301. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #155022 by mixmastergaz on April 4, 2008 at 4:45 am

I accept that joking about this is in poor taste. However, humour may be a natural response to these things sometimes. It takes the sting out of it somehow, especially when the alternative would be to cry. I'm not laughing at the poor unforunate, deluded individual in particular as much as I'm laughing at the human condition in general. I'd rather be honest and admit that I can see the humour in this situation rather than pretend that I didn't to spare the feelings of those immediately affected by this incident as I don't really think that's of concern on this thread. They're very unlikely to be reading. Some months ago a BBC news reader got into trouble for laughing uncontrollably when he was reporting on some fool who'd inserted a lit firework in his ass. He'd done it as some sort of prank but it backfired pretty badly and the guy finished up in hospital. Of course, I'm not happy to hear about someone's injuries but it seems to me that laughter is an understandable and forgivable human response to incidents like this. It needn't imply that we're all a bunch of heartlessly cruel bastards; just human, all too human.

302. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154722 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Perhaps some new word or phrase could be coined to name such individuals. I think two syllables ought to do it.

303. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154719 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

I wonder how Irate Atheist would describe this poor fellow...

304. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154686 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm

ahem..."clearthinker", if you're reading this thread I was wondering, how did this 'story' originate? Did you contact the BBC or did they contact you? I notice that the article mentions your book...

Perhaps you find it flattering to see your name in print in the same sentence as the words 'Richard Dawkins' (I know I would!)

It's a shame that such sentences also tend to contain words and phrases like "on the other hand", "...has about as much in common with...", "poles apart", "so far so reasonable; unlike David Robertson" and of course "though not selling anything like as many books as..."

Still, perhaps the BBC can help out on that last one eh?

305. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154282 by mixmastergaz on April 3, 2008 at 3:57 am

I disagree with you by degrees Steve. One of the great things about the Marcus Brigstocke routine was how unusual it was. I can think of no other well-known comedian who has dared to be so outspoken. I'm sure there's no official BBC policy stating that Imams are off limits; what's been going on is self-censorship. I remember Alexei Sayle doing a routine that was mildly satirical about Christianity that concluded with something like the following remarks:

"Of course, it's not just Christianity. There are lots of jokes to be made about fundamentalist Islam. But you won't catch me telling any of them!"

One of the dangers of treating Islam as a special case is that some Muslims may come to regard themselves as a special case.

306. Fleabytes

Comment #154102 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 4:16 pm

peacebeuponme: Sorry, I missed that post at first glance! 'Orgasmatron': Is that Motorhead or Hawkwind? I can hear Lemmy's unmistakable voice in my head (which is pretty disturbing really!) singing something like the lyrics you quoted.

epeeist (I thought you were an avid collector of EPs!) I ask this question in the knowledge that I might be publicly advertising my ignorance but here goes. Would 'Thus spake Zarathustra' be an appropriate track?

307. Fleabytes

Comment #154099 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Richard M: Thanks, I'll check it out on the station's system A.S.A.P.

Tyler D: 'Leper Messiah' (track 2, side 3 of Metallica's classic 'Master of Puppets' vinyl lovers, I'm listening as I type) is a great track, but probably difficult to mix with; I'll give it a whirl and see if there's any way)

Annabanana: I'll give them a listen, thanks. (I didn't have you down as a metal fan!)

MarkG: 'Busload of faith' I also know and love. Somehow I didn't think of that one and 'New York' is my 2nd favourite Lou Reed album! Thanks for the reminder. With regards to XTC's 'Dear God', that one's a definite. It's my personal favourite of all the atheism-themed tracks I've heard so far. Thanks for the list Mark; there's a lot on there I hadn't thought of.

Frankus and Allan W: Zappa is looking like a strong possibility. Cheers! As for Rush, I was thinking of either 'freewill', 'natural science', 'roll the bones' or 'faithless'. The latter was inspired by reading TGD.

HeathenPhysicist: Re: NIN; I don't know the track but I know the band. If I can find a copy I'll give it a whirl. Cheers!

