesn't live solely on bit streams of information... humans aren't computers... we have all these other trains of thoughts going through our mind, like, this guy's an idiot. This guy's gay. I'd like to fuck her (sorry women) ;-) -- They say that people think about sex at least once every minute or something outrageously high on that order (witness all the comments on this blog so far talking about sex), so you wonder how people can concentrate on their Bloggings.

AtheistJon

You either really think that 'people mainly don't pay all that much attention to mere words;' or you are pulling my leg, and know that they do.

Which is it?

If the former, you need a lot of working on, son.

If the latter, there may be just a little hope.

PM me for some reputable names, should the former be the unfortunate case. I'll see what I can do.

Best,
Styrer

806. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105171 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 7:58 pm

AtheistJon

I hope neither you nor Steve, to whom your post was addressed, mind that I venture to suggest to you: what a load of shite.

I note that you, as a 'presentation trainee', were among the group so pre-occupied with visual presentation (poor saps - it is, after all, your job) that only 7% of you recognise 'content of words' as important with other humans!

What a magnificent triumph of style over substance! You must be very proud.

No, sir. Words have become even more self-evidently important because of the internet. Example? I read what you write. I think. I conclude: Bollocks. And I submit my refutation to you, with words doing everything they have ever been required to do.

I do not doubt the affectatious effects of your profession, nor the importance of the occasional hand-gesture to support a well-made point; but it is through words, and words only, that real understanding is ever made.

Best,
Styrer

807. Monkey, Business

Comment #105160 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Ignoramus that I am on this, I need to hear the expert on this important topic. Alone, I'm lost.

Professor Dawkins, you are required here.

Pray communicate.

Best,
Styrer

808. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105152 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Comment #105149 by Steve Zara on December 30, 2007 at 6:17 pm

In what way do they save you time?


I have given up attempting to derive meaning from the posts of the respected (and I mean that in all honesty) Dr Benway. I have been told I have no sense of humour, but I am learning that I also have no sense of irony. Others have said I have have no sense. So I am increasingly finding that the only posts on this site I am really confident of the meaning of are trolls.

When I was a University lecturer, I was given advice about how to talk to people. A talk should be in three stages:

1. Say what you are going to say.
2. Say it, clearly.
3. Summarise what you have said.

On the internet, (1) and (3) are redundant. The problem is that just about everybody also misses (2).

Steve

1. I wish to tell you about an emotional outburst which is rare for me with laptop on knee.

2. It is not often that I laugh out loudly enough on reading a funny and important post on this site that I need to pick up my laptop from the floor and re-compose myself.

3. Recognition of humour is a wonderfully, laptop-destabilising way to make a very important point.

Kudos to you, sir. And I hope no. 2 is not lost on this occasion.

Best,
Styrer

809. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105147 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I'm annoyed with sexist stereotypes, yet find them to be time-savers.

In what way do they save you time? If for a quicker determination of dickheadedness of the dickheads who spout them, I'm with you. If not, I may be forced to perform a de-Dr-isation on you.

Best,
Styrer

810. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #105092 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Having watched the original programme - around 25-30 mins - on BBC TV, and having been a little confused as to why the Professor seemed already slightly pissed off on that show, all now becomes clear when I now see this extended, uncut version in which Dawkins is faced with idiotic, moronic gibberish he may be allowed to think will not be permitted to gain airtime on a national broadcasting carrier.

Shame on the fucking BBC for allowing even more than the normal amount of vacuity and inanity in a programme designed to educate.

And more shame on them for not even granting a slight nod at the not wholly disreputable possible theistic speakers they could have had on to debate with someone of the Professor's stature.

Styrer

811. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105002 by Styrer- on December 30, 2007 at 10:07 am

I agree, Hitchens seems to be becoming more and more dogmatic about his unbelief - he is not a cure for dogma, just a new form of it. He is useful in the war against theocracy, but a liability in the war against dogma.

But I think he should stay, if only to warn us what we must gaurd against, eternally, if need be.

