Forum Best Bits

[Nearly Sane]

The ever gracious Trentvoyager


Spud try being turned away from a B&B for being gay. It feels like bigotry. I know.

But in the interests of equality I want to take this idea of yours for refusing services to people a little further and introduce an element of reciprocity to it.

So for the B & B people and indeed any bigots out there that want to refuse gay people services can they simply wear a badge that says "Refusing to serve gay people because I am a bigot/bigoted Christian/ etc" on it. Gay people can wear one that says "gay person/nurse/bus driver etc". Then everyone will know where they are and why services are being refused.

So I trot up to a B & b and I am refused service because I've got a great big gay badge on, that says "I love The Golden Girls" or something similar. The man who opens the door has a "I love Ann Widdecombe" badge on, we both know where we stand and I leave.

Unfortunately, the person wearing the Anne Widdecombe badge has an accident and breaks their leg the next day and turns up at hospital. Unfortunately for them the male nurse has gay emblazoned all over his uniform, accompanied by rather too much glitter for my liking. The nurse sees the Anne Widdecombe badge and says quite rightly, I'm really sorry I can't treat you due to your obvious support for an anti-gay stance that makes me uncomfortable and it goes against my conscience.

So off he limps to get the bus home........and Oh my Lord the bus driver is dressed head to toe in pink with "gay" tattooed on his forehead. He's having a tough day, poor man.

I have another alternative suggestion though. Just treat people as you yourself would like to be treated, then all these problems just disappear.

If life was approached in the spirit of the following we would all be a lot better off.

" A Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Pagan and an Atheist went into a coffee shop. They talk, laugh, have nice conversation over coffee and become good friends"

I wish you would grow up.

[Nearly Sane]

From Never Talk to Strangers on SfG, exasperated clarity:


You have my detailed response in #41429 but seriously, every single 'point' you've made here has been dealt with dozens of times before. It's normal, even for the most dimwitted and clueless literal creationists, to be able to at least attempt some sort of to and fro exchange. With you, if you take any notice at all of the answers you get, which is very rare, it lasts for a few posts and then you're back to the same mindless repetition.

It's literally (and ironically) like talking to a one of those annoying help bots you get on the phone or online sometimes that simply cannot comprehend things it hasn't been pre-programmed to respond to and just resets itself whenever it has no answers.

Why do you simply refuse to even try understand logic, reasoning, and keep falling into obvious fallacies? When people point out fallacies, why do you never, ever explain why you think the accusation doesn't apply? Why won't you even attempt to deal with counterarguments before just repeating the same phrases over and over again?

I've lost count of how many times I, and others, have had to explain to you what "determinism" and "deterministic" means or how many times it's been explained why the laws of physics are irrelevant. Yet, here you are again, not responding to the answers you've had, but just repeating the same things, in pretty much the same words, all over again.

How about at least trying to respond to the answers you've had?

Why do you keep 'forgetting' what determinism and deterministic mean?

In what way do you think physics has anything to do with the argument about determinism (#40759) - apart from the necessity of a time dimension (not even necessarily the one of the physical world) in order to make any sort of choice?

It's been pointed out multiple times that "the present" has no logically significant meaning and the only way you've tried to define it is circular. If you think a choice can be made without any time dimension, then how? In what way can a mind change (from not having decided to having made a choice) without any time dimension?

How about explaining how you can know that something that is logically possible, cannot possibly have a physical explanation, without claiming to know everything about the physical universe?

You've claimed so often that you have sound logic but you've never even attempted a credible logical deduction. Why not at least try? What are your premises? What are the logical steps to the conclusion? If you don't understand how to do that, I've given you a link to a full book on the subject several times now (Critical Thinking), what is so wrong with learning something new, especially if it would help your cause?

[Nearly Sane]

Trentvoyager explaining one use of the term Morning Glory to LR - one of those posts that need to be preserved:

I know you are a delicate flower so I will word this as politely as I can.

Morning Glory is a euphemism for an early morning stiffie....hard on....boner....and even....a proper Vlad (so hard you could impale someone) in other words an erection of the penis in the morning.

Now you know.

[Nearly Sane]

SusanDoris on a good day. It made me smile.