ForestMist: Atheism is just one theme that's occurred to me amongst many others. I've already broadcast a programme of religiously inspired music, a programme of songs with a science fiction theme, a crazy cover versions theme etc. etc. Atheism is just the latest theme for me to arrange a mix around (if you're interested, this coming Friday the theme is 'funky'). There's really no need to be "scared to death" by the idea surely? I'm aware of Low and Elbow's music and I really like 'audience with the Pope' but it's a love song so won't fit with this particular mix ( 'the fix' from the same album is lined up for a programme themed around 'crime' in the not-too-distant) I appreciate and accept the implication that there's no reason for atheists to dislike music that is explicitly religious. I love lots of religious music! I was originally going to make it a mix of religious and atheistic music but it didn't quite work when I demoed it (although 'Jesus' by the Velvet Underground mixes brilliantly with XTC's 'Dear God' if anyone fancies trying them out together!)

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions.

308. Fleabytes

Comment #153946 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 8:55 am

Off-topic post to Richard Morgan:

Richard, I only have access to decent computers and bandwidth at work. As such, I wasn't able to open the email and attachment that you kindly sent to me and subsequently deleted. I'm uncertain from the 'my space' fleabytes page featuring your music (and the copyright warning) if you're agreeable to my using some of it for the hour-long atheist/freethinking music broadcast I'm currently mixing. If you're agreeable to my selecting something from 'fleabytes' then let me know.

Clearthinker:

Thanks for the suggestion of 'God part 2' by U2. I'm not just playing atheistic music and I'll probably give 'until the end of the world' by U2 a spin. It's a great track with lyrics imagining the conversation between Christ and Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane. Hope this meets with your approval!

Paula:

Apologies for hijacking your thread about this again.

EVERYONE ELSE:-

Do you know of any good songs, regardless of style/genre, with an atheistic/freethinking P.O.V.? If so, please add your suggestions here. The programme should air on Friday 11th April, 3-4pm on KCC Live. It's only a local radio station so you're unlikely to get a decent reception unless you live In Liverpool. However you can listen online at:

www.kcclive.com

Listen out for your dedications fleabyters!

Normal service will now be restored...

309. Fleabytes

Comment #153938 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 8:33 am

Clearthinker:

Further to my post above, I can't help noticing that you've avoided the 'camel' and gone for the 'gnat' again. My point about the inconsistencies we've previously discussed was that they are only problematic if one is trying to cling on to the idea that the Gospels provide a truthful and authentic account of the life of Christ. If one takes the view that "the story was exaggerated wildly by overly enthusiastic 'witnesses'" then the problems disappear. I've put this point to you, in different ways sometimes 'softening' the language, about four or five times now. I'm finding it hard to grant you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you aren't deliberately avoiding answering it.

310. Fleabytes

Comment #153918 by mixmastergaz on April 2, 2008 at 8:00 am

Clearthinker:

Thanks for your brief, if rather dismissive, reply. There's really no need to thank me for my honesty; I try to make a habit of it. In answer to your question about why I asked the handful of questions about inconsistencies between the various Gospels over 1000 posts ago (and at the risk of repeating myself and stating the obvious) I would add the following:-

The questions I posed (and others like them) were examples of the sort of difficult questions that undermined my own Christian faith when I came to realise what the answers to those questions implied. I was genuinely interested in how you had managed to 'square' those particular 'circles'. There was nothing underhand in my posing them as your post seemed to be implying.

311. Fleabytes

Comment #148603 by mixmastergaz on March 23, 2008 at 11:45 am

Thanks for your contributions Mark; you raise some interesting additional points.

Clearthinker: Further to my post above, and as it's Easter Sunday, I thought maybe we could look at the ressurection in a little more detail. Turning to one of the many books to address this, Ian Wilson's 'Jesus: The Evidence', we find six basic hypotheses:

1 The women went to the wrong tomb.
2 Unknown to the disciples, some independent person removed the body.
3 The disciples themselves removed the body and invented the whole story.
4 The disciples saw not the real Jesus but hallucinations.
5 Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but was resuscitated, or in some other way survived.
6 Jesus really did rise from the grave.

