301. Fleabytes

Comment #134210 by Corylus on February 27, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Fascinating Al and SG

Thanks :)

302. Fleabytes

Comment #134189 by Corylus on February 27, 2008 at 11:24 am

You know, if I were a member of David Robertson's Church the last thing I would do is to support him in asking for a public debate.

I would be worried that he would not be able to control his temper and generally make a dreadful exhibition of himself and everyone associated with him. That constant irritability and bubbling frustration is a part of his personality type after all.

Just a thought....

------

Al-rawandi

I sat down with a famous Islamic scholar named Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

Arh - this guy?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,710,Response-to-Richard-Dawkins-and-Sam-Harris,Zaytuna-Videocast-4

You might find this comment about the man (by someone called RichardH) particularly illuminating.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,710,Response-to-Richard-Dawkins-and-Sam-Harris,Zaytuna-Videocast-4,page2#25624

303. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133615 by Corylus on February 26, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Al

If you think Bruce Lee movies are accurate depictions of what happens in real fights....

Well, I do seem to remember Bruce Lee giving Chuck Norris a bit of a spanking in Return of the Dragon.

That would happen in real life!

Or mebbe not...

304. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133606 by Corylus on February 26, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Don't feel bad Anna I got left out too...and I make the effort to speak Welsh to him sometimes (not something that come naturally!)

Mind you, I do snap back and call him a miserable old bugger at times so maybe that's why. :-)

305. Fleabytes

Comment #132604 by Corylus on February 25, 2008 at 3:14 am

David

If you type your posts in notepad instead of word and then cut and paste into the comment box you will no longer get those funny squiggles whenever you use an apostrophe.

Something funny going on with pasting from word documents.

306. Evidence can't shake your faith if your faith excludes it as evidence

Comment #132568 by Corylus on February 25, 2008 at 1:40 am

Ask them to define faith and this whole drivel falls apart.

I find it amusing to start with the Kings James version.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

Eg - look at this bit

I'm told by persons whose authority I accept on faith,

How is this 'evidence of things not seen'? Presumably, he has either seen these authorities or read their writings.

[Edit] I do appear to be quoting a lot of scripture recently - must watch that tendency in myself :P

307. How he was sentenced to die

Comment #132553 by Corylus on February 25, 2008 at 1:21 am

Cartomancer

Why?

Lots of reasons, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the fact that he downloaded the material was an inflaming factor. There does appear to be a big fear of the general population gaining free access to information amoungst hardline religious types. Even in some of the supposedly moderate countries, there are constant attacks to block it. See What happened in Pakistan recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7262071.stm

For the Christian version (to be used by kids when home schooling) check out the site Conservapedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

These people are right to be scared of the internet. The more people learn, the more they think and more they question those in authority.

Joe Public online may just break the stranglehold of fundamentism. Joanna Public on line (learning that there are places when she can get a job and not get married if she doesn't want to). That might just be the beginning of the end.

308. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132301 by Corylus on February 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Quine

Good thing I am, also, a martial arts instructor.

Cool!

Do you call out "Bonzai" during tameshiwari?

Excuse me if this is a personal question ;-)

----

Bonzai/Quine - only playing with you both :-)

P.S. I take a balanced view on nitpicking - tis sometimes irritating, but it is also sometimes vital in that is stops people talking at cross purposes and wasting each other's time.

309. Fleabytes

Comment #132256 by Corylus on February 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm

KrisKing

Yes, I do what?

This is getting tedious.

Krisking

Answering questions with questions is only a good thing if you are getting paid as a psychotherapist.

This is because; coming from anyone without sufficient practise; it presents as merely passive / aggressive.

Give us some specific issues to address and we will deal with them.

310. Fleabytes

Comment #131891 by Corylus on February 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Geoff

.... combining two of your interests...

Arh yes, amazing how often philosophy can intersect with one of one's interests.

http://www.amazon.com/Buffy-Vampire-Slayer-Philosophy-Trembling/dp/0812695313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203805753&sr=1-1

Do not laugh. It is actually an interesting book.

311. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131885 by Corylus on February 23, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Well, other people are dealing very well with the homosexuality as sin angle, but I personally cannot let this one pass...

Shrommer

God does not discriminate, and he does not hate or fear anyone because of the particular nature of their temptations, whether they are tempted sexually, or to drink too much alcohol, [my emphasis] or to lie, or to be violent, or to gossip and slander, etc.

Huh? Booze is a sin for Christians now is it??

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.
1 Timothy 5:23

Do not make the mistake of assuming that atheists have not read the bible. Like most Christians I am well aware of what verses suits my particular proclivities.

