901. Curriculum for Baptist School

Comment #62388 by Corylus on August 9, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Wow, I was getting depressed about this one but then I took a look at the curriculum and the phrase 'shooting oneself in the foot' came to mind.

Do they have the slightest comprehension of the work of the thinkers that they are actually teaching??

Especially in English... (10th Grade)

The Enlightenment and Revolution literature covered is Tartuffe, the writings of Rousseau, Newton, Descartes, Faust, William Blake, Wordsworth and George Elliot.

Well Blake, although a mystic, was a complete non-conformist and as for George Eliot - near as dammit to an atheist as I have ever read e.g. -

God, immortality, duty -- how inconceivable the first, how unbelievable the second, how peremptory and absolute the third.

(hmm.. maybe they don't even realise that 'George' wasn't a bloke...)

Then later...

The study will include Pygmalion, Cry, the Beloved Country, The Chosen, My Antonia, a Russian writer study, Hemingway and Dylan Thomas.

Bernard Shaw!! Lets look at what he said....

The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

Then Ernest "all thinking men are atheists" Hemingway.

Bugger me! The peasants will revolt...

Smiles.

902. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62178 by Corylus on August 8, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Wow V. Thanks for the 'young'! People tend to assume I'm ancient.

Understandable. I spent a little while recently reading books written by miserable old fossils and I am afraid that the writing style has rubbed off.

For the record though, re my age, I am fluttering around the 30 mark (on a point of principle I refuse to say precisely where). I describe myself in the following terms:

Old enough that people expect me to be sensible: young enough to fight that expectation.

Don't worry. I don't consider you to be an 'old chook' for the simple reason that the above description also appears (happily) to refer to yourself :-)

903. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #62057 by Corylus on August 8, 2007 at 3:44 am

Well Done Veronique on sorting the avatar: a top one it is too!

I am looking forward to watching this, but I fear I may be feeling a bit sheepish.

I must confess to an 'occult' phase in my teens. Although over religion, I did manage to believe in some drivel. I justified it with Jung and philosophical idealism. Looking back I suspect this was due to:

a) adolescent rebellion

b) a lack of understanding of the fact that we take in alot of sensory information about the world without realising it and process it unconsciously. Then (often after a good snooze and some dreaming: when our little brains are busy sifting information) we find ourselves just 'knowing' things.

and finally (since I am in a "confessional" mood)

c) a realisation that Goths had the coolest clothes.

Sigh... I'm better now - but I still like wearing black ;)

904. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61733 by Corylus on August 6, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Arrh! Avatar overload! (I know I shouldn't have nibbled on funny looking mushroom the other day...) Scuttles back to dormouse nest to sleep it off.

905. Yellowstone's Wolves Save Its Aspens

Comment #61731 by Corylus on August 6, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Anyone else who thinks wolves are stunningly beautiful, amazing creatures (and wants to learn more about issues concerning their reintroduction into environments that they have previously been hunted out of) of might like to check out the following website.

http://www.wolvesandhumans.org/index.htm

906. New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'

Comment #61499 by Corylus on August 5, 2007 at 11:19 am

Interesting debate on tactics.

I would point out that there is a practical reason why this documentary might be a good idea at this time. This is simply publicity. Who hasn't see a documentary, or read a book by someone, enjoyed it, and then gone out to buy the other stuff that this person has produced?

(N.B. I would not be at all surprised if the sales of RD's other books has increased as a consequence of TGD).

TGD is still on the bestseller lists, and easy to find in shops. This documentary could keep the momentum of sales going before it is relegated to the science or religion (or wherever else the booksellers choose to file it!) section of the bookshop. Just a thought.

907. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61404 by Corylus on August 5, 2007 at 3:49 am

Re Comment 6. By Veronique

I have sent you a pm with instructions as to how to sort out an avatar: took me a while to work it out myself.

908. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #61373 by Corylus on August 5, 2007 at 1:31 am

But the real scorn, and I can almost detect a tinge of repressed involuntary hatred beneath his unfailingly polite exterior, falls on spirit mediums, whom Dawkins clearly believes to be little better than confidence tricksters feeding on the emotionally insecure or damaged.

I hear this one. I once accompanied by mother and her friend, one of those people with a life filled with an utterly unfair amount of bereavement (several dead children) to a show given by a well known British medium. The entire theatre in which it was held was packed - a sellout.

The atmosphere was awful. There was this mixture of a simple desire to see someone "from the telly" in the flesh, the hope for a good 'show', ghoulish curiosity, and (worst of all) underneath all of it a dreadful sense of desperation.

N.B. My mother's friend was not picked out, but one man was made very happy by being 'visited' by his dead dog.

909. The Out Campaign

Comment #61309 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 2:24 pm

stevencarrwork

You are terrifyingly well read. Hereby making a note to self never to get into a scrap with you...

910. The Out Campaign

Comment #61273 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Thank you bls :)

911. The Out Campaign

Comment #61246 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 10:36 am

Wee Flea wrote

Could someone please explain why some people have this deep need to psychoanalyse me?