There are other possibilities as well. To be clear, and further to my previous post, I'd like to add that my own belief is not represented by any of these as listed by Wilson. Most of these presuppose that the accounts are true in some way or another. I don't think we need to go that far. Perhaps the Gospels simply aren't giving a truthful account. All the problems and inconsistencies cease to be meaningful if one does not assume that these texts are reliable accounts in the first place.

312. Fleabytes

Comment #148351 by mixmastergaz on March 22, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Blimey! I don't check on this site for a day and a half and 400 posts go flying by!

Clearthinker: Thanks for your detailed replies. On Mark and John I guess we can agree to disagree; we're both able to point to credible authorities in support of our positions. With regard to the other related questions, again I think there's little to be gained by rehearsing these arguments further. Of course, the questions I posed were a handful of spontaneously occurring (to me) examples of the sort of thing that undermined my faith in the reliability of the scriptures. Peering into the origins of these texts cannot help but raise questions about the authenticity of the claims they make. Whilst you may assert that minor discrepancies attest to the general reliability of these texts, I can also reasonably conclude that logically, when we encounter a discrepancy between different accounts, this necessitates our acceptance that they do not contain literal truth.

But all of these arguments may seem inconsequential if one takes the view, as I do, that the narratives they contain, whilst possibly having some basis in truth, are not accurate accounts of real, historical events. The Gospels make extraordinary claims and tell of miraculous events. Experience has taught me to be suspicious when I hear claims of miraculous or apparently inexplicable events and to suppose that distortion or exaggeration has crept in. Allow me a brief diversion to illustrate this point. Some years ago I was shown a collection of vintage British newspaper coverage of the exploits of a criminal nicknamed, I think, 'Spring-Heeled Jack'. The reports made some outrageous claims about the alleged deeds of this fiend, all attested to by "eye-witnesses". Jack was reportedly able to leap from the ground up onto the roofs of nearby houses, or to leap back down again completely unhurt. Other reports insisted that he "breathed fire" like a dragon. I don't have the sources here to check on the precise details (although I'm sure they'll be lurking out there online somewhere, if anyone cares to go and check). My point is that any modern reader would treat these accounts of Jack's remarkable alleged abilities sceptically. We may speculate, for example, that perhaps Jack beat his retreat from a crime scene across rooftops on one occasion, and that the story was exaggerated wildly by overly enthusiastic 'witnesses'. This is surely a more satisfying conclusion to reach than to believe a man could leap from tall buildings unharmed and breathe fire. Another point to consider is that the accounts of Jack's deeds occurred in a society sophisticated enough to have developed daily newspapers and with sufficient literacy rates to provide a readership. The exaggerations must have crept in within days of the real events they elaborate upon occurring! The Gospels appear to have been written at least three decades after the events they describe at a time of widespread illiteracy and, by today's standards, superstition. Is it really so unreasonable to suppose that a similar process was at work in the Gospels? To believe that they contain the most important message ever revealed to humanity requires a leap of faith of which even Spring-heeled Jack would be proud.

313. Fleabytes

Comment #147436 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I think clearthinker's gonna have his work cut out for him answering your points and maintaining credibility. My reply to him was much more generalised; you've given him some meaty specifics to chew on.

314. Fleabytes

Comment #147432 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 11:51 am

Thanks for the elaborations Shayne; you went back to the textbooks? Just out of interest, are you also a theology graduate? You're very well informed! Was it a close examination of the 'source materials' that turned you away from faith? Feel free to tell me mind my own fraggin' business...

315. Fleabytes

Comment #147329 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 7:05 am

I was kind of hoping he might respond in the same way that I did when they were put to me Tyler.

Oh well, we live in hope...

