1001. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153083 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 am

65. Comment #153036 by Edanator on March 31, 2008 at 11:12 pm

I'm also disappointed to see South Africa voting in favor. Anyone has a clue why they voted as they did?

Is that a serious question?

1002. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153080 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:30 am

By the way, ladies and gentlemen, Bonzai and I will be taking your silence as assent to the policy that we shoot Islamic terrorists with bullets coated in pigs' blood, and if they succeed in blowing themselves up, cut off the family jewels and feed them to the swine.

1003. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153078 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:27 am

Who said this?

The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history.

If you answered "Osama Bin Laden", award yourself a gold star, or crescent if you prefer.

What's interesting about this is how an act of post-colonial non-intervention got into a list of colonial interventions.

It might lead one to the suspicion that the supposed "foreign policy" justification for terrorism is spurious, and done for the benefit of western liberals. Further suspicion might be drawn from the fact that al-Qaeda's propaganda links the 7/7 bombings to British participation in Iraq, but that the actual bombers curiously failed to mention it in their suicide videos.

Putting together a laundry list of grievances, real or imagined, is a time-honoured terrorist tradition. It has almost nothing to do with the war aims and much to do with garnering support, fundraising and negotiating with the enemy. ETA and the IRA used exactly the same tactics. Even around the table, they (the IRA) managed to spin the whole thing out for 10 years, while carrying on smuggling, money laundering, extortion, gun-running, kidnapping, robbery and intimidation. It's hard to deal peacefully with an organisation that insists on addressing everything, from the shooting of civilians on Bloody Sunday to rain at a Gaelic football match, before giving up a single bullet.

No, I am not comparing al-Qaeda to the IRA, who at least believed that life was better than death. But surely there are some lessons to be learned.

1004. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153073 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:07 am

Well maybe it is incredibly stupid. It would be nice to know why, though.

1005. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153070 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:03 am

269. Comment #152879 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 5:01 pm

What if they get killed with bullets coated with pig blood. Do they still go to heaven?

I've asked a similar question before and never got a straight answer. My suggestion was that the bodies of the 7/7 bombers be fed to pigs; or perhaps just their tallywhackers. Then let them take their chances with their theology.

No one has yet explained to me why this is a bad idea.

1006. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152664 by hungarianelephant on March 31, 2008 at 10:06 am

155. Comment #152654 by Fanusi Khiyal on March 31, 2008 at 9:54 am

You still haven't answered how you can defend against barbarism without such a visceral solidarity.

I'd like to think that you can get the reasonable people onside and marginalise the nutjobs, then deal with what you hope will be a small number effectively.

I'd like to think this, but at the moment I don't see it being done. In fact, British government policy at least seems to be to try to get the nutjobs inside the tent in the fond hope that they will behave more reasonably. This is known as the Surrey Bowls Club Gambit - once you get the troublemaker on the committee, he might stop making such a terrible fuss and we can all get back to our tea and cucumber sandwiches.

The small hole in this policy is that government is not the Surrey Bowls Club, jihadists are not dissident members and there's more at stake than the fixture list and the cleaning contract.

If I were a jihadist, I would be most encouraged by the political progress to date, and draw further lesseons from the capitulation to the IRA. And while I would be disappointed that my brothers seemed to be much better at killing each other than killing infidels, I would recognise that it is ultimately irrelevant as long as you win on politics.

1007. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152449 by hungarianelephant on March 31, 2008 at 4:01 am

AFAIK, it is correct that the CofE is obliged to maintain a record of baptisms and therefore can't delete records.

On top of that, there's a decision in Ireland that the (Catholic) church can't be told to delete the record anyway, since it's "essential to the administration of church affairs". In that case the church did offer to add a note that the person no longer wished to be associated with the church. Just rechecked and it is now on www.dataprotection.ie with the snappy title "Case Study 8".

This was probably because of a Spanish case where the court actually ordered the church to add such a note. Sorry, can't find that reference.

Data protection law is pretty much the same througout the EU and you'd expect similar results. So if you really care about this stuff, you should probably write to the church you were baptised in and ask them to update their records.

Bizarrely, the CofE isn't considered a government body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. So if you want to get information it holds about you, you'll have to pay your £10 under the Data Protection Act.

LeeC's approach sounds more fun, as long as you're confident that there's no male pattern baldness in your family. So I'm screwed.

Edit: Hey, Josh, we might all be a bit backwards over here, but don't you know that RD is British AND still used pounds sterling? How's about a little htmlentities() for us limeys?

1008. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151133 by hungarianelephant on March 28, 2008 at 7:34 am

229. Comment #151122 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:20 am

I wouldn't call the Catholic Church moderate. But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

No, but it institutionalises it and makes it much harder to break.

