351. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118184 by Corylus on January 30, 2008 at 12:59 pm

In fact, if we removed all physical manifestations of Steve, Steve would still exist, since Steve has existed in the mind of Pretty Lady since time immemorial

I've said it before: I'll say it again.

People who talk about themselves in the third person (in company at any rate) are generally best avoided.

352. Atheism and Violence

Comment #117915 by Corylus on January 30, 2008 at 1:26 am

I enjoyed the comments on here taking this article apart serious stamina shown :-)

I'm lazy though and tend to respond to this sort of thing, not by making arguments for atheism, but instead to question the person spewing such drivel what they think about the morality of those people who adhere to other religions.

E.g. "Are you seriously implying that the Jews/hindus/Sikhs etc. are immoral and prone to violence because they have no 'Christian morality'?"

The automatic backtracking and protestations of mutual respect and different ways of knowing and the worth of moral philosophy are vastly entertaining.

353. Dawkins is third most prolific internet Briton

Comment #117682 by Corylus on January 29, 2008 at 11:23 am

Wow. Waits for Josh to get head-hunted by Ozzy Osbourne. (I hope he's careful, because I understand Ozzy bites...)

Anyway, credit to you too, Josh. [Applause]

Re: Imogen Heap – I seem to recall a video being posted on here a while back with a soundtrack of that 'sweet religion' song.

Ha – found it...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,967,The-Damned,John-Evans

354. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117369 by Corylus on January 28, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Steve

That suggest to me that he was more interested in trolling than anything else.

I wonder whether he justified this by telling himself that you had not answered to his satisfaction? As for trolling - depends on your definition of trolling. For example, I don't think he was gleefully stirring. Out to win converts, mebbe. I would, (excuse bluntness) use the term 'wanking' instead.

It's hard to know for sure. It's very difficult to reach judgements about people, when you only have their words to go on and can't observe in the flesh. I would love to hear Benway's final verdict on the man.

BTW, if I didn't say so before, I hugely admired all the work you Epeeist, Benway and others put in with debating with him. You have stamina and patience I lack.


P.S. Enya - wiped away a tear to Enya? I made the mistake of listening to her in the car once (I'm a nervous driver - I thought it might calm me) nearly asleep within a mile. Wiped away a tear indeed - that women almost dispatched me to the choir invisible.

---
Al, Who acted that arrogant, Dianelos, Henri or Scooter?? Not me, surely. Evidence for the defence : my avatar is a wee ickle mouse! I'm not arrogant at all.

355. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117347 by Corylus on January 28, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Peace

Scooter and Bergson were outwardly arrogant not superior. Spectacularly rude and demeaning, I grant you, but superior? ... one wonders...

When people denigrate others to prove themselves I don't suspect confidence, I suspect either insecurity or sadism. I forget who it was that said "rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength", but it was a point well made.

I have to say though, that I prefer Henri to Scooter. I find him amusing: I just can't help it.

Dianelos was entirely different. He showed his sense of superiority more subtly, by patronising and head patting. He really thought he had all the answers. Pure narcissism.

Epeeist? He's just smart.

P.S. Maybe, I come across as superior at times. (I'm willing to consider the possibility!) I'm a verbose, long-winded type. That's why I use smiley faces alot. Yes, they look naff, but they prevent bloodshed.

:-)

356. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117317 by Corylus on January 28, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Diacanu

Really? It only took a skim for me.

Smarta**e!

At first I took him for a harmless eccentric - couldn't believe anyone was still into Berkeley.

I finally understood (took me a while) when I looked at the people and the arguments he choose to address.

He always went for the abstract over the concrete, and sucked up the results, all the while becoming more and more bloated. He ignored the refutations and played with the conjectures. He fed but he didn't digest. He was a philosophical vampire.

(I even stopped being impressed by his (seeming) politeness after a while when I realised that this was merely another source of his sense of superiority).

Deepthought He's on the McGrath thread (No.10 under 'most popular articles') if you want to catch a glimpse of his work. Book a week off if you decide to read in depth.

--------
Good looking site Epeeist.