316. Fleabytes

Comment #147324 by mixmastergaz on March 20, 2008 at 6:48 am

Clearthinker: Thank you for your replies and for conceding that I am not an 'atheist fundamentalist'. I apologise if you were offended by my joke about how you sidestep questions. I was satirically 'paraphrasing' your answer to someone's question about evidence. You said something to the effect that you would respond to this with another question. Of course you never said the words I was putting in your mouth at that point! I think it was clear from the context, with my admission in the brackets following the dubious 'quotation' that this was a joke. Your exact words were quoted above my post for all to see. Additionally, I appreciate the minor correction of my scriptural quotation; "swallowing camels" does sound better than "ignoring camels", and of course possesses the virtue of being correct! However, I think you've misunderstood my meaning here. I was aiming that remark at you in the sense that I feel you ignore the main points of some people's posts (or 'camels') and quibble about trivial, off-the-cuff remarks (or 'gnats'). I was making no point about poor grammar in the scriptures at that particular moment. In fact this rather underlines my point again, since the remark I made about poor grammar (which certainly wasn't original, and which I made in passing only once) was clearly a 'gnat' and not a 'camel'!

But you've certainly given me some straight answers now! Let's deal with them one at a time. You say Mark wrote the last chapter of Mark's Gospel. Well, a clear majority of Biblical scholars insist that there are two authors at work here. The author of 16: 1-8 is clearly the same individual who wrote the preceding chapters. 16: 9-20 however (which contains the account of the resurrection) is not present in the earliest manuscripts we have of this particular Gospel, and those who are expert in comparing the stylistic and linguistic features of these two texts agree (not with unanimity but nonetheless overwhelmingly) that 16: 9-20 is a later addition by a different hand. When I first learned of this I was deeply troubled by it. At the time I had a limited and naïve understanding of the authorship and compilation of the scriptures, and I believed in their accuracy and reliability. This was one of the discoveries that first caused me seriously to doubt my Christian faith.

Turning to John's Gospel and Revelations, again you're at odds with the experts on this issue. I have never met a Biblical scholar who believes that these books are by the same author, and I met quite a few (before I abandoned 18 months of research towards a PhD in theology). I heard recently that even the deeply theologically conservative current Pope accepts that there are two authors of these distinctly different texts. Again, this was something that troubled me deeply as a practising Catholic. This seemed to undermine the reliability of scripture to an even greater extent since acceptance of this logically necessitated believing that the claims to the contrary, within the pages of inerrant scripture, were deliberate falsehoods. I know there are those who have found imaginative ways to square this particular circle, but I find their attempts to be an affront to common sense, inspired by a desire to hold on to a disproven belief in the teeth of the evidence (I can hear a voice asking me, "Ah, but what do you mean by evidence?").

Ok, for you Christ's ministry lasted three years. But I'm sure the disparity of either a one year or a three year ministry between the various canonical Gospels is not news to you. Again, for me this discrepancy was troubling and further undermined my belief in the reliability of scripture. You're also no doubt aware that, according to the Gospels, the last supper occurred either on the eve of the Passover or on the Passover itself. Admittedly, this discrepancy alone does not completely undermine the reliability of scripture, but when considered in light of the many other discrepancies between the various Gospels it does serve to demonstrate that the four canonical Gospels cannot all be literally true.

Your question about how "illiterates" could have written the Gospels is clearly another 'gnat'. "Illiterates" must certainly have been amongst those who preserved the oral tradition. Of course those who eventually put pen to paper were not illiterate by definition. I choose to repeat my (slightly amended) question because it was put to me once many years ago and I found that I could not answer it with integrity and remain a believer.

How can you be sure that these texts aren't what they appear to be: the comforting fireside tall-tales of ancient, superstitious and semi-literate desert shepherds?

Best

Gaz

317. Fleabytes

Comment #146717 by mixmastergaz on March 19, 2008 at 9:58 am

Excellent post epeeist; makes the point rather well. I was preparing a similar post about a traffic accident I witnessed but it's superfluous now.

I'm sure we've all encountered folks from time to time who seem to be able to believe in their own lies with sincerity...