[Swigs Merlot]

However, unlike Christian's we do not need the threat of punishment to stop us overindulging - there is always the simple common sense of the ancients to fall back on...

No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves.
Epicurus

[Puts cork back in half drunk bottle to prevent hangover]

312. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131803 by Corylus on February 23, 2008 at 10:54 am

Richard Morgan

Shwmae cariad :-)

313. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #131787 by Corylus on February 23, 2008 at 10:09 am

Quetz

got this comment on my blog last night: .......... I think I've been Wootered. I feel violated.

Hmm, well I have heard about Wooter frequenting some, um, special interest websites....

Brian,you're looking oddly familiar to me too. You have a nice normal face, but if I squint it has a bit of a, what I can only describe as a, devilish aspect...

Can't think where I have seen that before.

314. Fleabytes

Comment #131525 by Corylus on February 22, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Arrh!!

Internet connection going t&*s up!!

I will put my post in when the edit button works again.

%$&**!

Still not working.... posting it below.

---
Epeeist

It really depends whether you are female or not.

As my maths teacher used to say, while in vector algebra you go from P to Q, if you are female it is a matter of going to Q to P.

Sometimes somethings are just damn obvious ;-)

http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html

[Edit:

I see the British humour (note the "u") went straight over your head.

Groan - I don't often play logic games - but when I do - I find out people were only taking the p*&s all along! Life isn't fair.]

---

Diacanu,

I don't want to disillusion you darlin', but it isn't a battle cry - it is actually my name!

Key it into Wiki....

315. Fleabytes

Comment #131468 by Corylus on February 22, 2008 at 1:09 pm

316. Fleabytes

Comment #130986 by Corylus on February 21, 2008 at 4:22 pm

David Elden

I'm a little surprised at the vehement responses towards him. Granted he may be talking nonsense, but surely he should be allowed to talk nonsense?

I completely understand, and I think this view does you a huge amount of credit :-)

However, if you want to know why I think engaging with him is not worth it check out this extract from his comment below.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1685,Teacher-I-was-fired-said-Bible-isnt-literal,Megan-Hawkins-Des-Moines-Register,page4#74561

I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.

Atheists as people who view dead babies as 'throwaway survival machines' - not very nice is it?

N.B. Apart from a few very specific triggers that make me very cross indeed (we all have them!) I flatter myself that I am generally capable of controlling my emotions very well and chatting calmly with all types. I am fine when people disagree with me: I learn more that way. However, I have to say that particular one made me lose my cool.

Do please, read the entire thread for context. Don't just take my word for it. Also, look up some of David's comments that Donald has linked.

Hell, look up mine too, check that I am not a unjustifiably vehement type. I have been on this site for a while. There are some comments I would modify and clarify if I could. There are times when I wish I had been more subtle, and sworn a tiny bit less, but I can say that I have never said anything that I am actively violently ashamed of. Some of David's comments I would be mortified to have made.

I simply don't see any point in talking to the man. There is another reason for this, something that has no bearing on the question of free speech. I actually think there are some arguments that he is incapable of understanding -those that require putting yourselves in the place of another person and attempting to see and feel as they do.

Certain types of churches attract certain types of people. It takes a vital lack of empathy to truly believe in others suffering for eternity (including those who are simply unlucky) and not to be conflicted.

People who openly admire Jonathan Edwards worry me. Look up his sermon on Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html

I once accused David of being not kind and it went over his head like a 747. The fact that he didn't realise the depth or the gravity of that accusation only served to further confirm my opinion of him.

If he wants to write an in-depth rebuttal to Paula, fine. However, I for one will not be talking to him. I have other things to do with my time.

317. Fleabytes

Comment #130082 by Corylus on February 20, 2008 at 3:35 am

Well done Paula!

Huge kudos for writing all that out. I thought the special topic boxes were a great idea of marshalling common themes.

I have read some of these books too, in that I refuse to let people accuse me of not reading both sides of an argument, so I salute your stamina in writing such a review.

After a while you get flea fatigue a strange condition where you find yourself grouchy, mildly depressed and unable to work out exactly what is libellous and what is not. Do not worry it wears off.

So, well done again! Now take a break from them :-)

Steve

Another aspect to their attacks on Dawkins seemed to be their repetitiveness.

Well, there is one of these books that comes up with a novel line and that is The New Atheists: The Twilight of and the War On Religion by Tina Beattie.