I don't know David, maybe it is because some of us like to make predictions based upon the evidence of previous data and then wait to see if said predictions come to pass.

Like for instance, my comment no187 or #60027.

I predict he will reply on this thread again (despite saying he is off to Bulgaria). I also predict that he will misrepresent every comment addressed to him, make out that he is being verbally flayed and sorely persecuted, subject to all manner of incivility and generally is a poor battered pup. He will ignore every kind comment and dismiss any evidence of common humanity...

Just a thought...

P.S. Enjoy Bulgaria and well done for learning to blockquote.

912. The Out Campaign

Comment #61178 by Corylus on August 4, 2007 at 3:29 am

Veronique

Hi. It seems that Wee Flea has taken my advice and packed his bags without reposting. I'm glad about that, not only does he shamelessly hijack threads, but I really don't think he is doing himself any favours emotionally by coming on here to get told off.

Re, Henri, well I have suspected from some time that he might well take on board Nietzsche's misogyny as well as his other views: seems I was right. (I would dearly love to introduce him to my old sensei: 5ft 2", 8 stone and terrifyingly capable of beating the living crap out of anyone who annoyed her, but I digress).

I am not going to let him get me wound up (I have already told one person off on this thread for sexist assumptions - I really haven't the energy to do it twice): I am just pleased that he takes on Nietzsche's misogyny rather than his philosophical predecessor that miserable old prick Schopenhauer...

You might enjoy his essay "On Women". Classic!

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter7.html

Try not to spit your tea out. NB It was Q who prescribed tea and Bach BTW. I tend to advise stronger beverages and Metallica ;)

913. In Games, an Insight Into the Rules of Evolution

Comment #61089 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I'm puzzled - happens alot :(

The way I see it the Prisoner's Dilemma is a thought experiment, with purely arbitrary rules. As with all thought experiments it is simplistic and divorced from the complicated thing that we call reality. Sure you can look at it mathematically: but it is a thought experiment nonetheless.

To say the following may be justified...

The Prisoner's Dilemma may be abstract, but that's why Dr. Nowak likes it. It helps him understand fundamental rules of evolution, just as Isaac Newton discovered that objects in motion tend to stay in motion.

However, to say the following seems to be an unsubstantiated leap from here..

In recent papers, Dr. Nowak has argued that cooperation is one of the three basic principles of evolution. The other two are mutation and selection.

Sounds suspiciously like group selection to me ( a rose by any other name would smell as sweet), but maybe I'm reading too much into this..

Next:

But cooperation is essential for life to evolve to a new level of organization. Single-celled protozoa had to cooperate to give rise to the first multicellular animals. Humans had to cooperate for complex societies to emerge.

Careful, lets not attribute agency to protozoa...

Subsequently,

Cancer is a breakdown of cooperation,

Huh?? So now cancer has agency. I see.

Finally,

Evolution describes the fundamental laws of nature according to which God chose to unfold life.

Oh for pity's sake!!

By this analysis the following is true:

Protozoa act in accordance to the fundamental laws by which God choose to unfold life.
Co-operation is evidence of agency
Single-celled protozoa co-operate.
Single-celled protozoa therefore have agency.
God must have thus given cells agency.
Breakdown of co-operation leads to cancer.
Therefore God causes cancer.

Not the most tightly argued set of logical statements I have ever produced, but it is late and I have had some wine...I am also conscious that I know more about philosophy than science.

Have I got the science of this completly arse-upwards? If so could some friendly scientist tell me what I have missed??

914. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #61034 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 11:37 am

Hmm, I admit my first comment was a bit flippant and thoughtless - rightfully chastized BAEOZ! Hangs head.

However, on further reflection, I am actually seeing opportunity here. As I understand it these books are bought by people who actually wish to learn things, but are willing to be self-depreciating about their current state of knowledge. (E.g. 80 year olds buying Computing for Dummies because they want to know how to research their family tree online).

What easily accessible books can you currently recommend to people (those with really short attention spans), when you want to show them that atheists are not necessarily miserable buggers or immoral slugs?

I presently go for Julian Baggini's - Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (From the Very Short Introductions range). However, this hasn't even been reviewed by anyone on Amazon yet and it has been out for a couple of years now. Books by philosophers aren't known for being best sellers.

Maybe if anyone is going to write "Atheism for Dummies" it should be RDF?? There is enough material on this site for several such books. There could be nice friendly pictures of happy atheists. Little text boxes with arguments about Hilter and atheism. That sort of thing.

This could be a moneyspinner for RDF, and show that atheists can have a sense of humour as well (rather than sitting in cafes, dressed in black, looking miserable, and smoking French cigarettes).

Another point. It may be that someone is already planning such a book, which badly done could be an absolute disaster...

Thoughts anyone?

1) Good Idea?
2) Neutral Idea?
3) Bad Idea?
4) Dreadful Idea?
5) Corylus talking out of her furry little butt?