318. Fleabytes

Comment #146676 by mixmastergaz on March 19, 2008 at 9:17 am

Clearthinker: Sorry I've only just noticed your recommendation of U2's 'God part 2' in a much earlier post. As you'll understand, this won't really fit into a programme of music with atheism/agnosticism and free thought as its theme. However, I probably will play a U2 track when I do a programme of music with religious themes, but I'm wondering if maybe you've overlooked something about 'God part 2'. You quoted some of the lyrics:

"I don't believe the devil, don't believe his book,
But the truth is not the same without the lies he made up."

The 'devil' referred to here is Albert Goldman (I think he's mentioned by name elsewhere in the song), and not Satan. Goldman wrote a biography of John Lennon that placed huge emphasis on the man's shortcomings and human foibles in what amounted to a sustained attempt to 'write-off' Lennon. The book containing these "lies he made up" (according to U2) is 'The Lives of John Lennon'. The lyrics you quoted are in support of Lennon's reputation not God's.

319. Fleabytes

Comment #146503 by mixmastergaz on March 19, 2008 at 6:35 am

I enjoyed your report Quetz. For me the most (unconciously) revealing thing he said was:-

"If somebody asked me a question then I would immediately avoid answering it." (or something like that...)

320. Fleabytes

Comment #146164 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Frankus: I think the gnat/camel comment you refer to was me. I was accusing "clearthinker" of "straining out gnats and ignoring camels" when replying to posts on this thread, including mine. He hasn't responded yet.

I don't want to say (yet) where I got the quotation from; I'm interested to see if "clearthinker" recognises it...

321. Fleabytes

Comment #146156 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Styrer: Of course I agree. Perhaps that's why believers are so threatened by literature and the arts. They're competition (with a much better product) for organised religion.

322. Fleabytes

Comment #146138 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Put Bacchus to shame? I'd make Caligula blush!

Don't knock the writhing 'til you've tried it. By the way, you're awfully well informed about our sinful ceremonies in the Monastery of Sound. It is EXACTLY as you describe. Confess! Do you not secretly desire to join us Monsieur Penseur?

323. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #146130 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 4:40 pm

ygern: Sure there's no net. But neither is your house on fire so there's no need to take the 'leap of faith'.

324. Fleabytes

Comment #146127 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Styrer: I read your reply to Robertson and a quotation I think I must've heard on clip on this site somewhere sprang to mind:

"The religious mind cannot understand the ironic one."

(Or something like that!)

325. Fleabytes

Comment #145996 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Revd. D. : "myth, like Hollywood, loves remakes". Brilliant!

And of course it's worth considering how the canon was arrived at. And this had as much, if not more, to do with the political ambitions of the councillors at Nicaea than with textual authenticity. If greater credibility is to be granted to those texts thought to be composed within the lifetimes of Christ's contemporaries, then some apocryphal texts deserved inclusion but were excluded, whilst other obvious candidates for exclusion (step forward 'Revelations') made the final cut.

Of course, clearthinker's likely to come back at some point, remind us that he's studied the Bible in its original languages (again), and tell us we don't know nothin' 'bout nothin'.

326. Fleabytes

Comment #145972 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 12:23 pm

mlearnedfriend: I may safely concede that what we now know as the Bible is as accurate to the original texts as your quotations claim it to be. However, the gospels survived via an oral tradition in an ancient, pre-literate society for perhaps a generation before they were written down. It is extremely unlikely to suppose that they avoided the 'Chinese whispers' effect, and there is no reason to suppose that what was written down was reliable anyway. The gospels contain incompatible accounts; logically they cannot all be 'literal truth'.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that they may simply be what they appear to be; the fireside tall-tales of ancient, illiterate desert shepherds.