357. A Letter From Hell

Comment #117275 by Corylus on January 28, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Epeeist

Don't forget Dianelos (shudder)

Yep, there is something about computer programmers. Strange types some of them.

A little light relief for you Omega.
http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/killerquiz/

I admired how you really disliked the video above :-)

Needless to say I don't agree with you on other things, but as you have lots of others speaking to you I will stay quiet for a bit.

P.S. Epeeist don't you do programming sometimes? ;-)

Runs away...

358. Loneliness Breeds Belief in Supernatural

Comment #116276 by Corylus on January 26, 2008 at 5:54 am

Religious groups are well aware of this. E.g. you only have to look at all the advertising and plugs of religious groups to lonely new students when they turn up at universities.

University societies and clubs are great ways of meeting new people, but it is the religious groups that put leaflets under doors and continual notices on boards.

I am sure many members of these groups are sincere and are offering support as they see it. However, it always struck me as a bit 'unsporting'.
-----

Cartomancer

As a postgraduate student in the humanities I am very lonely indeed most of the time... I am sat in libraries on my own in silence most of the day,

Been there. Sends hug.

Trouble is, when you get out of the library and are faced with crowds you just want to go back in. People, en masse, can be hard to deal with.

I don't see anything wrong with having just a few close friends and relationships and concentrating on them. Quality not quanity. Not everyone can be a gregarious party animal.

Good thing too, scratch the surface of a extremely sociable type and you often find a deeply boring individual.

359. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115904 by Corylus on January 25, 2008 at 2:41 am

Makes you wonder how many poor children have been sat down in the 'safety' of their own homes and made to watch that dreadful Mel Gibson film, now it's out on DVD.

[N.B. I'm not referring to Lethal Weapon 4]

360. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115728 by Corylus on January 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm

AHA! The toothbrush is a feminist consiracy to get men to put the seat down.

Nah. That's when you swap their toothbrusth for the one in the cleaning box (they are such handy instruments for getting into all those hard to reach places!) and then tell them afterwards.

Stopping now, before I get told off for going off thread again...

361. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115709 by Corylus on January 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm

al-rawandi

How do get women to keep silence around the house?

Well, you could try putting the toilet seat back down and occasionally washing the dishes. ;-)

362. Heath Ledger Death: Baptist Group To Protest At Memorial

Comment #115692 by Corylus on January 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm

MissC77

Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 reminds us that homosexuals will burn in Hell if they refuse to repent!

Ah yes, Saul of Tarsus. So many wonderful snippets of wisdom in regard to relationships. Somewhat like a biblical Dr. Phil...

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

So do you agree with this statement MissC77?

Because this is 'right on the bible' too. Or would you care to 'PROVE the Bible is false'?

[Excuse the capitals I'm quoting, not shouting. TeeHee - As opposed to not waving but drowning :D]

363. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115323 by Corylus on January 24, 2008 at 2:36 am

I must confess that I was a little surprised to learn that people who post comments here have NOT read Darwin's original writings. Sure, it's not "easy reading" like Dawkins or Harris.

It wasn't the difficulty that put me off RichardM – it was the age. Not an issue with literature, but with science books a consideration. Not that I found The Ancestor's Tale an easy read...

Guess, I'm just a bit thick and illiterate.

364. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115166 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Ok, I was cross when I first read this and didn't pick up this one.

Some creationists fear Darwin because his theories contradict their literal biblical belief that creation occurred in six 24-hour days. But they do not get at the real dangers of Darwinism. They do not realize that an explanation of the development of biological organisms over eons of time really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity that they suppose. Instead, they, along with the rest of us, should really fear the ethical implications of Darwin's original writings.

The man is trying to portray himself as both smarter than the creationists and morally superior to both them and evolutionists.

I smell an agenda. Is he after a new political job?

365. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115157 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Professor Campolo supplies remarkably few quotes to back up his assessment of Darwin's views.

In fact, none.

I always feel ashamed of myself when I haven't read the books quoted in articles, but I only have so much time. (E.g. I always meant to read Origin of Species, but I had it down as superseeded by more recent research).