N.B. She is a feminist catholic theologian; she hangs onto to this dissonant position by a combination of mealy mouthed sophistry, digs at Protestantism and a ridiculous critique of the Enlightenment convincing only to people who know nothing about it. Her spectacularly silly and self-indulgent book is full of 'postmodern' language , post colonial guilt, and mangled philosophy (e.g. you could come away with the idea that there has been no work done in the philosophy of science since Kuhn and what he said was absolutely devastating, bah!). The worst part is how little she cares for the truth as an ideal, for her truth just appears to just consist of different kinds of narratives. So, as God loves stories so he must exist. Grim.

Her unique selling point? The New Atheists are just a bunch of repressive male WASPS.

In their uncritical engagement with outmoded theories, the new atheists have hardly moved on from that imperial world in which cultures dominated by a white male elite remain caught up in a territorial battle of colonisation and conquest.

The only textual evidence for this view is in Dawkins' chapter "The mother of all Burkas" which

suggests an attitude every bit as blind to its sexual and racial prejudices as those of his Victorian predecessors... now it is the veiled Muslim women who must be exposed to the all-seeing, all knowing gaze of the men of science...

Oooh behave!!!

The accusation that the NA's are a bunch of chavinistic racists is never directly made, this book steers very cleverly around the libel laws, but the implication is always there. Quite sickening actually.

There were things that were fun about this one. The digging at the other 'fleas' amused me. Men see! Alaistair McGrath painted as a big masculine dominating type gave me a giggle. There was also an entertaining passage on the use of vibrators. This was an unexpected bonus for a theology book. Also, there were many and varied "Wha???" moments to be had . My personal favourite:

As a practising Roman Catholic, I thank God for the gifts of modernity and the insights of secularism.

Teehee!!

N.B. Any one wanting to read the Beattie book (I will post free to UK and Europe, on the understanding that the recipient does the same) need only send me a PM. Let me know if you are a sensitive type and I will erase my pencilled comments in the margins ;-).

Paula You are not getting it though! You have suffered enough.

Generally, I am beginning to wonder whether there might be a backlash to these flea books by Christians soon.

They approach the New Atheist books with the line That is not my religion you are attacking I think many Christians will be reading these books and saying That is not my religion you are defending. I think the sound of a few pennies dropping might soon be heard...

P.S. Waits for a Wee Flea sock puppet to appear on this thread, I'm betting he is reading......

318. A match made on RichardDawkins.net?

Comment #128177 by Corylus on February 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Well, well. You sneaky pair.

While you can't herd cats it does appear you get them hitched! (As shown by the lovely picture above).

I am generally quite a reserved type, but I can't help sending a big hug and kiss to the pair of you.

Hazel.

319. Inventor Doesn't Dare Say 'Perpetual Motion Machine'

Comment #127828 by Corylus on February 15, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Oh my. What an absolutely vile thread to read.

I happen to have a quite a strong stomach with regards to dealing with trolls. I also take the 'be polite and show them up for idiots' stragegy that Steve does.

However, I don't think this 'pair' have a brain between them to reach.

(I don't think they have a pair between them either, but that is a separate point. Deleting anything other than typos or grammatical errors from your posts is not a sign of bravery).

So, I'm not going to bother with either of them.

Steve's right. Ignore. Wait until Josh has purged the stupid.

320. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126949 by Corylus on February 14, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Steve I completely understand your not wanting to share a thread with DavidJMH. Some people are just polluting. We all have people that life is too short to talk to. Personally, I can not go near Scooter. For example, he made a trolling comment recently about the culpability of rape victims that made me yearn for some gonad shaped earrings. We all have our limits, sweetheart. Do not feel bad.

I do not know whether the change of perspective helps, but I looked at this statement of his with interest.

A hundred years ago we knew what we stood for and we knew we were right. We are a society that is in decline now through lack of courage and determination; decadence and self interest prevail and we will very soon be overrun.

Harking back to an non-existent golden age is a generally a sign of deep dissatisfaction with the present and, often, a dreadful lack of hope concerning the future.

To me David comes across as a very, very frightened man. You notice how he never wants to get into protracted debates? He posts and runs. Classic coward. Maybe if he made an effort to stop being so scared he would hate less?? Who knows...
-----
David you are welcome to prove me wrong. Steve does not want to go near you, but I am prepared to give it a bash. So why not start with a question.

You support the BNP. What do you think about Combat 18? Do they

a) Go too far.
b) Not go far enough.

EDIT: As I always try to be fair it strikes me that I should give you a further option

c) never heard of them.

I am waiting...

321. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126715 by Corylus on February 14, 2008 at 2:49 am

Fighting flipping flapdoodle.

322. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #126699 by Corylus on February 14, 2008 at 1:46 am

Appleby

Would the new Charles Simonyi professor have to be an atheist?

I do not think so for two reasons, one theoretical and one moral.