Well, I have just had a lovely day. My younger son collected me before 9:0 a.m. and I've got to know baby Reuben. A happy and contented child, full of energy - loves being able to practise being upright. My older son an partner arrived at lunch time; we all had a  barbecue in the garden, with lots of baby watching!,  until it was time for them to leave when rain and thunder started. my younger son drove me home - arrived back home half-an-hour ago. My granddaughter's partner is coming down tomorrow by train and they will drive back home to Sheffield on Saturday

[Nearly Sane]

This from jeremyp needs the context of what he was replying to in order to see the defence of intellectual curiosity for its own sake

Surely it'd be more to the point getting hold of some evidence that actually supports this general god/Jesus idea first

I'm pretty happy to concede that there isn't any of that so there's no point in trying.

and then if there was any found, it might then be worth the effort of sorting through the detail

I think it's interesting to understand how the Bible came to  be written even with Jesus not being God.

in the mean time what's the point of threads like this one? .

Do you only do things that have a point? If I had just said "Jesus wasn't God so I'm not interested" I wouldn't know anything like as much as I do about the history of 1st century Palestine - or history generally, or archaeology or a lot of other things. Discussions like this thread are interesting for their own sake and also for lots of tangential reasons. I can understand why you might not be interested, but it is not compulsory to read every thread on this board, nor comment on them

[Nearly Sane]

From Gabriella on the Trans rights thread


What she said was "I’m a solid force to be reckoned with in the domestic club game, but at 5’5” and roughly 185 lbs. in season, I’m significantly under the average weight and height for international players in my position. It’s never been a factor for me. I’ve taken on cisgender male athletes in training and female athletes much bigger than me without hesitation because I’m confident in my skill set. Being small didn’t stop me from getting 19 caps."

She has not said that she has beaten biologically male elite athletes in a competitive Rugby match - only that she has taken on male athletes in training without hesitation. That just tells us about her attitude, not her ability against male elite athletes. I'm smaller than average and I've taken on male kick boxers many times but I'm not living in some fantasy world where I claim I could have beaten them in a competition - during training they are pulling their punches and kicks and trying to help  me train and improve. In a competition they would be trying to win and I would get hurt. My 15 year old daughter is a club swimmer and swims competitively. She is below average height and would not stand a chance of winning a competition against a similarly trained male competitive swimmer as they would probably all be taller, stronger, and with a longer reach than her so would be faster than her - there might be an exceptionally short boy with similar muscle tone her age but it's very unlikely. But during training the girls and boys compete together in mixed team relay races. 

It's misogynistic to claim that the feelings of transwomen trump the danger to biological women of getting physically injured or the injustice of biological women competing for recognition against a whole category of people who have natural biological advantages over them.

I don't see how the risk of mental harm to biological men caused by not playing rugby can be more important than the risk of physical harm to physically weaker, more vulnerable people from being allowed to play -pretending physical injury is less important because biological women are the victims seems to go against everything feminism and equality stands for.   

I find this a very strange argument from the trans lobby. I'm all for allowing people their beliefs - whether it is about religion or whether it is people getting comfort from believing they are a particular gender that is different from their biological sex or people believing that their physical handicaps can be ignored. But biological advantages of being male are a reality. We can't pretend they do not exist any more than we pretend that the advantages of being able-bodied do not exist, hence disabled people are allowed to compete in their own distinct categories so that they are not unfairly disadvantaged against able-bodied people.

Some people get comfort from believing that death is not a biological fact and that there is a part of them that goes on living for eternity regardless of the biological/ physical evidence of death. But it would be unreasonable for society to ignore the biological facts and require us all to act as though we believed that death is something "assigned " by doctors and the dead person is actually alive. There are no doubt many people who strongly believe in eternal life and this belief forms part of their core identity and it is probably mentally distressing for them to have their belief in eternal life contradicted by biological facts. However, we don't allow them to ignore other people's rights to not be physically harmed because they feel really really distraught if someone challenges their belief that no one ever really dies.

[Nearly Sane]

From 'Violent' Gabriella as regards Muslim terrorist motivation


Do you have any evidence to support your theory? Any links to interviews with terrorists who said they committed acts of terrorism in the belief that if they get killed while killing for Allah they would get whatever number of virgins in Paradise?

People believe all kinds of things so anything is possible. So it's possible the terrorists could have been fed a line like that - or indoctrinated to believe that they would be martyrs in the same way that soldiers who are trained and ordered to kill are indoctrinated to believe that they are patriots and heroes, doing their duty by serving and protecting their country for which their country will be forever grateful and will honour them if they die a hero's death.

Or it's possible the motivation of the terrorists is political, according to this 2008 survey carried out by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008feb26/politics_not_piety_dictate_radicals_muslim_world_poll.html

Quote

One of the largest-ever opinion polls conducted in the Islamic world found that seven percent of Muslims condoned the Sep 11, 2001, attacks on the US, but none of them gave religious justification for their beliefs, according to the figures released Tuesday.