Hitchens has a lot of good ideas. There are good reasons to admire him. However there is an element of insanity in him, which I think if not checked has the potential to be dangerous. Every now and then it leaks out; more so often these days. He is an anti-theist, and this form of non-theism has most the potential to be toxic and irrational.

What I am saying we must be cautious about becoming what we hate. IT IS A REAL DANGER. Stalin replaced the image of God with that of himself. What I am hoping is that people like you while admiring Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dennett, will not admire them so much that you will stop tolerating any criticism against them, the way Christians don't entertain any criticism against Jesus.

These people are remarkable humans beings, but they are human beings. And all humans have some flaws. In the case of Hitchens, his flaws seem to be having a tendency of showing up at the wrong times and people notice. There are still good reasons to listen to him, but one need not like everything he says.

82abhilash

I must say that I am glad that I do not see as much of this type of unworthy re-shaping of initial positions into something either different or smaller on this site as I see on other sites' forums.

While you recognise that your unjustifiable accusation against Hitchens of his 'dogmatic' unbelief is untenable, and rightly make no attempt to defend it, you move speciously and re-shapingly on to a general plea for adherents of not only Hitch, but also of Dawkins, Harris and Dennett, not to avoid criticism of these proponents of reason where it is due. Worthy words, but redundant ones here, as my previous post was not challenging you on this notion whatsoever.

As far as Hitchens goes, you re-cast your initial 'dogmatic' charge without the slightest evidence, into 'an element of insanity', and drag in under guise of apposition his notion of 'anti-theism'. The latter is neither insanity, dogmatism nor any other word implicit of irrationality that you may continue to try, seemingly desperately, to apply to a robust, challenging position with regard to the insane, dogmatic propositions of theism.

When you state that we must be cautious about becoming what we hate, I cannot help think that you have already fallen for the theistic trap of confusing dogmatism for passionate support (capable of revision as dogma is not), and insanity for challenging ideas with which you happen to disagree.

It is your kind of thinking, I submit, that is a real danger, in stark contrast to the anti-dogma, anti-theistic, challenging ideas presented by Hitchens and the others (and may I add that your point does not become more unassailable as you seem to think SIMPLY THROUGH CAPITALISATION).

Best,
Styrer

812. Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms

Comment #103825 by Styrer- on December 27, 2007 at 12:47 am

Pray forgive me for going off-topic here.

But I'm a little annoyed at all the longterm clever members here!

The power of this site to educate is clearer to me than ever after watching that Eugenie Scott video in June's post here.

But not, perhaps, for the reason you may think.

I joined this site several months after this was posted, and I have only just come across it.

In my ignorance of her comments here, I have spoken extremely highly of Eugenie Scott since joining, in particular of her performance at the AAI 07 meeting. While my comments stand, I must withdraw some effusion because of her nauseatingly ingratiating and scientifically blinkered comments to the audience here.

It is simply not the case that science has no comment to make on the existence of a god. It is also simply not true, as she tries to force on the audience in some self-seeking moment of 'yo, I'm with all of yas, faithful or not', that science is indifferent in its findings as to the question of an existant god. Indeed, her bald 'S. J. Gould'-ish insistence on NOMA is a disgraceful submission to young learners in the audience, a submission which flies slap in the face of Dawkins himself, and Stenger, as world-renowned thinkers far beyond her own significant, but much smaller, achievements.

Why the hell didn't anyone tell me I needed to temper my enthusiasm for this woman with that extra knowledge?

You're normally all so good at picking holes!

Best,
Styrer

813. Intelligent Design and Creationism/Evolution Controversy

Comment #103816 by Styrer- on December 27, 2007 at 12:17 am

Well, the power of this site to educate is clearer to me than ever after watching that.

But not, perhaps, for the reason you may think.

I joined this site several months after this was posted, and I have only just come across it.

In my ignorance of her comments here, I have spoken extremely highly of Eugenie Scott since joining, in particular of her performance at the AAI 07 meeting. While my comments stand, I must withdraw some effusion because of her nauseatingly ingratiating and scientifically blinkered comments to the audience here.