Similarly I don't believe that stupid tribal disputes are only conducted by religious people. The problems in Northern Ireland were, at their core, territorial rather than philosophical. But "Protestant" and "Catholic" became particularly useful crutches for continuing the battle long after the original protagonists were dead. Strip out religion and you're left with groups of people who have more in common with each other than their neighbours - a situation that's hardly favourable to maintaining strict political divisions like British / Irish or Nationalist / Unionist. It's the shoe-horned religious identity that has the survival power.

Fundamentalism and moderation might be red herrings in that particular problem.

1009. Fleabytes

Comment #151043 by hungarianelephant on March 28, 2008 at 4:15 am

Isn't anyone going to put in a vote for Czech beers? Velkopopovický Kozel is quite splendid, and has the further merit of being easier to pronounce after the fourth one.

And Tyler, you're crazy. Guinness doesn't hold a candle to Porterhouse Oyster Stout. Not even in Mulligans. So there.

1010. Fleabytes

Comment #150728 by hungarianelephant on March 27, 2008 at 10:26 am

Where is Paula while such important topics are being discussed on her thread?

Still shopping for her 3000 post frock?

1011. Fleabytes

Comment #149968 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 11:17 am

clodhopper - I'm confused. Isn't that what the Pope is for?

1012. Fleabytes

Comment #149963 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 11:13 am

6977. Comment #149933 by mlearnedfriend on March 26, 2008 at 10:40 am

In this case the rules are common sensical. If it purports to be history then treat it as history, allegory - then allegory, Poetical then poetical. Oh, and if you are confused LOOK AT THE CONTEXT - as in Luke 10.

So, it's not just a set of made up rules according to how I feel - it's what 'homiletical' rules are suitable for the genre.

OK, thanks mlf, that's a start.

Now, how do you decide what bits of the bible purport to be what?

And then when you have decided, how can you be sure that your interpretative rules lead to a clear result? That would be a remarkable achievement, given that there is barely a legal statute on the books which has not suffered from interpretation problems. And that's when the rules of interpretation are clear and fixed, the authors have approved it word for word and it's in the original language.

1013. Fleabytes

Comment #149778 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 8:16 am

6946. Comment #149764 by mlearnedfriend on March 26, 2008 at 8:06 am

not me that determines what is a 'metaphor' - rules of interpretation and context says that.

What rules are those? My bible seems to have been printed without the Definitions and Interpretation section. Can you send me a copy of yours, please?

1014. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149739 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 7:39 am

5. Comment #149729 by Spinoza on March 26, 2008 at 7:33 am

Lucas, I understand the sentiment, but ignorance, delusion, and stupidity are not fairly punishable by death.

Apparently they are in this case. It's just that the death is not of the ignorant, delusional and stupid.

1015. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149735 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 7:36 am

Dr Benway - And that's why I said "to the extent that it can be said to have a purpose".

In the human example, the agent is the DNA. What it has always done is to make copies of itself. And if some copies are imperfect, and as a result better at making copies of themselves, those copies will tend to predominate. No intent, of course. It just is.

As conscious beings, we can consciously invent purposes for ourselves. What wooter seems unable to grasp is the notion that there might be properties which aren't consciously invented, but just are. I was hoping to apply a little shock-treatment rather than dancing around this issue. It's probably not productive, but a good deal more fun than what I'm supposed to be doing right now.

1016. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149692 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 6:07 am

326. Comment #149658 by emptybrain on March 26, 2008 at 4:21 am

751 words, most of them English. And it's still incomprehensible.

Still, there seem to be a few questions here, so here's some answers.

What is the purpose of the earth's revolving around the sun and itself?
None.

What's the purpose of oxygen, carbon dioxide, trees, sunlight,
None to the first two and the last. The purpose of trees, to the extent that they can be said to have a purpose, is to make more copies of trees.

What is the purpose of chickens, sheep, cows, bees,?
To the extent that they can be said to have a purpose, to make more copies of chickens, sheep, cows and bees. The purpose of the comma is to delimit items in a list, except in a wooter list where it serves no obvious purpose.

Now before we go on, it would be nice if there would be some indication that you've at least tried to understand these answers. Over to you.

1017. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149198 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 8:58 am

45. Comment #149170 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:13 am

So what if most Christians are ignorant? It doesn't mean they are somehow more "honest" or "authentic" then the few that we happen to engage.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. Although I would say that labels like "honest" / "dishonest" / "authentic" / "fake" are simply not meaningful when applied to many people who call themselves Christians. They imply a degree of thought which simply isn't there.

Didn't Jesus say that most people will seek but wouldn't find and that the truth path is narrow? :)

So it is written. Not sure I trust the chain of authority, though.

If someone comes up and claims to be a Christian, I think a basic courtesy of discourse would be to let him tell you what he actually believes and take it from there, rather assuming what he must believe, or worse, to tell him what he should believe when his views don't fit our expectations and reflexively making accusation of dishonesty.

There's surely a difference between "assuming what he must believe" and "telling him what he should believe"? If I describe myself as a libertarian, you'd generally take it as read that I espouse certain views on certain political subjects. If it turns out that I think that house arrest without charge is a good idea, or that unearned income should be taxed at 99%, then you would be entitled to draw some provisional conclusions about my honesty. And you would certainly be entitled to question whether I was really a libertarian. What you couldn't do is tell me that as a libertarian I am not allowed to believe these things. I think we are agreed thus far.