Can anyone shed any light on these peculiar assertions?

366. Banned From Church

Comment #115134 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Deepthought.

You might enjoy this review by Sam Harris of Francis Collins' book.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060815_sam_harris_language_ignorance/

With regard to going to see him. I would jump at the opportunity. I always try to understand others.

Three questions.

1) What are the overt explanations for that behaviour?
2) What are the (possible) covert explanations for that behaviour?
3) What are the (possible) explanations for this behaviour that even the person is question has not considered?

(N.B. Always try to consider the possiblity of honourable aims as well as dishonourable ones. Be fair).

You get different answers for all three questions. When all three answers depress you – worry. I don't think this will be the case with Collins (I think he is essentially well-meaning – e.g. had a bit of a brain fart and misinterpreted it).

However, in the case of the priest in this article, who set the police on a non-violent old lady, you get very different answers.

367. Banned From Church

Comment #115108 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Deepthought

Out of curiosity how would you approach an atheist who has converted to christianity?

I am not sure that I would use the term 'converted' :-) Presupposes that atheism is a religion that one can both convert to and be converted away from.

However; to answer your question; same way I would approach anyone who has taken on a religion that they were not brought up with. Genuine curiosity.

[Edit: sorry Steve, on rereading, - think that question was directed to you - but I can't help interrupting sometimes]

368. Mixing Mammals

Comment #115105 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Oh crap! - I forgot snakes enjoy eating small rodents.

Scampers off. [Quickly]

369. Mixing Mammals

Comment #115099 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm

The slightly longer forelimbs of the transgenic mice "make them more batlike"

Hmm. [stretches out...]

I vant to suck yourrr blud.

[Digs out old cape]

370. Honour Killings

Comment #113715 by Corylus on January 20, 2008 at 11:41 am

I considered two different, but both awful, possibilities when I read this article.

1) That it is for real or

2) That it is a very, very clever document written by a neo-nazi type and circulated in order to spread hate (I have read extracts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and have never forgotten that lesson) The combination of (relatively) good grammer and vocabularly with complete idiocy and bigotry raised my suspicions.

However, as this has been replied to by the London School of Islamics and taken as legit I have to assume the first option. (N.B. The email was criticised – however in a particularly mealy-mouthed and cowardly fashion).

http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk/DiscView.asp?mid=6224&forum_id=1&

Feeling quite queasy right now.

371. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113449 by Corylus on January 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Some people argue with others: they sometimes win and sometimes lose.

Some people argue only with mirrors and always claim victory.

372. Creation 'Museum' honored

Comment #113363 by Corylus on January 19, 2008 at 11:38 am

RogerStanyard

Anyway, closer to home, the UK cretinists got hit by a torpedo today. The Independent has reported today that the Brown government has abandoned the policy of more faith-based schools.

That's just reminded me of something. I recall signing the petition on keeping faith out of schools that was linked to this site for a time. IIRC there were about 20,000 signatories it – and the government is meant to reply if there are over 200. It closed a while ago and I have heard sweet FA.

Are the government deliberately dragging their heels on the reply to this one? Or maybe everybody else got one of their email fob-offs and mine is just lost in the ether?

373. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #113142 by Corylus on January 18, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Anna

Well, I work mostly on the computer...so I post in between formatting excel to death...it gets rather tedious, so I have to break it up with something.

You know you can use Excel as a cover.

Personally, I use it for writing poems. You have a great big sheet to work with, you can cut and paste to your heart's content and still keep a tally of all the syllables you are using.

Plus, if anyone walks past your office it looks like you're working away like a good little wage slave.

Waits for al rawandi to call me a dopy European Hippy :-)

374. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113125 by Corylus on January 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Peacebeuponme

You really don't have any basis for that arrogance. Play nice, think how it feels to read that: put yourself in our shoes...

That was a call to empathy PBUM. Scooter has already dismissed this as "diseased".

Don't feed the trolls and don't play with pods. (I wish Benway were here).

Bloody "ethical egoism" to some people this makes so much sense.