It is simply not the case that science has no comment to make on the existence of a god. It is also simply not true, as she tries to force on the audience in some self-seeking moment of 'yo, I'm with all of yas, faithful or not', that science is indifferent in its findings as to the question of an existant god. Indeed, her bald 'S. J. Gould'-ish insistence on NOMA is a disgraceful submission to young learners in the audience, a submission which flies slap in the face of Dawkins himself, and Stenger, as world-renowned thinkers far beyond her own significant, but much smaller, achievements.

Thanks again to this site for making me reconsider.

Best,
Styrer

814. How to refute Creationist with only a bucket of feces

Comment #103795 by Styrer- on December 26, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Any chance that Dianelos will not see this?

Heard something, that may be him, I'm ontologically off somewhere else.

Best,
Styrer

:)

815. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #103793 by Styrer- on December 26, 2007 at 9:54 pm

343. Comment #103639 by 82abhilash on December 26, 2007 at 11:15 am


I agree, Hitchens seems to be becoming more and more dogmatic about his unbelief - he is not a cure for dogma, just a new form of it. He is useful in the war against theocracy, but a liability in the war against dogma.

But I think he should stay, if only to warn us what we must gaurd against, eternally, if need be.

82abhilash

What on earth are you talking about?

Do you actually know the definition of dogma?

And what kind of individual must you be to posit that 'we must guard against' the ideas of one of the very men who has no doubt given you many (evidently undigested) ideas of what anti-dogma, anti-theist positions are all about?

I suggest you acquire a dictionary, hastily. You may then have more than vacuity to offer.

Styrer

816. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #103788 by Styrer- on December 26, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Thanks, USA_Limey

The loss of freedoms (and I count that to speak primary among them) does worry me a great deal. It may be that I am wrong to suggest that this primary freedom is not compromised even one iota. I suppose I just haven't seen (yet) any ensuing and tangible effects of any such compromise if it is there.

I sure hope there will be time enough to tell.

I'm afraid I'm more with Hitch than with the others when it comes to optimism on the biggie issue of reason V unreason.

Best,
Styrer

817. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103780 by Styrer- on December 26, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Whig

Oh, I would go further than 'teenage'. And further than 'angst'.

It is age-old, unadulterated fear, in mature form. Fear of difference, fear of the not immediately understandable.

The worlds' three 'Not So Great' monotheistic religions all condemn and prohibit homosexuality. All of this makes perfect sense when the pathetic, ignorant, fearful hand of humans attempting to understand that which they don't is accepted as playing its part.

We are so fantastic at turning fear into hatred. And when we're hateful, we find words such as 'disgust', 'gross' and 'revulsion' easily on our lips.

To all homophobes on this site so far contributing that such 'revulsion' is 'natural' – rise above, rather than indulge, your natures. Try to find some extra height.

Or are you too fucking gay to try?

Best,
Styrer

818. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #103769 by Styrer- on December 26, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Flagellant (sorry for previous end of day misspelling!)

This needs simplifying/amending, especially in a short interview like this, to avoid confusing a 'lay' audience.

If this is not suggesting that 'this notion is too hard to understand', what extra weight to your words am I missing here?

The second half of this interview is largely taken up with altruism/misfiring – too much time for one issue.

Too much time? Says who? You? It is precisely this kind of explanation of the basic thesis and temperament of evolutionary theory and mode of thought which I do not think we have even nearly enough of - Dawkins' insistence on an (not nearly as long as you imply) explication of this fascinating notion is his to make, and one you have failed utterly to show is self-defeating. While, indeed, I cry 'more, please, just what lay audiences want!', you cry 'less, please, too hard for lay audiences!'.

Pure condescension, I submit.

As for 'more fruitful points' not given time - I repeat - says who? You?

Best,
Styrer

(And Merry fucking Christmas to you too, sport.) :)

819. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102930 by Styrer- on December 24, 2007 at 2:07 am

Learning so much from this site, I make this the first and the last place I visit every day.