915. The Out Campaign

Comment #60854 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 2:28 am

Sigh, one last bash...

David, I repeat my advice to you that I gave earlier, in the same spirit:

(I'm not being patronising here, I simply don't like seeing anyone really upset).

I really do feel that you need to take some time out to calm down. Look at what causes you stress and try to avoid trigger situations (like maybe this site :)) Enjoy the company of people you like talking to, and being with, and relax. Possibly see your doctor if you think things are getting on top of you.

You now fighting a battle on two different threads on here. This cannot be pleasant. Forget about having the last word. Go to your Bulgaria conference (Sophistry in Sofia or whatever it's called...)

Take some time out. Chill.

916. The Out Campaign

Comment #60825 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 12:37 am

Post 441 by Veronique

I just lost it, sorry everyone.

Don't sweat it : we all get frustrated sometimes :)

BTW. I don't agree with Wee Flea that your vocabularly is 'inadequate' - I actually thought it was quite wide ranging ;)

917. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #60820 by Corylus on August 3, 2007 at 12:22 am

I looked to see if there was a 'complete idiot's guide to atheism'. Couldn't find one.

918. The Out Campaign

Comment #60662 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Interesting links Goldy :)

919. The Out Campaign

Comment #60644 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 3:12 pm

Wee Flea wrote:

I believe the Bibles teaching about human sexuality. Therefore sex should take place in the context of marriage between one man and one woman

I am actually interested in breaking this down, looking at the definintions you use and seeing which points are primary and which are secondary. (Tedious philosophical habit: bear with me).

First "marriage"

a) Do you see this as a merely a contractual thing aka Kant? "Marriage (matrimonium), which is the Union of two Persons of different sex for life-long reciprocal possession of their sexual faculties"

b)Or is it a covenant between individuals and God, and witnessed by society: Classic:
"... we are gathered here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this man and this woman in holy matrimony....."

What was it the Princess Di said? "There were three people in that marriage" (Opps!)

c) Or is it a promise between two people witnessed by God (in fact you could say that all promises are witnessed by God if you see God as omnipresent).

Secondly, "one man and one woman".

Well, prima facie, this is pretty clear: polygamy and polyandry are out, however, this contract ends at death. Arh, but you appear to believe in life after death so even that is not so easy. Plus we have the whole question of what constitutes 'man' and what constitutes 'woman'.

E.g. We know enough about genetics now to say that simple XX and XY aren't always the case. Also what about gender realignment?

(BTW: You are always moaning that none of Dawkins' "acolytes" disagree with him, I will give you an example here. He seems to think that there is no difference between sex and gender; and that gender is merely a PC term; I actually think that this is a tad simplistic - but I digress).

Now what is more important the "context of marriage" or the "one man and one woman bit"? You can assume:

a) that you need both equally: OK. However, one problem: there is a particularly charming practise in Arabic Countries of 'one night marriages'. They fit the bill 'marriage' & 'man and woman' plus witnessed by God, 'cos he's everywhere. Trouble is something stinks doesn't it?

b) You could say that the 'context of marriage' is the most important bit. OK, this means that no sex before marriage for any of us, no "trying before you buy, children". However, this does mean that the ceremony is everything. You can shag your poodle as long as you say the right words...

c) You could say that the 'man and woman' bit is the most important bit. However, this means that the ceremony is merely window dressing.

I know this may sound like linguistic hair-spliting. However, I use this to make the following point..... It's not that simple David.

It never is.

920. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #60606 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 12:02 pm

IQHQ

Apologies for not responding earlier (a certain distracting Flea... sigh). N.B. I admire your coming back to play on this thread. Gutsy.

I am afraid I am not going to be able to make as long and detailed response to you as I would like (and your post deserves) because:

1) New Atheist has made some of my points for me (particularly the quote from RD) and

2) I have been thoroughly told off recently for spending too long 'addicted' to this site. I fear a 'tough love' intervention soon...NO!! Don't take away my Modem...PLEASE - sobs, I can give up whenever I like ... whimpers.. ;-)

I would like to make a couple of points though:

Firstly, I would say is that I think that your labouring under a false assumption to wit:

Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

I really think that this whole 'God makes people moral' is one of those oft-quoted lies that get believed merely because people say it often enough. My evidence for this? Look at that episode of the Colbert report where an American politican lauding the importance of the 10 commandments is totally stumped after being asked to name them. In fact, ask a religious person of your choice to name the first 5 books of the bible, in order. Buggers can't do it!

What they do is use God as a justification for their actions (whatever action it is that they want to take) this is not the same thing as a reason. There is a huge difference between an excuse and an explantion.

Secondly, you seem to take on Hitchen's view that religion will never die as self-evident. Well, to be honest I simply don't know the question to that one. Same as I don't know the question to whether science will ever answer the ultimate questions. I don't have a crystal ball. What I would say though, is that is makes good methological sense to assume that there are no limits - if there are limits to human development and understanding then we will find them soon enough - let's not go assuming they are there before we do.

