151. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156913 by Sargeist on April 8, 2008 at 11:42 am

Hmm, part 4 now...

I can think of one person who needs to be discussing things in a vacuum... it would make the program a bit less shrill and annoying. grrr.

152. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156906 by Sargeist on April 8, 2008 at 11:37 am

Ah, trust TheSwede to make me think seriously about what I said! :)

I'm watching part 3 now... biggest problem so far: Nicky Campbell says "Surely all our views are valid, aren't they?"

What a load of shite.

Thank goodness for Richard's: "No". The greatest blunt No since Nick Clegg's.

153. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #156897 by Sargeist on April 8, 2008 at 11:23 am

I know it would probably backfire, but part of me really wants Richard to say: "Yeah, you know what, I *am* the devil!", wait for people to laugh, and then say "well, you can't prove I'm not, and I say I am, so I must be"

154. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156211 by Sargeist on April 7, 2008 at 5:39 am

Corylus,

That reminds me about an MTV music awards from a few years ago. Rob Halford had won a "lifetime achievement" award, or some such prize. It was being presented by Marilyn Manson, who said (and I am paraphrasing from memory):

"Whether you're a female man, like I am, or a man's man, like Rob, we both got into metal for the same reasons: tits."

So, sometimes people might not realise. (or, Marilyn was just being humorous)

155. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #156160 by Sargeist on April 7, 2008 at 1:31 am

I agree with other commenters: "Blink" was the most amazing Doctor Who episode that I have seen in my adult life. I'm sad to say, though, that it's got to the point where I get a shudder of fear every time I see that an episode is being written by Davies.

For example: "Blink" - good, "Human Nature" - good, "The Family of Blood" - good; cf: all those episodes with the Master in last series - godawful crap.

156. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #155887 by Sargeist on April 6, 2008 at 8:40 am

Steve:

Genius! :)

157. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #155086 by Sargeist on April 4, 2008 at 6:45 am

I suppose it's too much to ask that Prof. Dawkins will come down to the Midlands to do a talk? I was exceedingly lucky to be in London on the day of the Foyles event at the Institute of Education towards the end of 2006. But that was just a fluke.

158. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #155062 by Sargeist on April 4, 2008 at 5:56 am

Okay, one more post...

The whole consciousness raising idea of Dawkins' has often given me an amusing thought that it would be "fun" - next time any teenager of some apparent religious group or other appears on TV spouting on about how his/her rights have been infringed due to some ring/hat/veil/eyepatch-related prohibition - to ask that teenager: "So, can you explain the philosophical reasoning that has led you to unexpectedly take on the religion of your parents?"

Edit: Typo

159. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #155059 by Sargeist on April 4, 2008 at 5:53 am

Okay, first and (possibly) only post of today (too much to do):

Cartomancer's consciousness raising suggestion is superb. I can't believe I haven't thought of that example before. :(

Not sure about the "unpleasant little Scotsman" bit, though. His Scottishness is irrelevant, I think. :P

160. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #151170 by Sargeist on March 28, 2008 at 8:28 am

I find Ahmadinejad (sp?) rather sinister, not just in terms of his obviously insane ways of behaving (which could in some cases be of the same order of crazy politicking as our own leaders indulge in), but I find that he also *looks* entirely unhinged.

It was mentioned earlier that we should perhaps avoid travelling to any Middle Eastern countries for holidays... to be frank, I am of the opinion that I would *never* feel comfortable going anywhere near any of those places.

Admittedly, I am somewhat parochial in my attitudes to the rest of the world. My company has offices in one of the UAEs. Many employees enjoy the huge amounts of tax-free income they can make by going out there for a while. I, on the other hand, feel that to do this is to tacitly approve of those states' attitudes towards their people, especially women and the freedom not to be a loony religious person.

161. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #151154 by Sargeist on March 28, 2008 at 8:05 am

"Ahmmadaboutjihad":

*chortle* :-D

162. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #147177 by Sargeist on March 20, 2008 at 1:54 am

Re: Comment #146900:

"What are you doing, D'Arcy?"

or, perhaps:

"D'Arcy, D'Arcy, give me... your.. ans...wer... do...."

163. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146729 by Sargeist on March 19, 2008 at 10:17 am

Hmmm... in that case, what I thought I remembered was not quite correct. It is the instillation of fear in the child's mind that is the abuse.

In which case, labelling a child with a particular religion *may not* be abuse, if one gets a wishy washy non-Hell version?