"Christian" generally implies certain beliefs. They were codified 1700 years ago in the various creeds, and while there have always been some different flavours, it was understood what the core was.

Now if people want to describe themselves as Christian while disclaiming the virgin birth, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has now said they can, then I don't really see a problem with that, other than that it is probably a ruse to hold onto a childhood security blanket while pretending to be a thinking adult. But what they have to understand is that in doing so, they are stripping the term of meaning. If people want to say that they are Christians because they follow the "essential message of Christ", whatever the blue bejesus that means, fine. But they cannot then claim refuge in numbers amongst mainstream Christians who do believe in what they understand of the creed.

And what they really can't do is claim to be Catholic, or some other particular organised part of a religion, while taking no responsibility for what that organisation gets up to. The Catholic church still has a lot of clout in some countries. It presumes to lecture us on morality, with the weight of its considerable membership said to stand behind it. If the members don't believe in what it says, and continue to treat it as a Sunday social club without speaking out, then they're hypocrites.

Now if they feel free enough to believe in a mismash of things like picking from an all you can eat buffet I would think that they wouldn't align themselves automatically with Churches.

Except they do, don't they? Here in Ireland, even in the dark days, paganism was never fully suppressed. Devout believers also believe in the banshee, fairy trees and astrology. We even have psychics on the radio.

1018. Fleabytes

Comment #149169 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 8:11 am

6886. Comment #149070 by mikejswalker on March 25, 2008 at 4:35 am

The irish question was at least given a chance to be resolved by a rule that said the epithets should stop.

That's an interesting view. Assembly members at Stormont are actually compelled to describe themselves as "unionist" or "nationalist" - to segregate themselves from the outset. This is apparently done to promote cohesion.

I won't say any more about Northern Ireland because I don't understand it. Not even a little bit. And I strongly suspect that those who say they do haven't studied it closely enough, rather like quantum mechanics.

(Sorry, this post reads as a nit-pick, which it is. Your overall point is well made. Though as Dr B says, there has to be at least some level of agreement on the conduct of discourse. There may be something in the Middle East. I don't see it in Kashmir yet.)

1019. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149160 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

25. Comment #149080 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 5:08 am & ensuing discussion

Ancient Middle Eastern languages were not direct and literal like English, they used a lot allusions and metaphores in a way that were weaved into normal speech seamlessly. It is not like in contemporary English where you can tell relatively easily which is which. Aside from the fact that English is a relatively straight forward language, the ease in parsing is partly due to an unspoken shared cultural references. To decipher what Biblical passages meant to the contemporary audience would involve a lot of linguistic and anthropological forensic work, which is the subject of Biblical scholarship.

I am not saying all moderate believers study Biblical scholarship but to say that the only consistent way to believe is to take the whole book word for word in translation is simply naive.

Wrt most of Christianity, I would say that this is rather beside the point.

Most Christians I know have only the vaguest notion of what it is they are supposed to believe in. Generally they don't get to the end of the Apostles' Creed before their faith disappears into a general mish-mash of angels, ghosts, karma and pagan hangovers. It's considered an extraordinary achievement to have actually read the bible. Indeed, before Vatican II in 1967, Catholics were told they weren't allowed to see it in their own language. I'm sure many of us here realised we were atheists when we started asking straightforward questions about our faith, and not getting any straightforward answers.

Given that these selfsame people align themselves unashamedly to churches which hold recognisably fundamentalist positions, I think we are entitled to call them for hypocrisy, if nothing else.

1020. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149064 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 4:30 am

And these "atheist presuppositions" are what, exactly?

1021. Two More Fleas

Comment #147654 by hungarianelephant on March 21, 2008 at 4:39 am

499. Comment #147587 by emptyhead on March 20, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Next is Hungryelephant

We've discussed this. It's Reverend Hungarian Elephant to you.

They brought you here because you keep screaming in science club like "The human eye, even a perfect one, does not function better than a half-decent camera."

Actually I said that once. If I wanted to scream, I would type in block capitals, thusly:

But dear this is really elementary biology, human eye is the best camera. You can check google and any other web pages HOW OUR EYES WORK PERFETCLY. If you want me to go in detail, I can, but it is quite obvious. Even that guy, he is my patient too, yeah DARWIN, EVEN HE CANNOT MAKE UP A STORY ABOUT EYES AND HE ADMITS THAT EYES ARE PERFECT.

Wooter, what biology book are you reading? Would it be the one where a human is created out of another human's rib, just before she is condemned to difficult childbirth due to disobedience rather than having a mal-designed pelvis? Cos that one's a bit out of date now. We've moved on somewhat since then.