Josh and Wayne do wonders - I learn things every day.

When we are greeted with the dispicable, hateful, anti-human propositions and actions of the faithful, we all make our voices heard. I love this site for this.

When I hear the likes of a loon like Romney attempting to gain the most powerful position in the world, when I see Blair as Middle East envoy move from one imaginary friend to another, when I see the totalitarian quasi-religious regime of North Korea untouched and unchallenged, I think about how much power our words have here.

It's not looking good to me, on this basis.

I suppose we know that this is not simply a war of words. Nevertheless, I think we should start at words. In the same way that I have had countless numbers over years knocking on my door attempting to save my soul and giving me industry-standard prints with photos supporting their message, I submit we all up the ante. I want clothing, I want cutlery, I want films and screenplays, I want signs everywhere counteracting the faith-based indications manifest everywhere on the planet.

There must, on this site, be members of every sort of industry. Some may even have a hand in public speaking policy for a particular industry. May I urge you to participate commercially, when you can?

I guess I am asking for a a little more than a free 'ATHEIST' T-shirt. I will gladly pay for it if a freebie is not forthcoming, of course.

But the enemies of reason need a more cohesive, a more organised, a more 'in their face' smack round the head, over time. Why can we not borrow from the lessons learned from the faithful here? Why can we not ignore notions of 'fundamentalism' and fundamentally do what the faithful have always done to muster support? Dawkins is on record as saying atheists have never been very good at getting themselves together, as a political force. Why must we be satisfied with simply spouting here and not actually doing anything but spout?

As much as I think the Hitch is a miserable scrooge in his public protestations that Christmas time intimates existence in North Korea, I love his Dawkinsian attempt to 'raise consciousness'.

Do tell me what you think.

Anyway, rant over. And if anyone knows where I can buy an 'ATHEIST'-labelled pullover (don't wear T-shirts), please PM me.

Best,
Styrer

820. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102912 by Styrer- on December 23, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Dear Professor

I have a little money.

Is there any way I can buy some shares in your company?

You seem a hot ticket.

Serious question.

Best,
Styrer

821. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #102798 by Styrer- on December 23, 2007 at 4:50 pm

193. Comment #102226 by Flagellant on December 22, 2007 at 4:36 am

I'm pleased to see that someone (Copernic 101973) agrees that there's some difficulty with the misfiring/altruism thing (Flagellant 100639). It's not that it's necessarily wrong (Michael 101455); it's more that it can involve a long and complicated explanation.

And it's not that one's expecting the audience to be P. T. Barnum fodder (Styrer- 100853), either.

Bollocks, Flaggelent

Dawkins explained his 'mis-firing' idea so the thickest in the world can follow it.

Your premise - that this notion is too hard to understand - is wrong.

Grow up.

Styrer

822. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #101080 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 7:24 pm

I went to the bathroom, came back, and found that the 20 latest visitors board had frothed at the mounth! Covered, head to toe, with an epileptic question, all previous questions gone, vanished, in a puff of toilet-flushing.

What, may I ask, is the particular attraction to the notion that some opportunistic 7th century huckster may or may not have been suffering from a recurrent brain disorder?

I feel I should retreat, again, to the privacy of my loo. It seems somewhat apposite to the way this site has gone in the last few hours.

Styrer

:)

823. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100923 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 3:55 pm

28. Comment #100900 by USA_Limey on December 19,

2007 at 2:53 pm

Comment #100892 by Styrer:


Annabanana was in fact responding to my question


Sorry - that means I can't comment?

Retract your prickles, Limey. You can comment as much as I can provide background to comments you're responding to.

The anti-incitement legislation is actually a tacit acknowledgement of the violent action that can follow faith-based words and speeches.

What the fuck are we doing here if not lamenting this very phenomenon? You yourself are one of the most vocal against it!

The legislation is designed to save lives. It has worked, and free speech is not suffering a damn because of it.