1) The job would require someone with a sound understanding of the importance and worth of methodological naturalism (a.k.a. part of the scientific method, which requires always looking for natural explanations). However, there is no stated requirement to take on board metaphysical naturalism (there is no supernatural).

A religious person with the job would have a huge balancing act on their hands. Which I reckon could probably only be handled with any semblance of consistency by a deist, but in theory it could be done. (I personally agree with Dawkins that NOMA is drivel, but deists can run with it further than theists).

If you look at the statement by Simonyi (a.k.a. job description) the only mention of religion is here.

Above all, they must approach the public with the utmost candour. Naturally, they will interact with political, religious, and other societal forces, but they must not, under any circumstances, let these forces affect the scientific validity of what they say.

This does not rule out a religious person; what it does do is rule out a dishonest one. [Behe need not apply!]

Any religious person getting this job would be well advised to keep the two sides of his/her life separate and distinct. This is actually something all professional people do in their employment; you leave private matters at home and you do work in your office.

2) Morally, you simply cannot discriminate on religious grounds when it comes to employment. It is unjust and against all secular principles. The issue is whether or not the person concerned can do the job.

It also plays square into the hands of those who scream materialism and scientism. at every opportunity (without really clarifying what they mean by the terms). Witness some of the passive/aggressive comments we have seen in this thread. Which are, incidentally, accusing Oxford University of discriminatory employment practices. This is a position that the author of these comments might want to reconsider.

Of course, if there were a job called Professor for the Public Understanding of Religion and Dennett got the job, we would hear the very same people howling from the rooftops about an inappropriate choice. However, I have stopped expecting consistency from certain quarters.
------

Practically, of course, the problem probably will not arise in that the vast majority of high level scientists are atheists anyway.

However, you cannot say that the job must go to an atheist for the two reasons above.

323. The Out Campaign

Comment #126194 by Corylus on February 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm

You kiss your mother with that mouth, O'Neill??

I'm not going to quote the last line of your post above, because I happen to have standards.

So nice to get a blast of christian forgiveness, kindness and charity.

P.S. Matthew 15:11

324. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125770 by Corylus on February 12, 2008 at 2:39 am

Sigh, extremists are all the same; the only way they differ is what object of hatred they choose.

It appears that the object of dislike for DavidJMH is homosexuals.

There is one saving grace for the spread of Islamic forces throughout Europe today; the queers and all the other social deviants will be eradicated.

Have a care DavidJMH; you are a prime target for manipulation by the worst type of individual. An object lesson for you below; his name is David Myatt.

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

Common hatred unites the most heterogeneous elements. To share a common hatred, with an enemy even, is to infect him with a feeling of kinship, and thus sap his powers of resistance.
Eric Hoffer. The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

---------
P.S. Prefixing every post with Ladies and Gentlemen is superfluous, patronising, a crass appeal to group-thinking, technically incorrect (unfortunately, there are some individuals who occasionally post on here that are patently neither) and also makes you sound like Dame Edna. If I were you I would stop doing it.

325. Exorcism undergoes a revival across Europe

Comment #125489 by Corylus on February 11, 2008 at 12:45 pm

This is ridiculous of course, but there is one aspect that I find very frightening indeed.

One of the recruits is the Rev. Wieslaw Jankowski, a priest with the Institute for Studies on the Family, a counseling center outside Warsaw. He said priests at the institute realized they needed an exorcist on staff after encountering an increase in people plagued by evil.

Studies on the Family. I see.

Will this centre have a childrens wing?

326. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125180 by Corylus on February 11, 2008 at 3:32 am

Good article, completely correct that Rowan William's speech has had the effect of getting people talking about the issues and learning more about precisely what Sharia can and does prevail.

The hideous punishments everyone knows about, but now there has also been a highlighting of the gender disparities in matters such as matrimonial and inheritance law. Sharia cannot be used as some form of arbitration or 'alternative conflict resolution' (in civil rather than criminal matters) in that so much of it is at variance with British and European law. There will now be much more suspicion shown when it is hawked as such.

However, so sorry for lowering the tone, but this phrase had me crying with laughter

...bashing the bishop has become a national sport.

I can only pressure that Mr Hari is innocently unaware of the colloquial use of this term.

327. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #124892 by Corylus on February 10, 2008 at 11:53 am

I can not help reading this as a symptom of a wider trend. This pope is not just an undiplomatic idiot who likes the sound of Latin - he is seeking to turn the clock back in a variety of areas. E.g.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3307586.ece

With every story I hear about this man, I note the cheese sliding further and further off his cracker.

328. Apologetic billboard replaces atheistic sign

Comment #124451 by Corylus on February 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

_J_ and Irate

[Sniggers]

Have you swapped personalities???