I've given you the data comparing a human eye to a camera. You could check it with some very simple research. But instead you are reduced to shouting about "how our eyes work perfetcly" (sic). Go on then. Find me the data which shows that human eyes work better than modern cameras in respect of any accepted measurement of optics: resolution; aperture; sensitivity; dynamic range; and capture interval. Then take it to Canon or Nikon, and make yourself some serious money.

Now, Darwin. Here is what Darwin actually said:

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

I'd agree with you that this is not "making up a story" about eyes. But not for the reasons you think.

He did use the word "perfect"; of course this was before we had well developed lens technology. If you read carefully, you'll see that he didn't use the word "human". That's because, even then, it was known that human eyes are actually not very good compared to some other birds and animals. An eagle's vision is four times sharper than a human's. Which means that, at best, the human eye is 25% perfect.

Here's a question for you. Why would God give us eyes which were only 25% perfect?

Okay let me give an example: Your eyes and the best came on the earth walk in an exhibition center which has got many people, food service, sample shows, etc a very alive. You have got the whole day. This is a competition. Your eyes and the best camera will take the pictures of everything, people, food, shows etc you eye on. Time and speed of taking pictures are deadly important. At the end of 24 hours, the judge will check your memory and the best camera
The result is obvious right! No camera can compete with the speed of eyes that take the pictures through a blink with the fastest zoom in and at the same time sending them to memory.

That's just wishful thinking. The eyes might give you different kinds of impressions, but eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. If 20 people did this, you would get 20 different accounts. You would fall back on the camera's record, because it is accurate. That is why video evidence is so important in courts of law.

You goy it, now. The more you mention about eyes, the more people will believ that eyes are INCONVINCIBLE.

Wooter, if you want to shout, it would have more effect if you shouted an actual word.

You are a pathetic specimen. I have met border collies who are less impervious to facts. I have encountered granite boulders less stubborn. There are kudu on the Botswanan plains who would be ashamed to construct analogies as poor as yours. The daffodils in my garden would write more convincing dialogue, given access to a computer. There are washing machines which have a better understanding of the difference between reproductive and non-reproductive organisms than you. You have been here for months without writing anything even slightly sensible, or convincing anyone of anything other than your own stupidity. Why are you doing this? Would you not be more useful praying to your god in a church somewhere?

1022. Two More Fleas

Comment #147429 by hungarianelephant on March 20, 2008 at 11:37 am

491. Comment #147426 by The Reverend Dark on March 20, 2008 at 11:31 am

Oh, and everyone, happy upcoming Jewish Zombie day - do you all have enough shotgun shells, bats or bladed weapons?

I have my mother in law over. Does that count?

Although come to think of it, she'll likely be at Mass for most of the weekend. What a waste of a perfectly good holiday.

1023. Two More Fleas

Comment #147227 by hungarianelephant on March 20, 2008 at 3:49 am

Oh, and it's Reverend Elephant to you. (Thanks Ian Bamlett. I intend to have some fun with this.)

1024. Two More Fleas

Comment #147226 by hungarianelephant on March 20, 2008 at 3:46 am

478. Comment #147215 by vacantmind on March 20, 2008 at 3:26 am

Elephant what on earth are you doing here? You are okay? What? The worms keep asking you to bow them since they think they are the ancestors of you. I see. You are sick and tired of it. Don't worry. I will talk to them. Now you go and take a rest. Stay away from the worms and stick with your own KIND. That will help.

I think you are mistaken. The worms are not my ancestors. We have a common ancestor, several million generations back. That makes them my xxxth cousins.

I'm not in the habit of bowing down to my cousins. Unlike your ancestors, who have apparently been much more intimate with theirs for some considerable time.

Ideas pass through your little clear mind like neutrinos, don't they? How did anything at all stick? Did you run out of space after you acquired a belief in Birmingham Palace?

1025. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146780 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 11:59 am

88. Comment #146770 by Teratornis on March 19, 2008 at 11:42 am

I read one interpretation that this also applies to weather forecasters, people who predict the outcomes of sporting matches, investment advisors, economists who make projections

So there is something good in religion, then.

and of course scientists.

Ah.

1026. Fleabytes

Comment #146610 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 8:12 am

6198. Comment #146600 by Pathfinder on March 19, 2008 at 8:06 am

The only thing is, if I were not a Christian I would be far, far worse.

So you're saying that you're such an asshole that you need the threat of eternal damnation by a sky-bully to keep it down to comparing people to mass murderers?

I think we're done.

1027. Fleabytes

Comment #146580 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 7:52 am

6174. Comment #146566 by Pathfinder on March 19, 2008 at 7:43 am

Flagged offensive.

There is absolutely no call for comparing posters here to mass murderers. Did you learn to do that in church?

1028. Fleabytes

Comment #146560 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 7:36 am

6163. Comment #146539 by mlearnedfriend on March 19, 2008 at 7:19 am

accuracy of subsequent versions? - an ancient oral tradition was more accurate than the game chinese whispers as played today by our digital colleagues. Firstly you were expected to learn it word for word and secondly this was only a one generation time delay.