Styrer

824. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100921 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 3:41 pm

In the same sense, Charles Manson is behind bars in the U.S., though he never directly murdered anybody. There is a profound difference between "hate speech" and murder in the second degree. Hate speech is a term used by people who want to silence critics. No matter how well guided you feel, it can swing back your way. I'm glad in the U.S. we at least have the first ammendment.

Sorry, I am not clear here. Should Manson, in the absence of committing any murders whatsoever, be behind bars or not in your opinion?

On what grounds is he there?

Best
Styrer

825. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100898 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm

23. Comment #100886 by AlexAtheist on December 19, 2007 at 2:20 pm

I am grateful that I live in a country like the USA where we have freedom of speech, even for crazies like Ann Coulter. In the UK free speech really isn't free if restrictions apply.

Well, it was under such a 'restriction' that the UK was able to ensure that the dispicable Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.

Care to re-consider your position? :)

Best,
Styrer

826. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100892 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Just remember annabanana the first amendment cuts both ways. It also allows people like Christopher Hitchens to say that Jerry Falwell was an odious toad who could be given an enima and buried in a matchbox. I liked hitch saying that about the despicable Falwell, but if he gets to say that, Coulter gets to say whatever she wants to. There is nothing 'unfortunate' about her right to say those things therefore.

It is infact essential that she can.

Annabanana was in fact responding to my question about the status of anti-incitement legislation in the US, such as we have here in Ireland and in the UK. There is an important distinction between free speech and hate speech, as the various acts I cited before indicate. Hitch's comment on Falwell was no 'incitement' to either racial or ethnic bigotry - it was the polar opposite.

Coulter's comment is, in stark contrast, arguably incitement to racial or ethnic hatred.

Best,
Styrer

827. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100889 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Don't forget from a military standpoint there is a very practicle reason to encourage belief in an imaginary friend who will grant you an after life bettter than the present.

I think I agree with what you are saying. If you are saying that the military are encouraging the troops towards a single faith in order that a probably reduced fear of death is a controllable military asset, I agree wholeheartedly. If you are suggesting that the troops are themselves larger players in this, by dint of their own cultural predisposition towards faith, then this may well also be true, but rather lets the military masterminds themselves off the hook. I would have to disagree on that basis, as it is an altogether too kindly account of the substantive criticism of the military this report seeks to make.

There is an unpleasant 'jihadist' or 'holy war' odour in the import of all this, such that the devastating effects of faith as a call to action are not only being acknowledged but actively employed for the military's own ends. If so, my conviction that the faithful are all too often made to resort to outright duplicity in acquiring converts is re-inforced.

Best,
Styrer

828. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100853 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

The only exception is the misfiring/altruism thing. This needs simplifying/amending, especially in a short interview like this, to avoid confusing a 'lay' audience.

I'm really not so sure about that. Viewers will know that an Oxford Professor (and one of the most famous) is about to speak, and will try perhaps that little bit harder to follow the argument he makes. The 'misfiring' notion may shock, but I think that Dawkins here made it perfectly understandable; the terms of its expression also invite curiosity and possible engagement, as redolent as the idea is of the whole notion of evolutionary understanding.

I think 'lay' people are rather more interested and able than you perhaps allow.

Best,
Styrer

829. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #100833 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 12:15 pm

While it would be a treat indeed to read the Professor's open response to this 'open letter', I think the principle of one of Dawkins' earlier comments is appropriate here - a reply would look better on Morris's CV than would a response from this apparently opportunistically self-seekingly ambitious cleric on the Professor's own.

Best,
Styrer

830. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100820 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 11:48 am

Thanks, Annabanana

Here in Ireland and in the UK we have free speech too, of course, but with certain laws against hate speech (respectively, Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, the Public Order Act). Both with possibly lengthy prison sentences for offenders.

If you have such in the US, it would be rather a satisfying spectacle to see them tried out on the less than charming Ms. Coulter.

Best,
Styrer

831. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100812 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 11:29 am

The Pentagon has said that the military values and respects religious freedoms but that accommodating religious practices should not interfere with unit cohesion, readiness, standards or discipline.