The Gallup organisation’s poll of some 50,000 people in over 35 predominantly Muslim countries found that what motivated those considered “politically radicalised” was their fear of occupation by the West and the US, though most even admired and hoped for democratic principles.

 

[Nearly Sane]

And from Outrider on 'The Little Scroll' thread

You scraped the barrel, you slung the mud.

Are you suggesting that your Bible is the source of your vile equivalence of the disabled and animals, because for all I disagree with much of what comes out of it that's a new low.  I don't have restraint on this, this isn't an area where restraint should be shown, this isn't something that should be let to slide. Or, to put it in terms that might mean more to you than to me:

"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Ephesians 5:11); or, more pertinently,

"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy." (Proverbs 31:8-9).

O.

[Gordon]

Some thoughtful stuff from Nearly Sane. (from The Pope appoints a woman to the synod of bishops.: Christian Topic).

 I think I am influenced by the idea that subjectively the idea of wellbeing is a good base axiom for morality and evaluation here. Fred West was obviously a bad person on that position. I think we have evolved to be judgement machines. It could be argued that judging is the characteristic that makes us homo sapiens.

I think for many RCs and other religions, it's not really that big a part of their life. It's important in many ways but on a day to day level belief vs lack of belief doesn't really seem to me to make that much difference to a person. I don't go out for a drink (at all at the moment obviously) with my friends who have relugious beliefs and think of them as any different from me purely because of those beliefs. The fear part seems to kick in much more when people doubt. It's something that I hear more from former religious people than religious ones. If we were to go down the idea of religion as meme, it's a very effective adaptation for keeping the meme going. (Note, I have lots of issues with the idea of memes other than being used metaphorically)

I think a lot of religious people are religious because it feels right to them. It's wider than the idea of indoctrination, it's cultural, it's social, and it's part of our make up to think why, and want a why answer rather than just a how answer.

In addition, there are for many the idea of personal experiences, and I think it's almost impossible for anyone who believes they have had one to deny that on a purely rational basis. To take the often used example that we don't actually touch things - I get the rational argument that supports that but on a day to day basis it feels like nonsense.

I also have an issue with the idea of arguments for and against religious belief. They feel like a post rationalisation for the position rather than the reason for it. Certainly I didn't feel like I reasoned myself out of religion, I just realised I didn't believe. Now it might be argued that my subconscious wrestled with the arguments, and my conscious was presented with a fait accompli, and that the rational arguments I might present are somehow the conscious mind accessing the processes of the subconscious but again that's just not what it feels like.

And the thing about the arguments that religious believers prsent seem so often nothing to do with why they actually believe. Arguments like the Kalam or the Ontological seem obviously pist rationalisations.  To be honest, a lot of this type of discussion, I find uninyeresting, in part because I feel that detailed arguments on the philosophical approach tells me little about the person. There's an element that I can enjoy on an intellectual level but I have had so many of those discussions that it's pretty repetitive. I am much more interested in the day to day stuff, politics , art, sport, and of course people always people. And on that level, there are those who hold religious beliefs with whom I have much more fellow feeling than I do with many Gradgrindian atheists who suppose they drip rationality and objectivity. As Hume argued, reason is the slave of passion. We cannot jump the is ought gap with rationality and objectivity. We always need to make an assumption on a desire, and in the end that is why I choose wellbeing as an axiom - because I want to have a good enjoyable life.

[SweetPea]

From Anchorman on the 'Happy Easter' thread:

Easter - or 'Pace' as it's sometimes called in Scotland, may well be bunged up with pre-Christian imagery, but, based as it is on the moveable feast of Passover - hence the coloquial name - it's about as Christian as you get.
Yes, the bunny nonsense is an American screw up of the hare - we know that...but the egg was first used to symbolise the stone which was rolled away in its groove,  by a writer in the fourth century.
There may be pagan imagery in the egg (is there a god of chocolate?), but there's very firm basis on Christology as well.
As for new birth?
I'm all for that, since it is only possible through the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

[Nearly Sane]

From jeremyp on the Eyewitness thread



Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs. There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:

1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?

6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

So let's apply these to Mark's gospel

1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.

2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.

3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.

4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.

5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.

6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.

7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.

8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.

9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.

Mark strikes out on every single criterion.

[Nearly Sane]

Another one from jeremyp

Ferns are amazing organisms. Some species have been around, apparently unchanged, for up to 180 million years. Just because they are not big and grey and mammalian does not mean they are not objects worthy of study. And if you or CS Lewis had bothered to do anything more than sneer, you would know that ferns don't produce seeds.