I'm not sure how this helps you.

It might mean that a traditional verse survives with reasonable accuracy. But first, someone has to put it into this form. You would have to establish that this was the eye witness, or at least that the eye witness was able to audit the verse version. How are you going to achieve that?

1029. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146527 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 7:01 am

Perhaps I'm missing something, but where does it say in the bible that lesbianism is wrong? Or do we think this is a lot of screwed up people making a load of things up?

1030. Two More Fleas

Comment #146457 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 5:35 am

Since we have this:
416. Comment #146419 by clearmind on March 19, 2008 at 4:23 am

To Mphil
(construct a proof of at least 40 steps of whatever logical theorem you like.)
1. My best camera like eyes refute evolution

- as part of a supposedly logical argument, we may as well start here.

AFAIK, this is wooterspeak for "eyes perform better than a camera, therefore evolution is false". Apart from the obvious non-sequitur and the fact that the evolution of the eye have been explained many times in this forum, the basic premiss is false. The human eye, even a perfect one, does not function better than a half-decent camera.

This is obvious if you consider how it is that we are able to do photography as art, so that the photo shows things in a way which we do not believe we see.

The human eye has a fixed focal length of 22mm approx. It has no zoom capabilities, which means that we are restricted to a particular viewpoint, roughly equivalent to a 50mm prime lens fitted to a 35mm camera. That's a pretty major limitation.

A relatively cheap 50mm prime has a maximum aperture (light gathering ability) of f/1.8, compared to f/3.2 for the (young) human eye (it decays with age). This is an inverse square ratio, which means that the artificial eye is roughly 3x as effective at gathering light.

The human eye has a maximum sensitivity of approx ISO 800. That is about what you would expect from a standard point and shoot. A bottom of the range SLR will have ISO 1600 or greater. It does have a much lower minimum sensitivity (around ISO 1 compared to ISO 100), but this isn't awfully more useful, since you can just change the shutter speed or stick grey (ND) filters in front of the lens to achieve the same effect.

The human eye is pretty good at resolving detail. If you look at maximum resolution, it's about equivalent to 74 megapixels, which is well beyond the range of current digital cameras. Problem is, that is not a fair comparison. The eye only works at that kind of detail near the centre of the image. The edges - peripheral vision - have very poor resolution. Only the vaguest shapes can be made out, and without any meaningful colour. In that sense, the best comparison is to a much longer lens. Using a conservative 150mm, this means that the resolution of the eye is only equivalent to around 8 megapixels, which is well within the range of fairly basic modern cameras.

The eye doesn't win on dynamic range (the difference between brightest and dimmest you can see) either. It manages about 7 f-stops at any one time. That's slightly better than standard colour film, but worse than black and white film, and well below what a modern camera can do. The brain does manage to fuse different images together so that we can build up a picture with an apparently much greater dynamic range than that. But that doesn't tell you anything about the eye. You can achieve the same effect in Photoshop with multiple photos.

The human optic system is also limited in terms of capture time. What we perceive is roughly equivalent to a shutter speed of 1/30-1/50 of a second. That is why it is possible to mess around with pictures of waterfalls and fountains, either creating a smoothed-out effect by using a slower speed, or picking a quicker one and freezing the water droplets. A low range SLR can select a shutter speed from 1/4000 sec to 30 sec, or pretty much anywhere in between.

As clever as the human eye is, there is simply no sensible basis for asserting that it is better than a "best camera", or even a basic one.

1031. Two More Fleas

Comment #146443 by hungarianelephant on March 19, 2008 at 5:04 am

414. Comment #146415 by clearmind on March 19, 2008 at 4:20 am

To: hungarianelephant
How about back to LOGIC?

How do you mean, back to logic? In English, that presupposes that there was some logic to begin with.

Poorly constructed analogies do not constitute logic.

Saying "logic" does not constitute logic.

Typing in block capitals does not constitute logic.

Posting the same inane nonsense over and over again does not constitute logic.

It gives us all a good laugh, though. Do keep it up.

1032. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #145963 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Cocker spaniels also tend to lead happy lives. I wouldn't want to be one, though.

1033. Two More Fleas

Comment #145921 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 9:57 am

374. Comment #145871 by clearmind on March 18, 2008 at 8:51 am

wooter's best post yet, by a long chalk.

366. Comment #145862 by clearmind on March 18, 2008 at 8:41 am

That there is a Birmingham palace

Heh hay! Birmingham Palace is back. We missed it. Apparently it evolved into Buckingham Palace for a while, but now it's back to Birmingham Palace.

Now, what could the mechanism for this have been?

1034. Fleabytes

Comment #145744 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 4:39 am

5636. Comment #144990 by clearthinker on March 17, 2008 at 6:29 am

Well, David, I must say that your post makes my point more eloquently than I ever could. No engagement, just quote-mining.

You have obviously not read the wording of the Mental Health Act.

Er, yes I have.