If anyone's interested, here is a review of the lead book on objectivist morality: the type of thought that Scooter is espousing.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/stephen_parrish/viable-values.shtml#14

375. Gigantic fossil rodent discovered

Comment #113063 by Corylus on January 18, 2008 at 2:07 pm

The mammal, which is more than 15 times heavier than the largest living rodent, is described in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Hmmph!!

Waits for the "Your Momma is so fat..." jokes.

376. Dinesh D'Souza: Winner of the 2007 Bad Faith Award

Comment #112127 by Corylus on January 16, 2008 at 11:53 am

In the meantime, all that remains is to extend our congratulations to this year's winner. Well done Dinesh, we will be making a donation of £20 or less to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science on your behalf.

What a great idea!

Mr D'Souza (I know that you often read these RDnet threads concerning yourself!) I have just matched this donation. I sold some plastic tat on Ebay recently and my Paypal account is; for once; marvellously in credit.

Accordingly, I have just given RDFRS a donation of £19.99 to express my appreciation of your work. (I would have donated the entire £20, but I wanted RDFRS to be able to keep an easy tally of any donations they receive on your behalf).

Thank you, again, kind sir, for all your hard work in the cause of reason!! :-))

-----------------

For those who missed it first time round D'Souza's comments after the Virginia Tech Shootings

http://richarddawkins.net/article,903,Where-Is-Atheism-When-Bad-Things-Happen,Dinesh-DSouza-Aolcom

And the wonderful measured response of a Virginia Tech Professor to them...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,904,Dinesh-DSouza-says-I-dont-exist-an-atheist-at-Virginia-Tech,Mapantsula-Daily-Kos

377. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111437 by Corylus on January 14, 2008 at 3:05 pm

My parents have a thatched roof which keeps them wonderfully warm and dry. (Their attic is full of dust and spiders, but they wouldn't swap it for the world).

Mr Scales, it strikes me that you have had two honourable professions. Firstly, fighting against those who would hurt others and secondly helping to preserve beautiful things.

Best wishes for your speedy recovery.

378. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111101 by Corylus on January 13, 2008 at 3:27 pm

jshuey

He writes exactly the way he speaks; (Most of us do)

Arrh crap. That explains why no one listens to a sodding word I say ;-)

379. The Moral Instinct

Comment #111093 by Corylus on January 13, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Don't worry Dr Benway.

I have a strong feeling he will be back. (Along with ADH).

Compulsion is a fascinating thing.

380. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110932 by Corylus on January 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

Heh, Henri

I thought, I might make a quick play for virtue ethics, for fun, but tis obvious that you don't want to play on this one. Can't blame me for trying :)

However, I would point out two things.

1) said virtues (courage, justice, etc.) show a remarkable consistency across societies. OK 'faith' as a virtue is a theological invention and a mechanism of societal control, but 'justice?' In fact this goes against your mechanism of control thesis in that justice, by definition, presupposes equality.

2) I very strongly suspect that you have character traits that you think desirable (I wouldn't be surprised if I know what they are too). Have a care that you don't wave away as 'descriptive' and 'an illusion' something that you might later want to advocate...

381. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110911 by Corylus on January 13, 2008 at 7:52 am

Sigh, I am probably going to regret this...

Henri. Are you willing to make a distinction between 'morality' as a set of rules for behaviour and 'ethics' as a cultivation of traits of character?

These traits can lead people to make decisions that (although varying in differing environments) lead to actions that are 'desirable' more often than not.

An ethical decision is; in that context; one that has nothing to do with the following of rules of not. As such societal repression does not come into the equation. It is a decision that is determined by character.

382. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #110845 by Corylus on January 13, 2008 at 2:02 am

Hi Daleadil

Nice to have you on here.

You might already know this, but there is a website (that is linked from here) run by ex-muslims.

http://apostatesofislam.com/index.htm

I found it an interesting read (I don't know what the ex-muslims on here think??)

In particular I found the deconversion stories that they told to be absolutely fascinating. It strikes me that there are some very brave people writing on there.

http://apostatesofislam.com/apostates.htm

Some of their stories might strike a chord.

383. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110630 by Corylus on January 11, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Mark

I didn't read you as disparaging or dismissing anybody.

Thanks Mark, I wasn't intentionally being so - but I do try to be sensitive to other people's feelings and experiences.

So if someone tells me that I am ignoring these - I do try to consider things from their viewpoint.

384. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110628 by Corylus on January 11, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Peacebeuponme

I tend not to get the giggles when women or men talk about their bodies being disfigured.

Fair enough, duely chastised.

I have to say I get the giggles not about the procedures they are discussing(not nice and completely unjustified), but their openness and willingness to talk about the issues. I was brought up in a family who (although not particularly religious) never discussed this sort of thing.

Displacement activity on my part maybe. Anyway, fair point.

[Edit] Ooh posts crossing! I agree that the argument from morality is a strange one. I suspect that this is simply emotional: there is the sense of fear that if objective morality goes we will fall into the abyss.

385. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110625 by Corylus on January 11, 2008 at 4:04 pm

Peacebeuponme

Because it stares you in the bloody face!

Heh, quite right Peacebeuponme!

However, I will let Mackie take over in answering this in full...

There are no objective values... The statement of this thesis is liable to provoke one of three very different reactions. Some will think it not merely false, but pernicious; they will see it as a threat to morality and to everything else that is worthwhile... Others will see it as a trivial truth, almost too obvious to be worth mentioning... Others again will say that it is meaningless or empty.... But precisely because there can be these three different reactions, much more needs to be said.

Mark Smith, quite right, he might be trying to make some form of 'proof' of God in terms needing him for objective morality. However, this is a posteriori and not a priori so he is going to pull something,more than this out of the hat to prove God.

I will wait for him to clarify on that one.

386. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110617 by Corylus on January 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Steve

I think it is even queerer than that. As we know that at least part of our sense of right and wrong has evolved, how the the hell did these strange objective entities apply selection pressure?

Very good point Steve, I admit that I hadn't thought of this in those terms.

387. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110610 by Corylus on January 11, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Have to say, ADH that I agree with others that I admire you taking on all comers here. In the light of this do you mind if I try and help you out a bit? I see you are promising to come back to MPhil, who is a great series of posts, lays out the case for understanding certain types of ethics.

It took me a long time to understand ethical theory (in fact still a work in progress, sigh) so can I just outline my very simple understanding of what I think MPhil is talking about (I'm sure he will correct me if I have got him wrong).

OK – Mackie and his denial of the existence of 'objective' moral values. Why does he do this? Well, first he notes that people can never seem to agree on what these are (he calls this the 'argument from relativity'). Of course, you can counter that people are worshipping the wrong type of God/no God and this is why people disagree, but Mackie is only getting started.

He brings out the 'argument from queerness' – see below.

This has two parts, one metaphysical, the other epistemological. If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. Correspondingly, if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else.

So basically he is asking:

1) What types of things are these objective moral values? and

2) How the sod do we understand/interpret/ become aware of them when we see them?

Now in terms of objective morals floating around it is very true that a strict materialist will not go for 'objective' morals in that this seems to smack of platonic 'forms' or some weird type of 'natural law'. A strict materialist will not believe in anything of that 'type'. Now some atheists will start talking about special types of statements or categories in order to square this circle. I don't think they are right, but there you go.

So that's the metaphysical bit, the epistemological bit (i.e. how we know things) is IMHO a much bigger problem for the moral realist (person believing in objective morality) because it is very easy to slip into intuitionism (e.g. 'this is the case because I have a "special type of feeling" about it). This brings us straight back to the argument from relativity.

So, to sum up, if you want to defend objective morality you need to be able to show:

a) what properties these objective values have, and
b) how we can understand such 'queer' things with any degree of certainty and clarity – in fact how do we even perceive them at all?

Hope this helps.

BTW one further piece of advice, I felt a bit sorry for you when you got whacked (sorry, sorry!) over the masturbation issue. Thing is, the men on here are very, very willing to talk about their willies. It's most notable in the female circumcism threads. Guarenteed, within 5 comments you will hear from some man eager to discuss their foreskin or lack thereof. Lots of tales of surgery and resultant effects – I get the giggles every time :P

However, unless you are remarkably thick skinned and unshockable I would strongly advise you to avoid the subject of genitalia in your next visit.