329. Blasphemy

Comment #124450 by Corylus on February 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Teratornis

I'm sure audio books work well for other people... when I travel by bicycle, I need to have my hearing available.

I quite understand; each to their own. My personal problem with library books is how the pages often have grey/green crusty deposits on them. I am convinced that there are some individuals out there who pick their noses whilst reading them and wipe their fingers on the pages, but as I say, each to their own :-)

And not to quibble, but my user name is "Teratornis" which would be something like Greek for "monster bird."

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

Sorry about that, I am normally quite good with names!

I wonder why my brain made the mistake of calling you Ternatornis? Something to do with birds maybe?

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

Not monstrous though; quite sweet - somewhat of an updated version ;-)

330. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124307 by Corylus on February 9, 2008 at 4:31 am

Corylus, you seem to be losing your patience, my friend.

Happens to even me at times. However, I cant resist this one.

It was about relationships with people that I did not even know existed, which have subsequently become manifest.

Did it tell you that you were going to meet a tall, dark stranger who would change your life??

Seriously, I am sure that you have heard of self-fulfilling prophecies. Also, it is important to understand how we take in and process a huge amount of information without realising it. See the link below for the classic example:

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

Now, as to your question

For a moment, suspend your disbelief and imagine that you witnessed something that shook all of your prior understanding. Do you think that you would dismiss cautious induction, and just go back to saying: "Well, since I can't prove to my friends at RD.net that it actually happened, it must not have happened... I was just misinterpreting the experience.

My friends at RD.net be buggered (sorry chaps!) It would be proving it to myself that would be the issue. I know too much about the mind and the tricks it can play to change my life and behaviour because of an uncorroborated, non-falsifiable subjective experience. If there were others with me sharing this experience, I would be more impressed. If this experience was replicable, I would be more impressed. If I could test and examine the conditions that this experience took place in, I would be more impressed. You get the drift.

Yes, you are correct in that we get by on induction in our everyday lives. I believe I conceded this point in my post above (which in any case was more about experimental method than everyday living) I also conceded that it wasnt the clearest thing have ever written. (Must stop visiting this site late at night when I have been drinking claret with my dinner). I am not arguing for extreme scepticism - merely for taking extreme care over the conclusions that we do and we must draw.

You seem to be accusing me of being unwilling to be convinced about the existence of God , in short, saying that my atheism is not defeasible. This is not the case. What is the case is that I require certain standards of evidence for certain types of belief. This is not a dogmatic decision - this is an ethical one.

Let me explain. This is because religion allows people to give extreme weight to their subjective experience. Accordingly, they then use this experience as a justification for forcing their views upon others, for enacting laws which interfere with the relationships, health, and even, the lifes of others .

This guy has me convinced. If you dont want to read the whole essay, at least read the conclusion.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

331. Blasphemy

Comment #124277 by Corylus on February 9, 2008 at 2:25 am

Actually Stryer I understood Ternatornis point about our overuse of paper in the world. (Which I think you could have addressed more politely) The environment is something we all need to think about. This why I buy a great deal of my books second hand and recycle all the paper I use.

Ternatornis have you considered downloading audio versions of books instead? A great site for this is

www.audible.com

I believe TGD is available there. I love audio books, they are not just for those people with sight problems. Extremely useful in that you can read then when travelling or doing routine tasks and make good use of your time.

Best (and I dont mean this sarcastically)
Corylus.

332. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124122 by Corylus on February 8, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Update from the beeb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/0,,91232-1304558,00.html

For non UK residents - see here the front pages (it is interesting to see the differing slants of different papers) Including those that think football is more interesting (sigh)

333. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124099 by Corylus on February 8, 2008 at 11:10 am

The film buffs come out! Well done SteveRoot and Geoff.

IIRC the line was used both by the prison warder and parroted back by Luke near the end. So you are both right.

Also, sampled for the Guns n Roses track Civil War.

334. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123818 by Corylus on February 7, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Baeoz

Exactly! Gotta snooze now :-)

335. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123808 by Corylus on February 7, 2008 at 4:31 pm

BAEOZ

Corylus. Can you expand on this? I would think science, in fact all knowledge generation would be lost if we didn't presume that what was the case in our experience will still be the case tomorrow. I'm not trying to argue with you, just to understand your point.

I hear you Baeoz. This splits into two points. The first is practical and the second theoretical. Practically, we indeed do assume that what was the case today will be the case tomorrow. We could not function without this form of reasoning. Also, we assume that certain actions cause events.

However, what happens when we want to learn new things and stop chugging along? (This is the theoretical bit)

We could just keep doing the same old thing again and again, observing the same event again and again and saying Well, bugger me, it is happening again! Trouble is we have no way of knowing whether there is some other factor at work in what is happening.