Thirdly, you seem to feel that there is a alot of misplaced social idealism going around here. ( E.g. people assuming that if you just educate people enough then everyone will be well adjusted happy secularists).Well maybe and maybe not. I do not think that universal education will cure all of the ills of society. However, you also have to remember that knowledge is cumulative. Dennett makes the point that the education of Muslim women is key. These are the ones that teach their young sons, these are the one who can change things from within. They won't all turn into Hirsi Ali, but they might just stop their boys from being total idiots and blowing themselves up. Five generations later you might get some observable progress. This is a long term business.

Also, religion isn't the only thing to consider, what about education for it's own sake? Social initiatives for their own sake? This is the best way (through example) of showing that atheists aren't immoral slugs. Asking people to give up religion before seeking to help them is not better than making a hungry person say a prayer before giving them a bowl of soup (I know you will get this reference).

Oh bugger, I appear to have whittered on longer than I intended to! Five more minutes with the modem... Please!

Last point: bit of friendly advice. I am a verbose type myself, I love words: I think you are the same. Trouble is that is very easy to sound pompous without meaning to. I have done this myself. I find it helps to throw in the odd emoticon now and then. Yes, I know it looks naff, but they can make the difference between people enjoying eloquence and calling you a *&^$%$.

Best

C.

P.S :)

921. The Out Campaign

Comment #60457 by Corylus on August 2, 2007 at 1:58 am

Wow!

I got an apology. Considering framing it.

At least I didn't get completely ignored.

It's a start David, but I do feel that there are others on here that you owe an apology to as well.

922. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60339 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Huh! "The Unholy Trinity". What about dear old Dennett? When is he going to get some fleas? They could live and die in that beard.

Take on Sophoclaus if you dare!

Why is he less read and responded to? Maybe because he is so measured that it is totally impossible to accuse him of being an atheist fundamentalist?

Or maybe because some dozy reviewers read him and do not understand a soddding word that he says??

If Wee Flea wrote a book on Dennett I would rush to buy with cash money. Please David, hell anyone, read Dennett and give it a bash...

923. The Out Campaign

Comment #60312 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Never mind Yorker! Life is like that.

Happy birthday for the other day BTW :)

924. The Out Campaign

Comment #60271 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Well! I come back from a hard day at the coalface and sit down with a nice hot cup of gin (bugger that tea lark!) and suddenly my gordon's and tonic is spat upon the screen as I wee wee my knickers laughing.

No David I am not a transvestite or one of those disgusting hell bound h-o-m-o-sexuals: I'm all girl.

What on earth possessed you to write the following?

Of course Ellie, Corylus can not trust you to read it for himself (maybe its because he is an inherent sexist?).

and then a bit later:

Yawn. I wish you people could read.

You might want to read my post immediately above your first one: No. 68 or #59859

This where I wax lyrical about my magnificent chest. I don't like to bragg, but I happen to be very proud of them :)

Why assume I'm male? Maybe, because I can obviously string a sentence together and have studied a bit. You might want to think seriously about your own assumptions. Yes Elli is obviously a really pretty girl and men might want to chat to her accordingly. However (no offense Elli!) she really doesn't float my boat...

If you still don't believe me you might actually want to look up the term "Corylus" ... It contains a dirty great clue to my real name and hence my gender: I use it as an in-joke to anyone else on the board into gardening.

Warning: anyone wanting to keep the mystery of not knowing one of Corylus' little secrets: do NOT click.

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

'Cuse me David, I feel I cannot continue on this board any longer, all this talk of hard philosophy and science. I simply can't go on... damm oestrogen!! clogging my neural tissue as we speak...

and anyway I need to change my knickers...

925. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #60108 by Corylus on August 1, 2007 at 2:54 am

Top rant V!

Asking Biz and Wee Flea to pay subs...

Classic :)

926. The Out Campaign

Comment #60027 by Corylus on July 31, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Elli

Just have to say that I think you have made really excellent posts recently. As for being 'young and green', I think from your picture that you are a bit younger than me, but not by much, don't do yourself down :)

Re David Robertson. Can I refer you to an article he actually wrote? I won't ask you to read all the comments. (There's over 900 and that would be mean!) Just his article is enough.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson

Try for a moment to set aside the fact that the 'letter' in question is dreadfully argued and completely unstructured, ignore the arguments written and, instead think about the kind of person that would actually write this.

I actually find David interesting from a psychological viewpoint. E.g. There are references to him not 'being an Oxford Don' or 'part of the establishment' (conveniently ignoring the fact that he uses the title 'Reverend' to get himself published in all manner of newspapers) juxtaposed with this are snide denigrating statements about 'even the darkest mind'.

Say what you want about David, but that guy is a black belt passive/aggressive. His position appears not to be "I'm Ok, You're Ok" but rather "I'm dammed, but so are you... SINNER!".