I have qualms about telling children about Father Christmas, let alone God, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to have an opinion on this! It's just lucky that my niece hasn't asked me if there is a God, or if I believe in it. I'm not sure how I would word my answer. (To avoid being slapped by my sister, that is)

164. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146705 by Sargeist on March 19, 2008 at 9:41 am

Just because I haven't read TGD for quite a while, I wanted to say: Doesn't Dawkins actually say that it is the *labelling* of children with particular religious beliefs/affiliations that is the abuse?

And he backs this up with references to the rather ugly scenes in Northern Ireland, where children were being threatened by those of one side of the loony faction because they were believed to be on the one of the other sides.

I have made posts some time ago in which I say that I have tried to read some works by Kant, and found them to be almost incomprehensible, and I think of myself as reasonably intelligent. So: philosophy can be *really* hard to follow.

And yet, somehow, children who don't really have a proper grasp on what death is, or have ever really thought about deep philosophical issues, can be labelled with a specific set of metaphysical beliefs which they can most likely hardly understand. And, more importantly maybe, don't even realise there is an alternative to?

165. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146394 by Sargeist on March 19, 2008 at 3:19 am

I'm quite saddened by all this. I remember when Isaac Asimov died back in 92/93ish when I was at college. I went and photocopied his obituary in the Telegraph (okay, it sounds morbid now). I loved his books. And now this.

I recently read the 4 Odyssey books, and they were pretty fabulous. 3001 is particularly scathing about the human madness that is organised religion. He even makes an amusing comment in the afterword to the novel, about people being happy with the religion that Chance has brought them up in.

Now, though, I am half laughing because I am remembering the Goodies Bigfoot episode in which they parodied the World of Strange Powers programme.

:)

166. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146387 by Sargeist on March 19, 2008 at 3:08 am

The actor John Hewer, who played Captain Birdseye for many years, has also died.

"So long and thanks for all the fish fingers"?

167. Fleabytes

Comment #145927 by Sargeist on March 18, 2008 at 10:07 am

Digital camcorder? Copy of TGD to refer to? Copy of "Evolution" by Mark Ridley?

168. Fleabytes

Comment #145913 by Sargeist on March 18, 2008 at 9:49 am

It was bugging me... there was this niggling thought that I couldn't quite grasp... what was it?....

Then, there it was! Yes! This site it's..

... turning into eBay!

Refresh refresh refresh almost there! refresh...

Bugger :(

169. Fleabytes

Comment #145902 by Sargeist on March 18, 2008 at 9:37 am

Damn! Beat me to it, Tyler!

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

Comment #145777 by Sargeist on March 18, 2008 at 6:16 am

If anyone is interested, the uncorrected oral evidence of the testimony that includes the Bishop's comments is now available from the Parliament Committee webpage:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/uc311-iii/uc31102.htm

171. Fleabytes

Comment #145758 by Sargeist on March 18, 2008 at 5:37 am

Re: 5897. Comment #145722 by Pathfinder on March 18, 2008 at 3:31 am

Whose Thora Hird?

172. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #145666 by Sargeist on March 18, 2008 at 12:22 am

Oh dear, you are indeed right, Eamonn. :( Now everyone can see what a bad proof reader I would make.

:'(

173. Fleabytes

Comment #145143 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 10:03 am

Whaat!? I missed that program! Waah! This is just typical, ever since I stopped buying the Guardian I never know what is on telly any more. :(

Anyone know if it is going to be repeated?

174. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145105 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 9:06 am

Hang on, Steve. You and I were disagreeing, surely this is not something that we atheists do? We're all a big happy zombified family, all patting each other on the back and suchlike...

ack!

This is the sort of thing I like most about this site. When we can have a nice argument about something we're not sure about, or even are sure about, and it stays quite nice and civil :)

I hope you saw my earlier post about Baron Munchausen. Brilliant Gilliam film, and I was able to bring it up without being too off topic!

175. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145091 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 8:35 am

Hi Steve,

Maybe I only read from Toad's post those bits that sounded like me. I find it hard to disagree with other people on certain topics because I can never be sure I've properly understood what they were trying to say :(

Anyway, in this case, I am basically going along with the position that everything comes down to definitions and consistency with goals.

Is this logical positivism? I am not sure, but I will say what I think anyway. Someone says "torture is wrong" and we know that this means they think it shouldn't be done. But why not? Well, maybe because they think it is unsuccessful. Could be a good reason not to do it, so one could find evidence that it doesn't work and use this to back up one's claim that it should not be done. But this only works if one has defined "wrong" as "does not get us to our goal". But we don't tend to do that.