So we can not say:

I get on the plane because I have confidence in the statistical evidence that flying is relatively safe,

All that demonstrates is confidence in statistics not confidence in the theories behind flight. (I personally get on planes for the free booze, but that is a separate point)

Accordingly, in science we need to look at what sods things up as well as what gives evidence in support. A good way to start is to take away a single common factor and mess things up to see what happens. Then we need to take away a different common factor and compare the results.

When you automatically assume that x causes y, you may indeed be right, however if you are not aware that this notion is only contingently valid then you leave yourself open to the charge of dogmatism.

Plus you look daft when some smartarse comes along and shows that something else was the reason all along.

That was all I meant.

Arh, bollocks. I have not put explained this very well. (Tis late where I am:-)

336. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123768 by Corylus on February 7, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Bangs head on wall...

Kardashovel

The voice was responsive, predictive, and gave me specific verifiable information I could not have known otherwise.

Let me guess, this information was about you, your relationships and your immediate environment.

And it was staggeringly intelligent.

Concerning the above.

Corylus mentioned that some savants can invent an entire fugue in their mind, and that's great but that it is playback and in my case it was interactive.

Fugues are interactive that was the point I was making. They are dialogue set to music. Humans are verbal creatures, when there is no-one about we talk to ourselves (hint, hint).

Besides, although I test quite a bit smarter than the average human,

(Me too. And more than quite a bit actually)

this was off my chart

okay...

and I have taken discussion courses with Nobel Laureates.

I work all day with academics, some are smart, some are everyday, others still have the reasoning ability of a mouldy marshmallow. This means nothing because the issue is not the intellect of those people you talk to: it is your reasoning abilities that count.

If you are unable to question them I am afraid there is nothing more I can do for you.

--------

This is one of the reasons I swapped psychology for philosophy: a desire to talk to people who will listen

What we have here is failure to communicate:some men you just can not reach...

[Who said this? Answers on a postcard].

-----

P.S. Karkashovel

Thank you at least for demonstrating why scientists need to listen to philosophers.

I don't get on a plane because I understand, roughly, how it works... I get on the plane because I have confidence in the statistical evidence that flying is relatively safe,

Induction. Is. Not. Good. Enough.

It kills enquiry. That way lies stagnation.

337. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122595 by Corylus on February 5, 2008 at 2:37 pm

CruciFiction you seem to be busy with the videos alot.

I enjoy being able to watch debates on here, so thanks for the hard work :-)

338. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #122590 by Corylus on February 5, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Anna

Damnit, Cartomancer, you just ruined my childhood dreams of becoming She-ra!

I hear you. Whatever next??

I do hope he is not going to put forward the theory that Wonder Woman is a lesbian icon...

339. Blasphemy

Comment #122584 by Corylus on February 5, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Hugh

"The time has come for Muslims to step up to the plate "
Dr Dennett is an innocent soul. Stepping up, in Muslim countries, could mean stepping up to the gallows to be hung by the neck until dead or being done to death by a do-gooder.

Actually, no. I read him as being well aware of the nature of all of the issues.

The use of mild mannered language and gentle injunctions in the letter above elicit exactly the response you just had from both the atheist and the moderate believer. That is the point.

This is a twin pronged attack; on both the moderate western muslim (who will be squirming in embarrassment) and the fluffy pseudo intellectual who might to tempted to stand up for the Afghan government because of cultural relativism or the fear of being deemed a racist.

These are the two groups in the position of being most likely to be able to lobby effectively for the release of Pervez. (A direct appeal for a famous Western atheist could well be way more of a hindrance than a help).

Also, for anyone reading this shows up:

a) the cowardice that many Western intellectuals show

and

b)the sheer idiocy and inhumanity of blasphemy as a crime.

All without putting this poor man at increased risk.

This is an extremely clever letter: drafted with a great deal of thought.

Dennett is no innocent.

340. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122087 by Corylus on February 4, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Kardashovel

Apologies for my delay in replying. I have been away from my PC for a bit and then I thought you had left this thread. However, as you are still about and you have taken the time to write a long post to me it is only polite that I respond.

I have four things to say.

1) While you admit that the first time you heard voices you were under stress, you point out that the second time this happened you were not under any particular pressure (so my idea of these voices being a response to stress on your part is unlikely). OK.

I would ask you to think about the possibility that the second time you heard voices there was some common factor with the first experience. Some trigger. N.B. It could be something as simple as a piece of music, a familiar smell or a familiar taste. Sometimes, the echoes of peak experiences come flooding back because of little things that we do not consider of great importance. (Think of Proust and his madeleines).