Hope to see you back soon :-)

388. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109249 by Corylus on January 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Steve Thank you for mentioning Jacob Bronowski. Brings back memories. I was too young to watch and understand his 'Ascent of Man' TV series when it first came out, but I have seen it since (and read the book) and it is quite lovely.

Krisking do check it out of your nearest library - I think you are the type of person who would enjoy it. Forget for a time the question of god and instead wonder at the heights to which we aspire and cry at the depths to which we sink.

I have just looked on amazon and it is out on DVD - my Chrimbo vouchers wiped out - but worth it.

389. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109179 by Corylus on January 8, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Blimy!! That was me well and truly told off.

100% fair point RD. I apologise for going off thread and getting more irritated than I generally do.

However, I don't apologise for calling into question a crass comment.

390. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109148 by Corylus on January 8, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Of course, my theory (that Nick is a sexist, ignorant prat, with an overinflated notion of both his own intellect and his sense of humour) is only continguently valid.

However, it becoming increasingly obvious that it is backed by clear evidence.

Again, I give you the opportunity to apologise - or do you want to add 'replicable' to my proposition?

391. Another critic who hasn't read the book

Comment #109131 by Corylus on January 8, 2008 at 12:13 pm

It always astonishes me how men think a women's IQ is (in some fashion) dependant on how many men they have sleeping with them.

That was crass Nick.

Here's a falsifiable proposition. Apologise or demonstrate that you're a prat.

392. Changing my Mind

Comment #108771 by Corylus on January 7, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Richard Morgan

Years ago, my GP darn near forbade me to read the notices that accompany medicaments. The reason? I am so shriekingly suggestible that if I read the list of "undesirable side-effects" I tend to get most of them.

Happens a fair bit Richard. In double-blind trials of new drugs those people getting the dummy drug are not only told about possible curative effects of the drugs they may or may not be getting, but also about the possible side effects. (Ethically researchers have to do this as subjects need to know what risks they might be taking).

What happens is that some people report a placebo effect of getting better when they are being given a dummy dose. This most people know about. However, there is a flip side to this. Some subjects report getting the nasty side effects of the active agent even when they get the dud. This is called the 'nocebo effect'. (Most people haven't heard of this).

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

Nothing like the mind for messing with you. Not fair is it?

Of course, the people reporting this tend to be miserable buggers, but that is neither here nor there ;-)

I would advise you against taking part in drug trials or going to any countries you might be cursed by a pissed off voodoo practitioner.

393. Did mozzies, not a meteor, do for the dinosaurs?

Comment #108635 by Corylus on January 7, 2008 at 11:24 am

HAVNB

The daily mail would have gone with "Mosquitos clear the way for hoodies to take over our streets!!1!!1!"

You have a point. Or maybe "Mosquitos: Illegal Immigrants Taking Our Jobs!"

394. Did mozzies, not a meteor, do for the dinosaurs?

Comment #108622 by Corylus on January 7, 2008 at 11:06 am

Progress for the Daily Mail - at least they didn't say that a mosquito biting the driver caused Diana's death...

395. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108250 by Corylus on January 6, 2008 at 10:11 am

There is also hope for the victim who can see their suffering as having been permitted by a God whose ultimate purposes are for GOOD. One of the contingent consequences is that the victim, supposing they have survived, can later offer others who have gone through similar traumas the kind of consolation which cannot be offered by someone who has never been there.

Another one of the contingent consequences of this type of thinking is that victims are caused to suffer more if they fail to live up to this ideal. They are made to feel guilty if they can't forgive: they are made to feel weak if they buckle under the strain. There is a hideous cliche that 'God never gives you more suffering than you can bear' This is actively harmful in that it both waves away the severity of suffering and places even more demands upon the victim. Also it is technically incorrect. Drivel in fact.

(This is not just me blowing off steam BTW. I have worked for the Crown Prosecution Service and a Social Services 'Children and Families' department. I don't think I need to spell out some of the things I have heard and read).