Is it cynically inaccurate of me to see this pernicious little statement as a great big nodding grin at the freethinking-sapping, mind-controlling power of one faith to unite humans under one collective banner of psychological conditioning?

And is Ann Coulter genuinely on record as saying what is reported here? If so, what, if any, is the nature of any anti-incitement laws you have in the US?

Best,
Styrer

832. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100803 by Styrer- on December 19, 2007 at 11:04 am

Been quite a naughty boy in his youth, has our Nick. No bad thing, says I!

Countdown to the faithheads attempting a connection with his atheism has just begun...!

Seriously, I think his atheism is of little real consequence (in the UK, unlike the situation you poor sods in the US must endure), but it's a welcome public factor in 'raising consciousness' that faith is not mandatory in high office here.

Blair's semi-paranoid hiding of his faith from the public arena appears even more unpleasantly furtive in light of this news. There was never anything particularly honest about Blair's reticence in this before (despite his nauseating 'I'm a pretty straightforward kind of guy' comment), so I'm enjoying the contrast here.

Best,
Styrer

833. Jesus ad angers church groups

Comment #100554 by Styrer- on December 18, 2007 at 10:13 pm

This advert is absolutely outrageous and sends out a terrible message.

The corners on those boxes were way too sharp and dangerous to put in any baby's cot.

A clear case of parental neglect and child abuse.

Styrer

834. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100553 by Styrer- on December 18, 2007 at 9:58 pm

That was a hoot - very amusing indeed!

Not for the reasons the jocks may think, poor fellas.

My heart swells whenever I hear the Christian virtues embodied as beautifully and as movingly as they are here. Ah, Merry Christmas, one and all.

I feel all warm and fuzzy after that.

Best,
Styrer

835. CBC News: Sunday - Richard Dawkins

Comment #100104 by Styrer- on December 18, 2007 at 8:42 am

This is perhaps the best performance from the Professor I have seen in his many TV interviews. Absolutely superb.

There is a terrific speed of attack here, rapid and compelling dispatch of the key arguments, and above all a supremely energetic confidence in delivery. Unmatched.

After seeing this, I am thrilled to recognise that there really is no greater fighter against superstition and irrationality out there today.

I feel rather moved!

Best,
Styrer

836. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99652 by Styrer- on December 17, 2007 at 8:50 am

Cartomancer:

My word, who's been trawling through their old 6th Form debating team scribbles, then...?

If you won't light up, at least lighten up.

Best,
Styrer

837. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99075 by Styrer- on December 15, 2007 at 12:46 pm

As mentioned in previous posts, I love hearing the Hitch. But I suggest a certain 'compartmentalisation' of mind is evident here, with an extraordinary insight into the nature of religion but a blinkered one on Iraq.

His support for the invasion seems to stem from his commendable support for the suffering natives of that country and his wish to see a continued attack on religion; while his lack of condemnation of the most disingenuously planned and presented, self-interested and irrelevant attack on a foreign, sovereign state seems to be incidental to him. That the former supersedes the latter for Hitchens remains disappointing to me, wantonly ideological as it seems to be.

I thought he had left all that behind, despite his statement that in his attacks on religion he really is now a one-issue guy, and seems proud to dismiss all other issues as they bear on the disgrace that is the Iraq invasion.

Pity he's so off course on this one, but it takes all sorts, I suppose.

He's also probably aware that he's dug himself in so far now that a dignified scurrying out of his hole is a huge no-no, even if he were to change his mind!

Best,
Styrer

838. Creation college seeks state's OK to train teachers

Comment #99057 by Styrer- on December 15, 2007 at 11:31 am

Good to see the superb and indefatigable Eugenie Scott on the case.

Yet another example of the snake-like manoeuvering of the duplicitous creationists - if they can't get 'em young directly, train up some made-to-order 'teachers' to get 'em young instead.