327. Fleabytes

Comment #145931 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 10:29 am

Blimey, I leave the site unattended and totally miss the big 6K. It's getting difficult to keep up with this thread., anyway…

Clearthinker: I thought I might evidence some of that clear thinking you say we're avoiding (post 5874). When I consider the years that elapsed after the claimed death and resurrection of Christ and the composition of the various gospels, in which time the narrative of Christ survived only as an oral tradition and was therefore subject to who-knows how many revisions, both deliberate and accidental, it seems to me that to doubt the reliability of these scriptures is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; indeed it is inconceivable to suppose that some sort of 'Chinese whispers' effect could not have crept in. And those who cannot, like yourself, simply set aside their credulity on this matter do not deserve to be insultingly dismissed as 'fundamentalists', although they may accurately be described as atheists or agnostics. I wish to harm no one as a consequence of this opinion; I don't seek to impose it on anyone. I am not dogmatic about it and could be persuaded to change my opinion in light of better evidence. If words are to be used with some relationship with their meanings then in what sense can I accurately be said to be a 'fundamentalist' about this?

328. Fleabytes

Comment #145703 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 2:49 am

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be vicious with those tendrils...

Excuse me folks, I must go now and partake of finest tea. I think the Rutles are expected later...

329. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145698 by mixmastergaz on March 18, 2008 at 2:42 am

'Science cannot answer empirical questions about the origin of the universe'. What and Christianity can? The profusion of articles of this sort betrays a creeping desperation in the theists' arguments. Quantity not quality appears to be the order of the day. It doesn't matter how poor their counter-arguments are, there just needs to be enough of them to create the impression of a spirited rebuttal.

This puts me in mind of a saying from a friend of mine:-

"If you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick."

330. Fleabytes

Comment #145567 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:59 pm

I think you're overlooking the subtler charms of Clairpenser's preaching. Pathfinder is strident and shrill. Clairpenser is the Dan Dennett of hellfire preaching!

Clearthinker, on the other hand, is the David Robertson of preaching...

331. Fleabytes

Comment #145556 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Err...Clearthinker?

332. Fleabytes

Comment #145528 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Ok everybody, it's time to put the "devilled eggs" away now. Clearthinker's back so let's all quit screwing around.

Clearthinker: Of course pathfinder is a wind-up merchant. Don't be troubled is by he (as Clairpenser might say!)

Myself, I'm off for a cup of tea (in moderation of course). I'll be back in a wee while. Hope to see some interesting posts (that's pretty much guaranteed here).

333. Fleabytes

Comment #145511 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Of course "in moderation"! Too much tea leads to impure thoughts, even to the very worst sorts of foul self-scratchings such as the pagans indulge in.

Wankers.

But I will take comfort from the Psalms when I am walking past a graveyard at full moon.

334. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145502 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Adrian: "his blood-chilling encounters with a childhood schoolmarm" caught my eye as well. WTF is he talking about? Hitchens describes his 'schoolmarm' with affection and fondness. She doesn't belong in the same category (or the same sentence) as "murderous fanatics". Tony Snow hasn't been doing his research properly methinks...

335. Fleabytes

Comment #145486 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Clairpenser: Your idolatrous worship of a false god does not do you credit. Have you considered the alternatives?

The Ontealogical Argument

It is possible to conceive of a beverage than which no greater beverage could be conceived etc.

The Argument from the first cup of the day

There must have been a time when no beverages existed, but we know that beverages now exist. Therefore there must have been a beverage that existed when no other beverages existed and caused their existence ex nihilo. This prime beverage we call Tea.

The Tealeological Argument
Tea shows evidence of purpose and purpose implies an Intelligent Brewer.

The Tealeological Argument special application: The Fundamental Constants of Tea

Tea has certain things that go into it that make it tea; without these it wouldn't be Tea stupid! Furthermore we're guessing that it's probably very improbable for Tea to be like this; too improbable for it to have just happened by "chance mutation or adaptation" (Ha! The very idea!). This means that there must have been an Intelligent Brewer to establish what goes into Tea and what doesn't ('tuning' or determining for example that the water must be boiled to exactly 100 degrees Celsius, otherwise your Tea won't taste very nice) and to make the Tea.