This 'redemptive' line works well because most people only get to hear about those people who manage to live up to the ideal. It is their stories that are reported, them that as held up as example of what good comes from suffering... Those victims that die on the streets or in hostels from the effects of the drink and drugs that they have consumed to block out the memories and the pain: from them there is only silence.

I do agree with you on one thing though. That is that I would like to believe in ultimate justice. There are some offenders I would take pleasure in consigning to hell – and I say that as a generally good natured type.

However, I simply see no evidence for it.

[Edit: I find it hard to approach this sort of thing calmy - so I won't say anymore on the subject of theodicy. However, I wanted to make the point that this sort of thing can increase suffering as well as attempt to explain it]

396. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108157 by Corylus on January 6, 2008 at 6:14 am

It might be useful here to bring in the distinction between 'moral evil' (what we traditionally think of when we use the term 'evil' i.e. that of harmful actions) and that of 'natural evil'.

'Natural evil' is just a fancy way of saying 'shit happens' (like cancer). However, we do need to look at people's misfortunes (whether caused by others or not) when we assess whether a benevolent God exists.

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

397. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108130 by Corylus on January 6, 2008 at 4:50 am

Wooter

To Corylus
That evolution movie is about a meteor that crashed upon the earth and that meteor turned to be small worms and then worms turned into different monster-like creatures and at the end all creatures are killed by heads&shoulders shampoo.

Yep. That's the one! You have not answered my question though. Are you, in all seriousness, using this film in evidence for your case? If not, what other film were you referring to?

N.B. Your first language, I'm sure Epeeist will correct me if I am wrong here, but this is of interest because we have people on here that are fluent in more than one language. These people might be able to help you out with an explanation in your own language. That's all.

Unless of course, English actually is your first language?

398. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #108125 by Corylus on January 6, 2008 at 4:35 am

"If any ESP processes exist, then participants' brains should respond differently to ESP and non-ESP stimuli,"

Why's that then? Am I alone in smelling the reification fallacy here?

If so is this experiment:-

a) Making it;
b) A response against others making it; or
c) Researchers not addressing this issue and/or and not clearly stating their definitions?

I admit I am unsure. (I have looked at the PhysOrg site and there are no further details than given here).

---

For info: the series of Edge articles on 'Changing your Mind' features one by Susan Blackmore (ex parapsychologist). It's a very interesting read:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_13.html#blackmore

399. Can Atheists Be Parents?

Comment #107499 by Corylus on January 4, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Hmm 1970 – this triggered a dim memory of a book first published in 1941 that I have just had to rummage through my shelves to find. (I wasn't born on either date, but I like old books)

It was called Let the People Think . Here is a quote from it.

My father was a Freethinker, but died when I was only three years old. Wishing me to be bought up without superstition he appointed two Freethinkers as my guardians. The Courts, however, set aside his will, and had me educated in the Christian faith. I am afraid the result was disappointing, but that was not the fault of the law. If he had directed that I should be educated as a Christadelphian or a Muggletonion or a Seventh-Day Adventist the Courts would not have dreamt of objecting. A parent has the right to ordain that any imaginable superstition shall be installed into his children after his death, but has not the right to say that they shall be kept free from superstition if possible.

Bertrand Russell

Yes, you can say that 1970, 1941 and especially 1876 (when the events described above occurred) were a long time ago, and in a different country. However, thinking and understanding advances slowly: occasionally, it even goes backward.

There is indeed "nothing new under the sun" and it is always worthwhile to keep an eye out for old mistakes.

400. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #107080 by Corylus on January 4, 2008 at 3:34 am

Wooter,

If you think About many cells's varying and mutation in different places and times, skipping how they do that without any genes' passing information differently for different creatures, exact number of the chromosomes, our world will be, hypothetically, full of monsterts like creations. (Please watch evolution movie).

Are you referring to the David Duchovny movie, called "Evolution"?? I have watched that film and it is a lot of fun, but it is a fiction comedy.

If you are not and you have something else in mind – please tell us the exact title of the film.