In that analysis your second experience was not a new one: merely an echo of the first.

Take your time thinking about this.

2) You seem to want me to hypothesise about specific reasons for your experience. I do not want to do that for two reasons:

a) Doing that properly would involve me asking you some personal questions that have no place on a public board.

And

b) I would have to charge. Lots of things in this life I give out free, therapy is not one of them. :-) Plus, I am not chartered and if you really want this type of advice you need to go to someone with insurance.

3) You state that you have not had one of these experiences for a while, but you do seem to want to a repeat performance. I would (again) say two things about this.

a) If this happens and you have other sensory experiences in addition to the voices, do not automatically presume this is part and parcel of the experience.

For example, if you feel dizzy, nauseous, experience headaches, see bright lights, have unusual taste sensations, smell things that are not there or have any other peculiar sensory experiences (i.e. temporary paralysis, numbness, the feeling of things crawling on your skin, spasms etc). In short anything that seems weird.

Or even if you simply find yourself subject to mood swings and/or a sense of disassociation.

Get yourself to your a doctor immediately

b) If you find that you are hearing a different voice from your original nurturing one, one that insults you, or one that demands actions from you that you are not comfortable with. Again, seek help.

N.B. I am not trying to demean you or question your sanity here - this is simply advice.

4) You appear interested in psychology. That is great. I think it is a fascinating and very important field of study. Why not read up on a bit? Go to your local book shop.

Ignore the self-help section because that is full of badly researched self indulgent drivel. Instead, get an introductory textbook for psychology students. I am sure that you are smart enough to have no problems with reading it.

I think you are American, but the book in the UK that I would recommend is Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. by Richard, D. Gross. Also, as a companion volume to this Key Studies in Psychology (same author). I am sure that your bookseller will have some recommendations if you do not want to get those ones.

Some advice when reading. Most new psychology students will scan the introduction and jump straight to the abnormal psychology section of the book, because they want to learn about the interesting and exciting sexual fetishes that some people have ( I know I did!).

Avoid this bit. Look instead at the hard stuff, the bits on the biology of our sensory organs and the section on cognition and language acquisition. (Plus, if you have time, I would also check out the chapters on childhood development and attachment in general).

One reason that you believe that your voice of God was not you is because it seemed very smart. When you start reading up on cognition you realise that we all take in and process a huge amount of information. Our brains are amazing, do not discount their power.

For example, you wonder whether people hear voices internally or externally and the significance of this.

You know, there are some people who can play music to themselves in their heads. (I am not just talking about getting Talk like an Egyptian stuck in your mind!) These people can play fugues to themselves, hear every instrument, every note. They do this at will. It feels like it is not them; in that they are not playing at the time; however, they do not assume that it is God playing them a tune. It is just a talent, borne out of a gift for both music and concentration.

Please, take some time to read up on this subject and look after your health in the meantime.

341. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120564 by Corylus on February 2, 2008 at 2:37 am

Kardshovel

So, go back to google, you pop-psychologists, and do your best to find a fig leaf to cover your unclothed nether regions

Well, one of my degrees is in psychology so I believe I have a passing knowledge of the subject.
Actually, I don’t think you have schizophrenia (as indicated in my posts).

Find a list of psychological ailments that I might have that would induce me to hear a voice, twice?

Have you heard of the Hearing Voices Network? It is self-help group for those people who hear voices. Some of these people are schizophrenic some are not. While, I don’t buy into their anti-psychiatry element, it is an interesting movement that has helped people stay off the ward. Why not do some research on them? You might hear about some experiences that strike a chord.

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

Find a list of psychological ailments that I might have that would induce me to hear a voice, twice?

OK, some evidence that is quoted in the article linked above:

70% of voice hearers reported that their voices had begun after a severe traumatic or intensely emotional event, such as an accident, divorce or bereavement, sexual or physical abuse, love affairs, or pregnancy. In a recent study, Romme et al (1998) found that the onset of voice hearing amongst a 'patient' group was preceded by either a traumatic event or an event that activated the memory of an earlier trauma. There was a high association with abuse. These findings are being substantiated further in an on-going study with voice hearing amongst children (Escher, 2001)

I suspect, that as your voice hearing has only happened to you a few times, that these times were those of emotional turmoil. Maybe when you really hit a low? Sometimes when our self-esteem is really at rock bottom, we find ourselves unable to listen to answers from ourselves. We know what we need to do, but do not trust ourselves enough to do things on our own. Therefore we attribute these answers as coming from an external authority source (God, self-help books, TV personalities etc.) As I say, we externalise internal dialogues.