I predict he will reply on this thread again (despite saying he is off to Bulgaria). I also predict that he will misrepresent every comment addressed to him, make out that he is being verbally flayed and sorely persecuted, subject to all manner of incivility and generally is a poor battered pup. He will ignore every kind comment and dismiss any evidence of common humanity (in particular he will ignore Philip, because he will not have the ability or guts to answer his points or enough compassion to want to try).

I suspect this behaviour is about:

1) Seeking opportunities for quote mining and misrepresentation.(SG is right his website is suffused with references to RD) http://www.freechurch.org/
2) Affirmation of his self-inflicted martyr complex.
3) Confirmation of how 'nasty' atheists are - when really they are just irritated by his insulting insinuations.
4) Feeding the flames of a tedious self-perpetuating obsession - which I have to say is really beginning to worry me a bit. (Hence my comment above. I really do feel concerned for David mentally, and I hope he can get himself some help)
5) Finally, (I admit this one is pure speculation, but I think I'm right) finding comments and slights to relay to his poor wife, ad nauseum, and thus boring her witless.

I understand that you would be interested in engaging with someone of dissenting views in reasoned debate - that is one of the reasons that this site is so addictive. However, I tried that once with David and it ended badly - with him completely misrepresenting my statement and me getting vexed.

If you want to chat to him, please do, (your choice) but don't expect him to be as polite and thoughtful as some of the other believers on here like Dianelos, Mark or Paul

N.B. I only, talk past people on here when I really feel that they have crossed the line (it is dreadfully rude otherwise), but I have been reading David's comments for some time now. I have to say, sadly, that he is simply not kind.

927. The Out Campaign

Comment #59961 by Corylus on July 31, 2007 at 8:33 am

Sigh, that's what I get for being concerned about someone else - very possibly my charity wasn't "Christian" enough. Oh well.

928. The Out Campaign

Comment #59945 by Corylus on July 31, 2007 at 8:00 am

Blimy!

I tend to get grumpy when I come back from my hols, but not to that extent...

Joking aside, I'm actually getting a bit concerned for Wee Flea, his last two major posts (this one and the long one regarding the WBC video) have been have been extremely emotional and show a lack of receptiveness to reasoned explanations.

David, (I'm not being patronising here, I simply don't like seeing anyone really upset).

I really do feel that you need to take some time out to calm down. Look at what causes you stress and try to avoid trigger situations (like maybe this site :)) Enjoy the company of people you like talking to, and being with, and relax. Possibly see your doctor if you think things are getting on top of you.

929. The Out Campaign

Comment #59859 by Corylus on July 30, 2007 at 11:47 pm

It's been really interesting to hear everybody's stories: thanks for sharing everyone :)

I really like the T-Shirts myself, my only minor quibble is the sizing. Women's size 36 = XLarge. Huh? That's not extra large, that's normal.

So female atheists are not only cold and unnatural, it appears that they are flat-chested also. Sigh, yet another slur ;)

Guess I'll just have to buy a bloke's one...

930. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59520 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 10:47 am

IQHQ wrote:

That I have been accused of "wanker pretentiousness" is blatantly absurd, not to mention slanderous.

Since it was me that originally accused IQHQ of writing 'pretentious wank', and I am thus accused of slander, I feel constrained to put the record straight. My irritation was in response to his following comment:

See the following thread for context:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1321,His-word-Attacking-religion-can-seem-like-breaking-a-butterfly-on-a-wheel,David-Baddiel

For a species which shares circa 97% of our DNA with chimps, there will always be those who veer towards the chimp side of the intelligence variant, and whose inferior intellect dispose them towards the fake securities and easy answers provided by religions. Since this is so, I bid Professor Dawkins (or, indeed, any of you) to explain the roots of his argument's vehemence. There is no doubt that you are CORRECT. Everyone on this site can see that this is so, but that is surely because we are collectively quite an intelligent bunch. Not everyone will be able or prepared to accept the consequences of your arguments.. do you just respond "so what"? shouldn't we be compassionate to those who NEED religion in a similar way that we are compassionate to less intelligent animals? (Apologies faith-heads!) Surely shouldn't the satisfaction gained from seeing the world through our refined and developed perspective be enough without us needing to have others see sense too?

Another related point refers to your dismissal of religion's "carrot and stick" approach to coercing people into behaving in conformity with a certain moral code. You say, "isn't that a pretty abyssmal reason to be moral? I accept this point and also agree that morality has an evolutionary origin. Yet, my point centres not on how you and I (relatively intelligent men) respond morally to shedding our religion, but rather upon how less educated men and women may. We live in an age where we are surrounded by an anti-intellectualism of philistine proportions. Can you not see how nihilism may be a natural reaction to such people losing faith? Your point about the despicable nature of the "I do good because, if I don't, God will punish me" position neglects the simple fact that, for many, this IS the only reason why they do good.

I considered calling him a sexist, condesending, patronising prat also, but gave him the benefit of the doubt of using the term 'men' to refer to all people. I wouldn't want to be accused of slander after all.