Perhaps it's a self-defeating exercise, in the final analysis - 'graduate teachers' from such a programme should prove to be essentially unemployable in teaching science, with schools simply boycotting the recruitment of graduate teachers from this institution. Hopefully this will create a satisfying loop, with applicants realising the harm such a programme would do to their teaching careers and choosing alternative and reputable institutions.

Still needs Eugenie et al. to pull all the stops out as usual, of course.

Best,
Styrer

839. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98939 by Styrer- on December 15, 2007 at 12:22 am

Fantastic idea and all thanks to Josh for his excellent work!

My only cavil is that two hours was not long enough! Perhaps there was some tiredness evident at the end, except for the Hitch (and Sam?), who was getting into his (admittedly rather contradictory at times!) stride. Looks like the whiskey was kicking in faster than the martinis! :)

I do wonder what on earth the Hitch was banging on about when it came to the eradication of faith issue. Have I utterly misunderstood the import of his book and of his comment, in his debate with McGrath, that the eradication of faith would mean that humankind could begin 'to reach something like its true height' if all such 'childishness was left behind'?

So, which view does he really advocate?

Repeatedly citing the solipsistic nature of religion seems a bit rich when he solipsistically states that he wants the debate to rage on, lest his intellectual entanglements be rendered the poorer for such loss!

In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing, and would simply finish by saying - more please!

Best,
Styrer

840. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97460 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 6:08 am

'Not enlightening'.

Hm. At several moments during the interview, Hitchens was generous enough to give Witt a free education in matters that he was supposed to know and on the basis of which the interview was to take place.

'Not enlightening'.

What a guy.

Styrer

841. Believe it or not

Comment #97451 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 5:26 am

To those finding fault with the word 'atheist' - from where do the negative connotations come?

Precisely from the faithful against whom 'atheist' is the word we use to spell out separation from such loons.

Do any of you really think that a different name, serving the same function of differentiation, will not also be hi-jacked by the faithful and made to mean exactly what they want the word to mean?

Let's get angry at the faithheads' disingenuous re-interpretation of the word 'atheist'. Let's reclaim the word 'atheist' or 'anti-theist' ourselves, and let's agree to fight for the right to have it understood, worldwide, precisely as we wish it to be understood.

Best,
Styrer

842. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97429 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 4:28 am

Incredulous

I am not suggesting a subverting of the usual rules of inquiry. May I remind you, and any who think I am doing so, of this thread's title:

Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

It is precisely to this, and the informative article beneath it, that I am responding, and for which I am requesting inclusion, in the prosecution's case, of the title's and the articles's inferences.

Best,
Styrer

843. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97425 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 4:19 am

Bonzai

Thanks for reply - yes, I noted your comments in No. 21.

Do you not think your empathetic account of the father's murder of his daughter in this scenario is, at best, unhelpful?

While you are certainly not necessarily condoning such, your explication for it lacks the condemnation we surely agree it deserves. Any objection you may make that an objection is implicit would really not be good enough. It is conspicuous by its absence, as a result of your overly-sympathetic stance here.

The 'hijab' is not incidental to this event, as you seem to want us to at least consider for a moment; it is at the heart of it, and is entirely the surmisable motivating factor in this murder by a father of his daughter.

Murder by fathers of their daughters is one of the most unusual and rare events we can encounter in non-Muslim countries. I would therefore strongly recommend that you relinquish your liberal, egalitarian principles in this case.

Best,
Styrer

844. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97405 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 3:16 am

You are all so naive. This crime is borne out of a dark ages religion and it is as simple as that. It is not a sexist crime, it is religious. The religion is sexist but the motivations are due to religious beliefs and the girl refused to conform to them. Her father saw this as an insult to Islam or mohammed or whatever. Islam teaches their followers to put their religion god and prophet ahead of their family and themselves and it is a dangerous religion. People need to stop sidestepping that and stop respecting philosophies that don't fit with a reasonable, modern, democratic world. Only then will people like this girl start to be safe in thinking for themselves.

There is nothing in this post to the other site with which I disagree whatsoever.

Andysin has in fact articulated precisely the anti-reason which is Islam and accurately and properly placed the blame for this murder right at the door of Islam and its followers.