So, no I do not think you are schizophrenic. However, that admission does not stop me questioning the factual basis of your dialogue with God.

perhaps you would prefer not to talk about psychology any more, you feeble minded pedestrians...

Now, now, play nice!

I personally I am willing to talk about it anytime.

342. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120236 by Corylus on February 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

JemyM

The next pope I will pay notice to will have to be a woman one.

For a time it was thought that there was one.

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

Probably just a made up story, but the wiki article on it above is fun anyway. Also, upon reading it, I realise I now have a new favourite Latin phrase: Testiculos habet et bene pendentes.



I must play at working that into conversation somewhere.

343. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119437 by Corylus on January 31, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Richard

OK. Friends again :-)

However, the distinction between neurosis and psychosis isn't that easy either. Some poor buggers get two for the price of one.

344. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119417 by Corylus on January 31, 2008 at 3:15 pm

That "merely" wasn't about not admitting a problem RichardM. Just an understanding of the commonality of it.

For example, when people have recently lost a loved one they often hear the deceased talking to them.

I wouldn't call them crazy - "merely" mistaken.

345. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119404 by Corylus on January 31, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Can someone define troll for me? Cheers.

Take your pick Blacknad

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

346. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119393 by Corylus on January 31, 2008 at 2:55 pm

BTA

I can't believe he confessed to hearing voices...

I'd be very careful if I were you. If he is crazy, your certianly not helping matters. If he isn't well then... No good outcome.

I don't think that Kardashovel is crazy (not a word I like BTW) Merely deeply mistaken and giving an internal dialogue the status of an external one.

As for not helping, when dealing with the truly mentally ill it is best to look squarely at thier subjective experience, admit that it is real and precious to them, and then demand that they deal with others in a manner that is based on experience that all can share. If they can manage that then you have progress.

Ignoring the experience is what doesn't help.

P.S., the three dotted appeal to fear at the end. (aka "I do hope y'all aint dissing God - cos he's gonna get ya").

This cuts no ice on here.

347. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #119366 by Corylus on January 31, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Happy belated birthday Josh.

Hope you have at least one day off.

348. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119191 by Corylus on January 31, 2008 at 11:39 am

BTA

Not my point, sunshine, and you know it.

349. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119182 by Corylus on January 31, 2008 at 11:29 am

Blimy, I get in from work, sit down with a hot cup of gin (bugger that tea lark:-) and I find myself through the looking glass!

Then I read this...

Becomethearrow

People who think the Earth was created in six days are backwoods bible thumping snake handlers. I don't listen to them.

At first I read this and I thought- "Progress". At last, a realisation that some views are simply loopy. Then I thought some more and I released that this was nothing of the sort.

Becomethearrow – you stop listening to people when there are arguments are faulty, when they obviously lie or show such hideous rudeness that speaking to them calmly is impossible.

You don't stop listening to people because you buy into a prejudice that states that people born in 'backwoods' are incapable of critical thought or are ipso facto 'snake handlers'.
In any event at least 'snake handlers' put their money where their mouths are.

If you want people to take you seriously make arguments that do not rely on the denigration of others as their central point. Otherwise people might begin to suspect that you only cling to Christianity for the sense of (comparative) superiority that it (erroneously) affords you.
----
Kardashovel You deny that you made a head-patting sexist comment, and then, in the next breath talk about 'cheerleading'.

Files under "must try harder" and "not kidding me".
---

Sorry to make a comment which is only about telling off, but I'm afraid that you both deserve it.

350. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #118359 by Corylus on January 30, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Steve

Perhaps the problem is not so much preaching to children, but preaching to children while shielding them from other views.

See what you are saying Steve, but that ignores how children think.

They don't see a given group of options with the choice of deciding on any one of them by virtue of reasoned thought. They crave belonging and simplistic explanations. They want to feel part of an easily identifiable group. This is why liberal parents are often shocked to the core when their children come out with racist statements. Where did that come from they ask? To a certain extent this comes from other children with racist parents that have conditioned their children. However, a great deal comes from the childish desire for easy categorisation.

For example, (this is only a personal example I know), but my poor little ginger niece is having a tough time with other children at the moment. Some members of my (Weasleyfied) family have told her that this is a natural variation and to enjoy her difference and 'own' her gingeryness, but it's not working. Children think in either/or terms and can be cruel. Religion taps into this simplistic desire and habits learnt in childhood are hard to break.

The only response to it is not to respect difference – it is to question the very notion of difference itself.

Yes, it is imperative to teach that different views exist and children do question because of this. However, they question more when they realise that to accept these differences as legitimate they must also reject their friends as members of an 'outgroup'. This only happens when children with parents of all different faiths grow up together and learn together.