How about this, from the code of practice (section 118(2B)):

(2B) In preparing the statement of principles the Secretary of State shall, in particular, ensure that each of the following matters is addressedâ€"

(a) respect for patients' past and present wishes and feelings,

(b) respect for diversity generally including, in particular, diversity of religion, culture and sexual orientation (within the meaning of section 35 of the Equality Act 2006),

(c) minimising restrictions on liberty,

(d) involvement of patients in planning, developing and delivering care and treatment appropriate to them,

(e) avoidance of unlawful discrimination,

(f) effectiveness of treatment,

(g) views of carers and other interested parties,

(h) patient wellbeing and safety, and

(i) public safety.

Seems to me that the patients' rights are considered fairly important.

But of course,4 you know that, because you then choose not to quote the next part of my post 143444.

Sectioning is done to protect them from what they might do while insane (or in fact, more usually to protect other people). If harm comes to them, then they are deprived of that right [bodily integrity]. And in the case of suicide, of all their other rights too.

Instead you paraphrase this and present it as your own rationale. Classy.

Clearly you don't really want to talk. Several people here, self included, have asked you not for the "evidence" of your God, but for the "small points" that you claim, when added together, make up your faith. Do you give it? No. Instead we get this:

Ah, screw this. You're not listening to us anyway.

And this is supposed to be a rational response?

(Yes, it is a rational response to your constant evasions. Was that a rhetorical question?)

What are we expected to make of this?

So far the evidence I am looking at is that there is a core of central athiest beliefs and that is reflected her (sic). As for the diverse points of view expressed here I must admit that that I do not see.

If that is true, then you are either not actually reading what is written here, or are so blinkered as to be unable to see the points of difference. This thread alone has had a number of different debates. And I know you've read it. You keep saying so, so it must be true.

Sure, most posters here have similar views on a number of issues. Abortion is one of them, although it has been hotly debated by avowed atheists in the past. How precisely do you determine that this position is

gathered from your central beliefs ?

And come to that, what do you say our central beliefs are, other than materialism, which you previously asserted (wrongly - see epeeist's rebuttal)?

1035. Selling science to the masses

Comment #145725 by hungarianelephant on March 18, 2008 at 3:48 am

Bayesian arguments in US courts:

AFAIK, "inadmissible" is not a general rule.

The Daubert case (US Supreme Court) essentially says that expert opinions based on a scientific technique are inadmissible unless the technique is "generally accepted".

The issue is that Bayesian analysis is not the full "technique" in question. In legal terms, the technique includes determining the priors and assessing their respective probabilities. That's to say, you can't just make up your own view of facts which the jury is supposed to decide, apply a Bayesian analysis and present the answer in expert testimony. Unfortunately, there are a worrying number of "experts", and attorneys, who think you can.

It's much easier to report this as "Bayesian analysis is inadmissible, says judge". Law is as susceptible to inaccurate reporting as science, and this is partly why it suffers from some of the same public image problems.

1036. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144452 by hungarianelephant on March 16, 2008 at 5:12 am

There's some good sense in this article, and then he goes and ruins it all with

The way to solve the problem is by framing the issue.

That might work temporarily, but in the long run, people work out when they are being bullshitted. And that damages the whole case, because the people you are trying to convince might never believe another word you say again.

This is partly why science and scientists have a dreadful reputation in the world at large. Most of us here are reasonably scientifically literate, and delighted to read about progress in our understanding of the universe we find ourselves in, and how science can improve people's lives.

That is not most people's experience of "science". The mass media feed them a diet of "reports" about what is good for their health, or their children, or their environment, and quite often directly contradicts what they were told by other "scientists" last week. Sometimes they are being told things that are so far detached from reality that it is laughable. Does anyone really think that two pints of beer constitute a "binge"?

The public may not understand science, but they are well able to understand when politicians are using it as a justification to increase taxes and interfere more in their lives. And their only contact with anyone approaching a real scientist is their doctor, who gives them 8 minutes of time and a prescription which is frequently useless.

Prof. Dawkins sees alternative medicine as a symptom of lack of rationality. I think he is wrong. In my experience, people turn to alternative medicine because they are suspicious of conventional medicine. It is a form of rebellion against a status quo which doesn't work properly. The precise form may not be rational, but the underlying sentiment is understandable.

Much of the problem lies in the huge gulf between science as perceived and science as actually practised. Most people are never going to understand what particle accelerators do, or why. But on the other had, if people had a better understanding of the scientific method, they might have a better idea of how science can be used, and a clearer / more rational notion of when it is being misused. (I also agree with 24. Comment #144397 by bucketchemist.)

If scientific method is actually taught in school, I missed it, despite taking up all the science options. I would bet that not one person in 100 could give a passable description of it.

Try starting there.

1037. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143793 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Excellent post by Teratornis (143777), as usual. Thank you.

(I'd use Rank This Comment, but does anyone actually use the rankings?)

1038. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143706 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 10:06 am

That must be the first time ever that a post has become less intelligible after the LOLspeak stops and the English starts.