I'm pretty easy going, I rarely get into scraps on here, but I really do not like this assumption that atheism is not a position one takes on the absence of dieties, but a select social club for 'relatively intelligent men' who can use this position as a vantage point from which to look down upon the hoi polloi.

The reality of course is that if people are given access to the educational and social advantages that people IQHQ and myself have obviously enjoyed then they are more likely to be atheists. Intelligence is merely one of a whole variety of possible factors. To assume otherwise is elitist and patronising. Plus, it's pretentious wank.
-----
N.B. Re the IQ debate. I once received a similiar score to IQHQ's on a Mensa test - I just don't feel the need to refer to it in my name.

931. Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour

Comment #59464 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 6:36 am

I was going to try for a really thoughful post.

I was planning to try to get to the bottom of this one by talking about:

a)group mentality (they prop each other up)

b)externalised self-loathing (deep down they know they aren't worthy, but constantly tell themselves they will be chosen, they thus have to denigrate everyone else in order to feel 'special' themselves)

c)repressed and twisted sexuality (E.G. the guy with the "gays are worse than animals T-Shirt" - We are all animals sweetie: deal with it)

d) the desire to be dominated by God and the desire to dominate in turn. (Sick S&M shit. N.B. I have long suspected that the terms 'rapture' and 'passion' when used in a relgious fashion both have pleasure and pain connotations for a specific reason)

But, sod it! No. Stuff the nuanced psychological analysis...

They are INSANE, completely batshit barking MAD.

932. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59439 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 4:06 am

Loved the thong SG!

However, if you do have a "burning bush" problem of this nature, might I suggest consulting with a medical professional?

Dr Benway, you about?

933. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59410 by Corylus on July 29, 2007 at 1:27 am

Josh

I just have to say how much I (and I am sure many others on here) appreciate all the hard work you and your helpers put into this website.

I am sure organising the t-shirt thing involved a great deal of time.

Best

C.

P.S. I love the Hawthorne reference: I think it's classy :)

934. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59182 by Corylus on July 28, 2007 at 1:04 am

Arh, Bluebird,

That explains it: we all need to bulk up in the winter :)

935. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59136 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 1:50 pm

OT - Bluebird

Have you been visiting the garden of someone who likes leaving out lots of bird food/treats?

You are looking a little... chunkier.

Suits you though :)

936. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59133 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Thanks for having the guts to come on here and clarify Glacian.

This person needed only to email you, or place a comment in the forum, and you could have clarified for him personally.

Somehow though, I doubt that this is his style.

937. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #59104 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 10:40 am

Hmm, can't even pronounce 'Torah'. I guess that explains one so rarely hears the term 'Pentateuch' :)

Seriously, guys, (speaking as someone with a psych degree) this guy is ringing my loony alarm bells loud and clear.

Look at him:
A youngish male.
Demonstrating a deep seated sense of personal persecution.
Obviously spends a great deal of time attempting to uncover 'hard' evidence for said conspiracy.
Inability to consider opposing viewpoints / explanations.
Militaristic language.
A strange almost monotonal fashion of talking about a subject he obviously feels strongly about.
Complete lack of facial affect.
(Those last two are particularly worrying)

Wouldn't like to meet him on a dark night...

938. Texas Leads U.S. in Teen Birth Rate

Comment #59025 by Corylus on July 27, 2007 at 2:30 am

This video has been posted on this site before - but for those that missed it first time round...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lPClWkEdES8

A little song about abstinence.

939. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58721 by Corylus on July 26, 2007 at 12:56 am

An Abbott who watches Jim Carrey films - now that is God working in mysterious ways. There's one of my six impossible things before breakfast right there. (Gives them something to do in the monastery I guess).

I am not going to be too harsh on the guy, this was a well written article even if I disagree. Hell, at least he didn't pull out the atheists are moral slugs card...

Our first response to such tragedies is the same for atheist and theist alike: we want to help.

Abbott, if your reading this: Don't bother with Liar, Liar - I watched it and nearly lost the will to live.

940. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58717 by Corylus on July 26, 2007 at 12:36 am

It think it is important to check out the article this is a response to - link at the top of the page.

Barbara Kay's article is just awful. The gist of it appears to be 'well there have always been atheists about, but now they have just got so uppity!'

Dreadful piece. Poorly conceived, badly argued, completely unstructured and spectaculary guilty of the very arrogance of which she accuses atheists.

This is a very measured response.

941. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #58636 by Corylus on July 25, 2007 at 2:28 pm

ReasonIsMyHumeboy

That's great for a first post :)

Plus anyone who mentions Hume is fine by me.

I never had to go through the really tough disullisionment stage that so many on here have to. So I am afraid that I do not really understand...

However, I think you might find some interesting comments on the 'converts corner' part of this website. Top left hand side.

Best.

C.

942. Camp Joins Summer Fun With Teaching Hindu Faith

Comment #58631 by Corylus on July 25, 2007 at 1:50 pm

OK. Thanks for the answers guys :) I think I have a handle on the whole business now. Cultural differences on the board appear to account for my confusion.