336. Fleabytes

Comment #145337 by mixmastergaz on March 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Clearthinker: A sincere welcome back and thanks for your reply from me at least.
However, you've highlighted the least significant part of my post. The stuff about 'poor grammar' was just the parting shot; I'm surprised it's a new one to you as it's an old one to me, and Richard included a version of it in TGD. But if you've never heard that one before then perhaps you might recall "straining out gnats and ignoring camels"? We both know that very few (if any) Christians actually believe that the Bible was literally written by God and admit to human intervention, so obviously we can blame the humans for the poor grammar. The argument from poor grammar was merely a light-hearted remark and not a serious point. By the way, I'm not desperate to be an atheist (whatever that means) and you're not gifted in the art of discerning a stranger's motives, so how about we stay on topic? We were talking about progress. I gave you a few examples of progress in the last hundred years. I then asked what empirical evidence you had for the reliability of your scriptures. I put it more colourfully than that and you seemed to take offence; I'm sure you remember. Any thoughts on any of that stuff? Allow me to elaborate further by posing a few questions that troubled me greatly as an earnest, young theology undergraduate and practising Catholic. (Of course, I was no longer troubled when I realised what the answers to these questions implied):-

1.) Who wrote the last chapter of Mark's Gospel?
2.) Why does the author of Revelations claim to be the same person who wrote John's gospel, when he clearly isn't?
3.) Christ's ministry lasted for how long?
4.) Could Christians have got it wrong and should they be commemorating 'Good Thursday'?
5.) Can you honestly not see why, even if these questions and the many others like them don't concern you, they might cause some to wonder about the reliability of scripture?

337. Fleabytes

Comment #144791 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 6:28 pm

I wouldn't want to try and read too much into Cornwell's conceit; it just suddenly struck me in way that it hadn't before what an odd thing it was to do. And it also seems odd that his, presumably, theistic readers should find it compelling rather than slippery and deceptive. But presumably Cornwell knows how best to address his intended audience; by insulting their intelligence.

338. Fleabytes

Comment #144769 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Ok, returning to the topic (perhaps this next point has been made elsewhere; I freely confess I've not read all the posts), I was just thinking what an odd thing it was for Cornwell to do to write from the perspective of an angel. Afterall, I doubt that Paula thought to herself when proofreading 'Fleabytes' "You know this would all be immensely improved if I change from a straight forward first-person authorial voice and write it instead imagining myself to be a mermaid. That should just give it that extra rhetorical boost to make it really bite."

339. Fleabytes

Comment #144741 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:06 pm

There are three aspects to the Beveragehood, each finding unity in the fulness of the one Beverage. Tea the instigator, Marmite the off-shoot and Bovril the holy-undrinkable. Yet there are not three Beverages but one Beverage with three aspects. And honestly this makes sense. Just ask John Cornwell; he saw the shelves full of books on the subject just before he started pretending to be an angel.

340. Fleabytes

Comment #144624 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Tim: Black Sabbath is a taste I've certainly acquired; I played 'the wizard' last time I was on air.

Dr Benway your suggestion sounds great but unbroadcastable. OFCOM wouldn't allow swearing in the daytime.

Richard M.: looking forward to it.


Queen and Bonzai: Thanks for those, I don't recall any of them but I'll have a listen.

Thanks everyone.

Quetz: Only divine sanction can account for the continued presence of the disgusting muck that is Bovril on our supermarket shelves. I think someone smarter than I needs to come up with a compelling counter argument to the argument from Bovril.

341. Fleabytes

Comment #144457 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:31 am

I'm thinking of a song with lyrics along the lines of "the things you're liable to read in the Bible ain't necessarily so" (which I'm guessing is the title), but it's not my era. Who's the recording artist and would this one fit?

342. Fleabytes

Comment #144454 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 5:24 am

Thanks for all the suggestions everyone; I'll definitely look into them. Keep them coming if you think of any others. When I first thought of this as a theme for a programme it occured to me that there was the potential for heavy rock or metal to dominate. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of a lot of heavy rock and metal bands but I'm particularly interested in suggestions from other styles.