So, maybe wrong means "makes me feel icky". Well, I worry that then it would be come a good thing to do if one got over one's revulsion. Maybe in the back of my mind I crave the apparent certainty that the god-given morality would lead to. Except that you'd still have the gut feeling that "hmm, this doesn't seem right".

In the end, then, where does morality come from? I am starting to think that it must just all be instinct. We've evolved to all share some basic emotional reactions to certain things, and we almost all prefer to be happy than sad, painless than pained, so is this all that morality is? The search for the set of all happiness-inducing behaviours?

Well, only if "good" means "makes us happy", and then you have all those problems with utilitarianism again. Goodness! It's a right old pain, this ethics stuff.

Every now and then I feel like veering off into a "you know, nothing actually matters, in the end" attitude. But I fear that I could be one of those atheists that can be held up as the perfect example of the gits we shall all become if we lose our faith.

176. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145071 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 8:15 am

CommonToad has expressed, nicely, neatly and annoyingly well, pretty much what I wish I were able to say without rambling.

Damn.

177. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145064 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 8:11 am

Geoff:

When I was having an argument about torture and other things with a guy I used to know at my previous workplace, I was saying that I wasn't sure if torture was wrong or not in all circumstances. His opinion was that, of course it was always wrong. I asked him to demonstrate to me why it was, objectively, wrong. I used my usual position (which I really do hold most of the time) that I don't think ethics are things that can be demonstrated as being clearly true, because you would have to be able to point at something and say, there *that* is why it is always definitely, objectively wrong.

I started picking holes and generally being annoying, and eventually he said: "At the end of the day, torture doesn't work anyway".

My view is that, a lot of the time, this is the kind of thing people are *actually* thinking when they say certain things are wrong. Either that, or it's the "that's why they call it faith" position of moral debate.

178. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145053 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 8:04 am

Steve, to save you time:

Baron Munchausen: What's this?
Vulcan: Oh, this is our prototype. RX Intercontinental, radar-sneaky, multi-warheaded nuclear missile.
Baron Munchausen: Ah! What does it do?
Vulcan: Do? Kills the enemy.
Baron Munchausen: All the enemy?
Vulcan: Aye, all of them. All their wives, and all their children, and all their sheep, and all their cattle, and all their cats and dogs. All of them: all of them gone for good.
Sally: That's horrible.
Vulcan: Ahh. Well, you see, the advantage is you don't have to see one single one of them die. You just sit comfortably thousands of miles away from the battlefield and simply press the button.
Berthold: Well, where's the fun in that?

179. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145031 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 7:37 am

Steve:

have you seen the Vulcan scene in Adventures of Baron Munchausen? It is vaguely relevant to what you were pointing out!

180. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145022 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 7:28 am

Al-Rawandi presents a point I have often thought about. I think I agree, for a given definition of consistency. Why is it permissible to kill people in a dictatorship during the attempts to remove that government, when those people are known not to have had the opportunity to choose that government?

If people accept the deaths of those who had to no say in the bad acts of the government we are attacking, then why not attack more strongly the people in those countries that had an elected government?

Now, I think that the bombing of civilians in both options is wrong, but the first one does seem to be accepted in general. Maybe it is just that, deep down, most of us don't really care that much about "those other people"?

I used to try out a thought experiment with myself, when I lamented the boring state of the news on TV. How about if something truly enormous occurred? Such as, waking up on morning and finding that China had vanished. How would I feel? 1 billion people, just gone like that. I'm kind of ashamed to say, that I'd probably be thinking "oh god, I hope that doesn't happen *here*", and not caring too much about the people I didn't know before.

181. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #145006 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 7:01 am

My feelings about systems of ethics are that a lot of us look for an algorithm that tells us the right thing to do. But there might be different algorithms in different circumstances, and then we need algorithms to tell us which algorithms to use. Pah!

In answer to the bombing raid: I think you've raised some interesting questions. The way I would respond would be this: was it a nicely localised event that would have a very large reduction in casualties in other ways? So, I'd be utilitarian here. But I still wouldn't want to be the person making the decision.

On the other hand, I was appalled by the bomb attack by the US on the "house where Saddam's sons might have been". So... some bad people, who aren't actually causing any harm right at the current time, *might* be in a particular place, which we now contains civilians, so we blow it up and hope for the best?

Er... that didn't sit right we me at all.