Seems that the American/Canadian version of "camping" is somewhat different from the British one.

The Amercian/Canadian version includes kids dispatched without consent, enforced indoctrination and oxymoronic titles. However, on the plus side it does include the possibility of hot running water and a warm bed.

The British version is about parts of your anatomy (that you didn't even know you possessed) turning blue, experiencing the kind of pervasive damp that seeps into your bones and sleeping on a bed consisting of a plastic sheet placed on top of some sharp rocks.

On the plus side, there is no indoctrination and also the vague chance (after a short detour to Mount Doom to drop off a ring) of finding a hostelry to drown your sorrows in.

I really don't know what's worse!

Answers on a postcard...

943. Camp Joins Summer Fun With Teaching Hindu Faith

Comment #58619 by Corylus on July 25, 2007 at 11:56 am

Interesting, no-one seems to be questioning the actual notion of 'summer camp' in its entirety.

Is this 'summer camp' business a good / bad thing in general?

The whole thing seems to me to be a whole exercise in risk. E.g. You might get indoctrinated into all type of cults, you might be a martyr to poison ivy, hell, you might even find yourself in a "Deliverance" type of situation. Strikes me this is not good.

So why send your children on these anyway??? (Irrespective of the ethos of the teachers). I'm puzzled.

N.B. I am willing to be entertained by tales of intellectual growth, spiritual enlightenment and jolly adventures by any who any who have actually attended these bucolic gulags, but at the moment I am unconvinced.

BTW - please do not try any "do not knock it until you have tried it comments". I have tried camping. It was vile. Hideously uncomfortable, freezing cold and the pub was £$^&ing miles away. Talk about going on holiday by mistake...

944. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58349 by Corylus on July 24, 2007 at 3:00 pm

P.S. Dianelos, can I echo Philip's advice and recommend checking out the Sam Harris vs Andrew Sullivan debate.

An interesting read. Link below.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,536,God-Is-Not-a-Moderate,Sam-Harris-and-Andrew-Sullivan-Beliefnetcom

945. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #58336 by Corylus on July 24, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Sam Harris ... hmm, I have to say that he strikes me a bit of an interesting type in so many ways.

Like Dianelos I was surprised at how philosophical The End of Faith was.* I knew he was a philosophy graduate, but still I didn't expect it. I can be very stupid at times! Which means I have to read philosophy books more than once to have even a fighting chance. So, I find myself wondering whether it is actually possible (for me anyway) to understand his books on a first reading.

So, I still don't profess to comprehend it all, but I do think it helps to consider Sam's academic background - philosophy and neuroscience.

There can be a huge dissonance between the two fields. For example you know both how people are supposed to think i.e. clearly, logically (philosophy) and how they actually do think, i.e. sadly predictably in the most part and on occasion really strangely (neuroscience). Those two world views are hard to reconcile. (I see this because the two subjects I have studied most, psychology and philosophy, have similar dissonance. Trying to reconcile them makes my teeth itch).

So, I see Sam's End of Faith as the internal dialogue of a man attempting to simultaneously understand both those beliefs that we cling to and those that we shy away from. Things we think about clearly and things we barely question at all. It is about questioning what we see as self-evident knowledge, so I understand what Dianelos is saying when he says that it is about epistemology.

(N.B. That is why I think the that section on torture is included; the one that Sam gets such grief about. If you are going to do moral philosophy you have to consider the logical end point of every argument, calmly and without fear, because you can be darn sure that at some point someone will come along and consider that same end point in an atmosphere of emotion and terror. Forewarned is forearmed. I actually don't think he is advocating torture, merely considering the conditions where belief in it might arise...)

His book Letter to a Christian nation is very interesting in another way. I reckon it is actually a very impressive work of psychology. It is all about understanding and immersing oneself in a worldview (fundamentalist American Christianity) in its entirety in order to persuade people out of it.

I found myself emotionally completely untouched by the book, other than sometime slightly amused at Sam's persuasive techniques. However, I can envisage some people reading it through and feeling unsettled, deeply disturbed, and, if Sam has judged it right, utterly bereft of certainty.

I don't know whether anyone seems him in this way or maybe I am just talking out of my rear end again. Happens on occasion.

------
*I have to say I didn't sense a lot of anger in it though. Dianelos, have you read Hitchens yet? I freely admit that he tends to get a bit cross at times :)

946. Face to faith

Comment #57950 by Corylus on July 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm

P.S. I take the point of alot of people on here that the study of the role of religion in society is a very interesting subject. I agree. Also, I understand if some people may feel I have been harsh above...

However, I must point out that this piece offers nothing new and is dreadfully unfair to Dennett who bends over BACKWARDS in his book to be even handed and leave open the possibility that religion might have positive consequences for society.

947. Face to faith

Comment #57946 by Corylus on July 22, 2007 at 2:46 pm

This short piece is actually quite informative if only the language in it is properly read.