Bonzai - 'simplistic'? Really? So this murder is more complicated than Andysin conveys? How so, may I ask?

Styrer

845. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97374 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 1:32 am

I would be slightly careful about this one. There may be a religious element, but it could equally be a domestic argument that got out of hand. Until it goes to trial I certainly wouldn't leap to any conclusions.

What I would expect is that the trial should be conducted under normal criminal law with no deference given to "cultural" or religious factors.

No deference, certainly and agreed, but the cultural and religious factors must surely be permitted to support the prosecution's case?

The prosecution will, I suspect, have absolutely no difficulty in providing ample previous case evidence in support of their attack.

While I would usually agree with your caution, I think that cultural and religious factors should be the very centre of the prosecution's case in this one.

Best,
Styrer

846. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97366 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 1:00 am

All thanks to Sam for continuing with this and for giving us his findings.

Since reading The End of Faith in early 2006, I have been waiting to learn what he has found in the course of his research in this area.

I wonder what others here think about the evident finding that belief and disbelief 'subsequently inform behavior and emotion', and that our prefontal cortex and our anterior insula may by-pass the truth seeking mechanism Sam cites?

This subsequent behavioural finding disturbs me, in that it indicates that I may have to accept that my anti-theism is as evolutionarily valid as theism, whose adherents I view as solipsistic loons.

Is it the case that, while worrying about the eschatological insanity of some of the faithful, I must add to my woes by being required to contemplate my own possible atheistic delusion? Or am I misinterpreting the import of Sam's findings?

Comments, please.

Best,
Styrer

847. Christopher Hitchens appears on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show

Comment #97339 by Styrer- on December 11, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Just as I am falling asleep thinking the Hitch is right on religion, wrong on Iraq, his comments wake me up. As ever.

Not that I change my mind on listening to him, in the previous regard - but I do consider myself lucky to be alive at the same time as this intellectually provocative giant.

Would it, I wonder, be possible for Dawkins to capitalise on his uncontestable fame to occupy the same 'fuck, that woke me up' moment in educating us about his views, without that, sorry to say, ever evident feeling that he's trying too hard to find some impossible middle ground in his dianoetic expositions? Can he be persuaded to stop being just so wonderfully fucking nice to his antagonists?

What do you think?

Best,
Styrer

848. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97333 by Styrer- on December 11, 2007 at 10:43 pm

I will work on an intelligent response to this later, even if I don't post it.

In the meantime, I'm afraid I'm just weeping and weeping.

Does anyone else here ever feel the same, despite the Prof's work?

Styrer

849. This deadly religious resistance to vaccinations

Comment #96873 by Styrer- on December 11, 2007 at 3:16 am

'For many, the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far — not least because, by the standards science itself sets, it fails the test of evidence. It is merely a theory.'

'Scientific knowledge may have dealt a serious blow to religious belief, but science does not fill the gaps in our understanding of existence. It does not explain the irreduceable complexity of certain cells for example, which cannot have been formed by simple organisms coming together. And contrary to Darwin's theory that evolution is a slow and continuous process, the fossil record itself shows long periods where nothing happened and then several new species -- just like buses -- came along at once.'

- Melanie Philips, Faithhead.

How much longer can the sheer wickedness of these faith-heads' pernicious, disingenuous dogma be allowed to run riot over human beings' welfare?

It's particularly at blood-boiling times like this that my gratitude to Dawkins et al. skyrockets.

They're the best shot we have.

Styrer

850. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96315 by Styrer- on December 10, 2007 at 10:41 am

The festive season is certainly bringing the Professor a good deal of reading material to get through...

I wonder if anyone one here or anywhere else, besides Dawkins, actually reads any of this stuff? (Presumably he does, not only to see what new heights in misrepresentation etc. the loons can reach, but also to see if, by any chance, maybe, just once, one of them can come up with an at least semi-original line of rebuttal he can get his teeth into.)

Happy Christmas reading, Richard.

Best,
Styrer