Maybe it's all a consistency argument? (speaking to myself now) If we had just shot Saddam when we found him, this would have been more consistent. Why is it ok to kill "bad" people who are no threat to us when they are bombed, but not ok to just shoot them without trial when we have them in front of us, being no threat?

182. Fleabytes

Comment #144999 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 6:52 am

I really do want to read through all of clearthinker's response, but the trouble is that here at work I can only really write short little nonsensically type things every now and then. Damn.

Anyway, I will no doubt read it all at home tonight. I just wanted to express my surprise at being responded to (in brief) in his comment.

The reason I did not want to be viewed as an absolutist anti-abortionist is not because I actually am one and ashamed of it. And I infer from your comment on my (5180) that you might think that I feel that atheists have to be pro-abortion. I don't think a lack of belief in god entails thinking that way at all.

I think that I eventually made my own feelings about abortion reasonably clear(?) I think 38 weeks is too late, and I think that 24 weeks is a bit late. But I can't really get worked up at all about killing some blob-like-thing at about 10 weeks or so. Maybe my views are entirely to do with "does it have a face?" or "does it have a brain?", but many of us have opinions about things like this for those sorts of reasons.

My feelings about ethics are always a bit mixed up: I have always preferred there to be a definite answer about things. Even if that definite answer is "there is no definite answer". But this is why ethics is interesting. If there were an obvious right or wrong thing to do, then I think it would be possible to demonstrate it.

I think that Sharon's expression of female autonomy is not a position I agree with in its most absolute terms, but it is still, to me, a better position than saying "you cannot have an abortion, full stop".

Phew! Ramble ramble (sorry)

183. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144992 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 6:30 am

Much as I often like to try to think myself into a sociopathic frame of mind (it seems more interesting than being entirely normal), my girlfriend assures me that I wouldn't be able to do any of the nasty things I often advocate, because I wouldn't be able to stand the cracking and the squelching noises.

The antidote to moral behaviour is clearly a good set of earplugs.

I thought Harris's argument was coming from: why do you find the idea of deliberate killing so wrong, when we are killing so many through badly placed missiles etc. And there may have been some mention of the thousands dying from treatable illness and malnutrition.

Is it just the active vs. passive difference? I' bad if I shoot you, but not if I don't stop that guy from shooting you?

Gah, I've rambled again.

184. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144988 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 6:26 am

Steve is indulging in the sort of thing that I always like: pushing ideas till they bend and possibly break.

I like the taking of ideas to extreme situations, or similar. In some thread or other recently I was getting into the mire of abortion reasoning, wondering if a woman who was 38 weeks pregnant would be allowed to kill her unborn just cos she wanted to. If most people would agree that that would be wrong to let her do, then it would show that there really was a boundary of acceptability when it comes to the oversimplified (in my view) idea that women should be given total sovereignty over their bodies.

Similarly, these thought experiments about torture, or those train tracks with fat people on, may never crop up in actuality, but they're a) fun to think about; b) help us to understand *why* we think the way we do.

Steve is just being a modern day Socrates!

185. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144894 by Sargeist on March 17, 2008 at 2:28 am

Hi Sheepscarer:

Matt Ridley actually has 2 articles in the book, and one of those is an excerpt from Genome (another great book).

186. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144443 by Sargeist on March 16, 2008 at 5:00 am

There also appears to be a peculiar, stunted "from" problem in a couple of places.

187. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144314 by Sargeist on March 15, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Although I quite like the typeface [:P] I remember from browsing through the book this morning that Dawkins' introductory parts are in an entirely different font from the reproduced articles themselves.

Whether these fonts are different from the one used in the intro, I'm afraid I do not remember.

188. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144299 by Sargeist on March 15, 2008 at 3:00 pm

I feel the same. I've been back to Amazon and looked again at the intro pdf. Hyphens all over the bloody place!

Still, the typeface is nice...

189. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144274 by Sargeist on March 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I'm ashamed to say that I only knew of this book when I saw the image of it appear in the right hand side of the web page. I don't know how long it has been there, but I only noticed it yesterday. Then nipped off to Amazon for a quick peek, and then looked for it in one of those "real shop" things in town today.

Being a bibliophile, I like nice thick books with lovely paper, and a nice typeface, often even before I consider what's actually printed in them!

190. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144268 by Sargeist on March 15, 2008 at 2:08 pm

If you go to the Amazon page for the book, you can read the page-and-a-bit introduction and see the list of titles and authors.