Richard Morgan, if I can find a way of converting one of your songs into a broadcastable format I'd love to give one an airing. I try to play commercially unreleased music whenever I can, and I'm keen to feature an unusually broad playlist in terms of musical styles/genres. The programme won't air for a few weeks but I'll be sure to let you know.

343. Fleabytes

Comment #144433 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 4:33 am

I don't know either of the Motorhead tunes you mention S.G., but I'm definitely gonna trackdown "God was never on your side" for the title alone! I can't wait to announce that one. Thanks for the inclusion of the lyrics; I'm not worried about the self-contradiction inherent in addressing someone whose existence you deny. The XTC song I mention above makes a virtue out of it and concludes with an impassioned:

"And if you're up there you'll perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve
If there's one thing I don't believe in
It's you; Dear god!"

I think the video's on youtube for the interested.

344. Fleabytes

Comment #144429 by mixmastergaz on March 16, 2008 at 4:07 am

I'm perplexed by the references to tea and sock puppets and intrigued by the missing posts but, since anything appears to go at this point, here's a completely off-topic question:

Does anybody know of any good songs with an atheistic point of view?

I ask because I'm trying to put together an hour's worth of music with atheism as a sort of loosely defining theme to it, for future broadcast.

So far I've thought of:

'Imagine', 'God' or 'I found out' by John Lennon
'What God wants' by Roger Waters
'Dear God' by XTC
'The Way' by Me'shell N'degeocello
'Galaxy Song' by Monty Python
'Tom Sawyer' or 'Freewill' by Rush
er...
that's it...

Any suggestions chaps?

345. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144344 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Steve

I couldn't agree with you more. But I am concerned that by admitting to scepticism towards universal rules we open ourselves up to the charge of being postmodernists! ;)

I'll bet that's what Hedges (remember him?) would accuse us of!

346. Fleabytes

Comment #144338 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Clearthinker/Robertson (delete as applicable) has been absent for a while now. Others may feel differently (and I can't say I blame them) but I hope he does come back to talk to us, and I don't mind if he brings some cyber-friends with him. I wasn't lurking on this site at the time of the weeflea-gate shenanagins and I'm intrigued by the reference to the mystery of the 300 missing posts.

I think it's great that the whole God argument has been re-awakened with such gusto; here we all are countering Robertson's counter arguments to Paula's counter arguments to Robertson's counter arguments to Richard's arguments in the TGD. Put like that it sounds like we should be getting tired of this discussion by now but I'm still totally caught up in it all.

347. Fleabytes

Comment #144323 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 3:48 pm

You both realise that this sounds a little paranoid right?

348. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #144317 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Steve, Ungodly...
Sorry to interupt fellas, and please feel free to continue and ignore me without comment but here's my twopen'orth

In the dramatic and exceptional circumstances outlined by Steve above it seems to me that the right thing to do would be to torture the potentially-mass murdering bastard if that was really the only course of action left open. (It's a while since I read Harris but isn't this the same or a similar scenario to the one that Harris refers to with regards to torture?)

However, it shold be noted that these are very exceptional circumstances. I'm not sure that we can draw general or universal rules from such extraordinary or even unique situations. In fact I'm not convinced that trying to arrive at a set of universal rules really has all that much to do with ethics.

Anyway do please continue your interesting exchange chaps...

349. The business of natural selection

Comment #144291 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Mathematics is a language I can barely understand, but as I read this I could hear the booming voice of 'Deep Thought' declaring that the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is...

is...

350. The atheist delusion

Comment #144085 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 4:12 am

Interesting that Gray considers Onfray's book to be the best amongst the 'new atheists'; I thought it was one of the worst (admittedly I haven't read it in its original language). It's full of unsupported assertions and provocative guesswork like 'St. Paul was impotent and that's why he's got such a downer on sexuality' (obviously I'm paraphrasing from memory!)

I agree with the earlier poster who said this guy is like Hedges; it's the same thesis. Too much reason/rationality leads to tyranny.

Bollocks.