And I use the word "English" loosely.

1039. Fleabytes

Comment #143636 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 9:02 am

OK, everyone, given that this thread shows no sign of abating, here's a little competition. Guess the final number of posts in this thread.

Rules:
(1) Put what you like in the comments, but only entries by PM will be accepted. Otherwise we know what will happen.
(2) The thread will be deemed "finished" when there have been no posts for 7 days.
(3) Anyone found deleting posts or adding obvious non-content will be disqualified and publicly shamed.
(4) In the event of a tie, the winner will be the person who completes the following tie-breaker in the most amusing fashion, in the opinion of the judge: "Clearthinker has contributed to my life by __________" (max 50 words).
(5) Judge's decision is final.
(6) The prize will be one copy of The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths by David Robertson. Second prize may be given in the discretion of the judge, and if so will be two copies of same. No cash alternative.
(7) Open only to residents of countries with an Amazon presence, plus Ireland. Not available to employees of RD.net or the Free Church of Scotland.

1040. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143607 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 8:41 am

I understood all the words in that article.

1041. Fleabytes

Comment #143592 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 8:20 am

5280. Comment #143575 by MPhil on March 14, 2008 at 8:01 am

Fact is - the more complex the tools one can produce and/or use are the more functional abilities one has.

Without arguing with that, I do sometimes wonder about the extent to which this argument is deployed.

Language aside, we are great tool users. But the tools are nearly always designed by humans, for humans. Experiments have shown that pigs can use joysticks and computer screens, a quite complicated human tool. I wonder how much more they could do if they had the dexterity and the inclination.

As for tool production, most humans are actually pretty limited. Few of us could make a telephone, a sandwich toaster or a pencil. A makeshift support made of beer mats to stop the table from wobbling is regarded as the height of spontaneous human ingenuity in some pubs.

We're good at standing on the shoulders of giants, to be sure. But how far can you push that as a point of difference?

1042. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143578 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 8:03 am

117. Comment #143381 by Bonzai on March 14, 2008 at 4:21 am

I think there are certain things that are so dehumanizing that even entering into the debate lends them undeserved legitimacy. For example, we don't debate whether Blacks are fully humans.

I'm with you thus far. Of course, we needed to get to the stage where this was a lunatic fringe view. It was not always thus. It is not thus amongst certain sections - I am thinking particularly of some football fans' monkey noises to black players.

Legal banning of such speech is a way to send a signal that such ideas are simply not debatable, just as it is not a debatable matter whether we should send handicaped people to death camps.

We have to part company there.

It is not the job of legislators to "send signals". This is a dangerous postmodern notion which attempts to excuse legislative excess; to give our elected representatives apparent authority to interfere with our lives in ever greater detail.

The purpose of legislators is to make laws which regulate the conduct between people, each other, other entities like corporations, and the state. Once we give up on trying to do that by means which are clear, we have given up on the rule of law.

In Ireland the government is trying to rewrite the sexual offences legislation. One of the issues is the age of consent. A government minister has seriously argued that there should be a fixed age of consent (17) for both boys and girls, with no defence of honest mistake, and relying on prosecutors to enforce the law only in "appropriate" cases. This argument would barely have passed muster in the court of Henry VIII. On that basis, we may as well outlaw all sexual activity, and leave it to the alleged good sense of prosecutors to decide what is necessary to protect the public.

I appreciate that you are not arguing for this. Unfortunately, it is the logical consequence of advocating that legislators send signals.

To your substantive point, I can agree that

There is a point where ideas cease to be just abstract ideas and become a form of persecution.

I'm less sure where that point is. Unacceptable as the monkey noises are, I'm not convinced that it's appropriate to characterise them as "persecution" and criminalise them. Sure, pick out the idiots on camera, throw them out of the ground, ban them for life and publish their photos in the local paper. Better still, if the players simply refused to play when they heard racists chants, the whole thing would stop pretty quickly. But if history has taught us anything, it is that censorship tends to have the reverse effect of the one intended. Burn a heretic, another two pop up.

1043. Fleabytes

Comment #143507 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 7:07 am

5216. Comment #143465 by ForestMist on March 14, 2008 at 6:17 am

Where do churches / theists get the thing about animals not having souls / going to heaven thing from?

Same place they get everything else which isn't literally stated in the bible - their infallible arse.

1044. Fleabytes

Comment #143461 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 6:09 am

5204. Comment #143449 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 5:53 am

I am a supporter of the idea that the Great Apes should be protected, though.

Once you go down that road, you probably also have to protect dolphins, elephants (Hungarian or otherwise), parrots and cockatoos. And possibly cats and dogs. And then ... well maybe some kind of sliding scale.

Personally I'd see this as a good thing, and we may as well start with the Great Apes.

Be prepared for resistance though. Including from - surprise surprise - the churches! Yes indeed, folks, because acknowledging that we are animals undermines two thousand years of theology. Milly the Rabbit will not be going to heaven, because she doesn't have a soul.