I saw this book in Waterstone's today, and it really does look great, even though I already have quite a few of the books from which extracts are taken.

Just need to work out when to nip out of work to buy it on Monday!

191. Fleabytes

Comment #143887 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Steve,

Well, seeing as stem-cell research is now a mortal sin, we might be able to look forward to millions of catholics becoming apostates in order to get treatment. Yay!

192. Fleabytes

Comment #143879 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm

All the god stuff is quite sickening really. When talking to people who are overtly religious I find myself almost unable to disguise my contempt for them. It is quite bad, I admit, but I really do end up feeling superior.

I know that everyone behaves irrationally to some extent, but to actually believe that, e.g., floods occur to punish people for homosexual behaviour; or that a priest in Indonesia made the sign of the cross on a beach and made the approaching tsunami subside; or that a landslide killed a wedding party held by a man who had slandered the mother of god; etc etc etc (all of which I have had people tell me) is so far beyond any form of sense that the mind almost has to shut down entirely to be able to think into the same section of "reality".

193. Fleabytes

Comment #143873 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Reminds me of the old joke about KFC.

*ahem*

I'm worried about trusting god with my finances, though. There he is, existing outside of time, looking at the FTSE100 at the wrong point, investing my bloody money. Damn him.

194. Fleabytes

Comment #143869 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 2:22 pm

From that quiverful site:

Here is a thought. My dad was #7 in his family. If my grandparents decided not to have more kids after #2 or 3, I wouldn't be here, our kids wouldn't be here. Who are we to choose? If we trust God with our finances, with our very SALVATION, how can we not trust Him with our fertility. He knows the very number of hairs on our head. What box are we putting Him into. He is big enough to create the entire universe, but not big enough to give this to.

195. Fleabytes

Comment #143849 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Hmm, well.... I am quite fond of ninjas, so maybe that would be ok.

I remember reading some time ago that it is pretty universal that when women gain some kind of control over whether they have to conceive, birth rates always drop, families become smaller, and women generally get a better life. By which I mean that they are happier, which is what I'm going to take as an objective definition of "better life".

I don't see how anyone could really argue with wanting this to come about. Even my, earlier presented, mild qualms about abortion don't come into it: the mere prevention of fertilisation can lead to such a better world for so many people. It saddens me that the Catholic church has such a hold over people.

196. Fleabytes

Comment #143838 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm

If you've got to eradicate poverty, then isn't it pretty certain that this comes from permitting contraception, which lead to women having control over their reproduction, allowing them to become better educated, which leads to greater wealth and happiness?

Bloody bloody stupid. It's enough to make one weep.

197. Fleabytes

Comment #143833 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Quetz has hit the nail on the head (meaning: I agree). Ludicrously, it was only when I was reading Sam Harris's "Letter" where he mentions (I'm doing this from memory) that Christians who advocate abstinence-only sex education etc aren't really interested in saving lives that it all suddenly came home to me. I mean, it is entirely obvious, but I'd just never realised it so clearly. The Catholic Church doesn't *really* care about people on this earth at all. They don't actually *want* to save people's lives, give them happiness, make them feel better in the here and now.

Of course, they are, I suppose, being consistent with their belief in an infinitely long life to come, but in that case, why bother claiming that you want to, say, eradicate poverty? Why all this emphasis on charity and good deeds? Do they want to help? Make the world a better place? Then why go around knowing that billions of idiots will slavishly follow your edicts and spout utter rubbish?

Rargh!

198. Fleabytes

Comment #143665 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 9:42 am

Dammit! I wrote some fabulous post all about the glory that is Lemmy and Motorhead, and finished off with some highly cogent stuff about black metal being the most sublime musical form that there is, and the bloody comment disappeared!

Grr. Anyway, I agree: motorhead = sex.

Black metal = Even more sex

Devil horns ahoy!

199. Fleabytes

Comment #143590 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 8:18 am

MPhil,

Hmm, I see what you mean. I think that what I am trying to get at is that I am thinking of words as just a means to get ideas across, and if the ideas are just "where's my food?", "don't steal my woman" and "can I eat your fleas?" then I was hoping these would still count as words in some sense.

But I realise I am just wildly opining, here. I may have lost the thread of this thread!

200. Fleabytes

Comment #143570 by Sargeist on March 14, 2008 at 7:57 am

I'm with Steve on this one, although I have no formal education in philosophy (caveats ahoy!)

Although, when you said:

Chimps negotiate. They offer things to each other. They play. They warn. All without words.