As someone who one spent some time reading up on cultural theory and postmodernism (hell, anyone can make a mistake!) I offer a translation.

... the study of religion has often been seen as a Cinderella subject, a strange subfield in the academic world with little to do with the pressing questions of the day.

Trans: nobody listens to us, but we don't give a stuff cos we talk each other.

The idea that the study of religion could be an urgent area of cultural inquiry with the potential for generating insights that are as important for our future wellbeing as the study of economics, computer science or the natural sciences still seems implausible to many people."

Trans: Good thing too, because we can then look down on the plebs that don't understand us.

Given this intellectual background, it is remarkable that substantial books about religion have recently become bestsellers, such as Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, as well as Dennett's Breaking the Spell.

Trans: "Those buggers are being read! Why?? Where the %$*& are our royalty cheques?

(Then: Blah, Blah bit of postmodern wank about how the state of the world is all nasty old colonial Europe's fault - no piece of modern social commentary is without this.)

We have seen the emergence of a new generation of commentators about religion who appear blissfully unaware of the field of religious studies and who feel no great obligation to engage with previous scholarship in this area.

Trans: Bastards didn't even cite us.

The criticisms about the gaps and imbalances in Dawkins' work have already been well made. But even in the more carefully scholarly work of Dennett there are worrying trends. His claim, for example, that religion has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to society may appeal to anxious liberals, but belies a lack of knowledge of academic work on religion, politics and violence.

Trans: We all know that religion keeps the masses in check - how dare D & D start the peasants revolting?

(Then: Yet another bit of postmodern wank about how the state of the world is all nasty old colonial Europe's fault)

It is not professional sour grapes to observe that current bestselling books on religion engage too little with existing academic work on the study of religion. Without such knowledge there is a real danger that secular, liberal academics will paint a fearful picture of religion that could distort public perceptions and policy on religion for a generation.

Trans: Shit. What it going to happen to our research grants?

There is a sting in the tail here for serious students and scholars of religion as well. All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles. This needs to change if we want the voices shaping the debates about religion in today's world to be better informed and balanced.

Trans: %$*& it! If you can't beat them join them. Let's all get writing on our atheism books guys!

948. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57375 by Corylus on July 19, 2007 at 3:56 am

Henri

Oh my, you have actually got a moustache haven't you!!!

Re jokes, I use them because they stop people getting wound up - it is easy to get overemotional and misread text and then take offence where none is intended. For the same reason I use little smiley faces alot - they look naff but what the heck.

Seems to me that you are fine at making jokes at other peoples' expense, but not so good at taking those at yours: I would define that as a poor sport.

With regard to whether you 'destroyed' my previous suggestion - I will let others be the judge of that.

949. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57372 by Corylus on July 19, 2007 at 3:38 am

Henri

Do you think Nietzsche understood Islam?

You haven't told us whether or not you have got a moustache BTW - come on, 'fess up ;)

950. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57357 by Corylus on July 19, 2007 at 2:56 am

Bonzai wrote

I have a funny feeling that Bergson is probably a Christian troll trying to argue the tired and resoundingly refuted point that morality cannot have meaning without God by pretending to be a nihilistic fascist. Either that, or he is truly a nihilistic fascist. But why would a nihilist has so much hatred for Islam in particular?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some incognito Christian trolls on here :) However, I don't think Henri is one. I would say that he is actually what he purports to be: a Nietzsche junkie. (Wonder if he has got a moustache?)

Nothing wrong with having a Nietzschean phase, (the writing is wonderfully clear and often funny: "Why I write such good books" what a brilliant heading!) however, it is best to grow out of it when one finishes puberty.

The trouble with seeing morality in terms of 'master and slave' is that it is easy to assume master=good slave=bad. The reality of course, is that the two positions are actually inter-dependant and mutually parasitic: neither can exist without the other. You do not transcend by becoming a Superman, you merely become more dependant on other men to justify your use of the title.

Foucault (of whom Henri seems to approve) actually demonstrated this unthinkingly in his admiration (and I reckon plagiarism) of Nietzsche. Dreadful books, circular and self-referential. Eventually, you realise that viewing morality, or even the world in general, merely in terms of power is mistaken in that you have already stacked your deck against yourself. You make too many assumptions. Your 'histories' merely become personal opinions and the possibility of progress or fundamental change is; by your own definition; ruled out from the start.

It is very important to take a long hard look at your presuppositions, otherwise philosophical statements merely take on the noise of flies buzzing in bottles...

This bring me to why Henri does not like Islam. Well, I don't think it a sense of concern for the oppressed, I rather suspect it is because that Islam causes a problem for his Nietzschean world view. How can one with any legitimacy talk about a christian 'slave' morality when there is another religion out there with the name of 'submission' that puts it to the pale? One has to consider the possibility that Nietzsche was short-sighted or even.... wrong. Always unsetting when one's idols fall.

Pewkatchoo comment #204 - bloody well said.