1045. Fleabytes

Comment #143444 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 5:48 am

With a heavy heart, as I know this is ultimately futile:

5156. Comment #143396 by clearthinker on March 14, 2008 at 4:59 am

Firstly nobody has a right to do what they want with their own body. My wife works as a Mental Health Officer and the major part of her job is "sectioning" people who want to harm themselves and do what they want to their own body. Society recognizes that I do not have what you seem to be claiming as an absolute right.

Nonsense. People are sectioned precisely because they have a collection of rights, including the right to do what they want with their own body. Sectioning is done to protect them from what they might do while insane (or in fact, more usually to protect other people). If harm comes to them, then they are deprived of that right. And in the case of suicide, of all their other rights too. It is not remotely relevant to the question of the extent of a person's rights over his/her body.

Secondly as science clearly demonstrates - it is not just your body. There is the body of the child within. Science now tells us that the body within the womb has everything that the body outwith the womb has.

If that is what you believe, you really need to read a decent biology book.

If what you mean is that at around 8 weeks after conception, the foetus has a complete set of organs, then that is true. Unfortunately, it doesn't help your argument much unless you're prepared to concede that an embryo before this point is not a human. That is not, as far as I know, the position of any religious authority at this time. Is it yours?

Even if it were, a complete set of organs is hardly a useful defining factor. The woman has something rather important that the foetus does not, and that is the ability to survive if not provided with constant care.

There are some reasonable arguments against abortion, but that isn't one of them. You would be well advised not to accuse someone of being irrational and illogical if you cannot come up with any decent counter-arguments yourself.

Why do you regard the body of the mother as sacred but the body of the child is dispensible?

Straw man on so many levels.

Ah, screw this. You're not listening to us anyway.

I don't know what you get out of coming here and posting. I really don't. You applaud Richard Morgan's call for listening and appreciation of other points of view, and then post a lot of further misrepresentations of arguments. You have constructed a view of "atheism" as some sort of complete alternative belief system. People here have tried to explain to you that this doesn't exist, as if it weren't obvious enough from the diverse points of view expressed here. Some have done it politely, others less so, and some downright abusively. None of it makes the slightest impact on you.

The only conclusion I can reach is that you come here with the deliberate intention of winding people up. In other words, that you are a troll.

I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise. I'm even prepared to be persuaded that, as you say, faith is made up of the small points. So why not give us the small points and explain why they make up something more than a lot of wishful thinking and argument from ignorance? Then we can have a reasonable discussion about whether there's something worthwhile in your faith. Otherwise, it's just shouting at each other.

1046. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143345 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 3:07 am

85. Comment #143326 by Russell Blackford on March 14, 2008 at 2:29 am

*Note: I'm not thinking in this post about things like false commercial speech, i.e. misleading advertising and the like. I think that raises a different set of issues.

Russell - Can you elaborate on that? Why is lying in order to sell a commercial product different from lying in order to persuade people to take up, say, a "spiritual" product? And where does lying about a commercial product in a manner which could damage it fit in? I'd be interested to get your perspective. It's talked about in legal circles, but most are not prepared to stray too far from the status quo?

1047. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143343 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 3:01 am

Civil partnerships are "an abuse" of the church's teaching on marriage, he told Times Online.

Let's have a look at the church's teaching on marriage, shall we?

Genesis contains several descriptions of polygamy. But the church teaches that they are wrong anyway.

In fact, the Catholic church only recognises marriages that take place in a Catholic ceremony. All other purported marriages do not exist, and accordingly the relationship is sinful. According to my dear but sadly afflicted mother-in-law, I am not married to her daughter, which was news to us.

The UK proceeds to offer a civil partnership, which is explicitly not a "marriage", since too many of the snooker-viewing generation would have objected. This, apparently, is an "abuse", whereas the twenty million non-marriages which do style themselves as marriage are unworthy of comment.

Hmm. Why do I get the feeling that this boils down to prejudice against gays rather than defence of the church?

1048. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143315 by hungarianelephant on March 14, 2008 at 1:50 am

74. Comment #143293 by Cartomancer on March 13, 2008 at 10:03 pm

I sit like a big gay spider ...

And we have a winner of the Surreal Mental Image Of The Week Award.

That will haunt me all day. Brilliant.

1049. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143030 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 11:31 am

Still, it's good to know that Oscar Wilde was locked up and put in jail. I was worried for a moment that they might have forgotten about one half of the task.

1050. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143026 by hungarianelephant on March 13, 2008 at 11:23 am

Asked if that applied to works by authors such as Karl Marx and Albert Camus, he told the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee: "Suppose you went into a school and found in the library material that said the Holocaust never took place?"

Eh? What sort of an answer is that?

Asked if that applied to works by authors such as Karl Marx and Albert Camus, he told the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee: "My halibut is turning purple."

There. An answer that makes as much sense, and is slightly more pertinent to the question.

You're welcome, Bish.