[Gordon]

This made me laugh: in a post to Vlad, Outrider exclaims "awooga awooga" and Vlad asks what (the fuck) this means, and Outrider clarifies as follows.

It's an onomatopoeic alert siren, signalling the deployment of a weapons-grade logical fallacy cluster.

[Nearly Sane]

I admit to being biased but love this from Gordon on the Prostate Cancer Thread

I'd like to echo what NS said earlier: over the 10 years or so that this place has been active I think that there is most certainly a sense of camaraderie here.

NS and I (along with the much missed Gonnagle for a while) have been meeting regularly for most of the last decade, and of course proximity has allowed to this become a direct personal friendship. I remember NS first telling me about his prostate troubles 3 years ago and scurrying off to find out what PSA was - ironic bearing in mind what has befallen me since.

We are our own wee mutual support team now: for example, I remember in late October last year when I was admitted to hospital as an emergency, he didn't bat an eyelid when I video-called him at a late hour to show him the amount of blood I was losing, and we've confided in each other many times since.

That we've both developed the same type of cancer at the same time is unfortunate - but it has added a special bond to our friendship that it is difficult to explain but easy to feel - and it wouldn't have happened had this place not existed. 

 

[Nearly Sane]

From Dicky Underpants

Hi torridon

The two phenomena do indeed have similar implications, and for both there seems to be little that can be offered by way of a 'cure' - just a compromise is all that can be hoped for. However, the western scientific and philosophical approach does seem to strive towards some kind of ideal, whereby the whole personality is integrated, with one controlling ego dominating the other more disparate elements (In medical terms, I suppose this would mean reinforcing the feedback loops between the pre-frontal cortex and the basal ganglia, and hoping both cerebral hemispheres will act in partnership).
The more oriental approach, which has been alluded to by both ekim and Sriram, recognises all the disparate elements which exist in the most 'normal' of us, but treats them as more or less as an illusion (the maya of Hinduism). The ideal seems to be the dissolution of self into non-dual Brahman. Buddhism has a similar attitude to the everyday self. Some forms of Gnosticism take an even more extreme attitude, regarding the origin of the whole created world in its multitude of different manifestations as a tragic mistake, and our task here is to attempt to escape back to the undifferentiated world of pure spirit, the pleroma.
I think most of us act as if we are individual personalities, and that's the way we get through life, even though we may realise that, on the deepest level, we're just a whirr of atoms. I wish such as Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin might reflect on such things now and again.

[Gordon]

A great (and interesting) post from Udayana.

An interesting post, Prof, but seems to me to be quite speculative, without a great understanding of how people, especially Asians, conduct their affairs. Though private education and finance are really off-topic  and in danger of revealing too many personal details I could relate some of my own history:

I do not know Sunak or his family and have not looked into their story, but do live a few miles from Southampton; Although I don't normally consider myself as living in a particular community, I could say that my local community is of South Asian origin people who arrived here from Africa - Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. I am socially engaged with that community and have known many people in it over many years.   
I have also put our two children through the private education system ('til university). Note that I am talking about private day schooling, not boarding - which makes a big difference.
ETA: Should also mention  that we are discussing financial and educational eras that are completely different wrt. the options possible - preThatcher, Thatcher, Blair, post-Blair.



Practically all Asians who arrived here from Africa during the 60's, no matter how well off they had been there, arrived with no money. Nearly everyone I know from that situation here arrived with barely £5 and no other goods or savings. Some had had good education and some were able to borrow money from relatives still in India. After arrival many worked in everyday normal jobs to retirement, others have built fortunes and earned knighthoods and honours. In all cases they saved what money they were able to and have been self-reliant thoughout their lives. Those that were financially successful (mostly self-employed) sent their children to independent schools, others to state schools - but in all cases they have paid for everything from their own savings - not bought anything on the never-never.
       
My eldest uncle arrived in the UK, from India, on business just as WWII broke out but was trapped here (after his ship was torpedoed on the return voyage) during the war. He had no money but managed to start and run business such that he was able to send for his two brothers (one of whom was my father) just before the independence of India. Over the next two decades they built a fortune but then, between them, managed to lose it gambling and socialising. This meant that I went through university (after grammar school) penniless, without a grant and the minimum possible support from my mum. After uni I was flat broke .. I found work in an industry that was starting to boom and built up my earnings rapidly to settle into a comfortable, but not outstanding, salary for a professional technical (not managerial) role in IT.     

My wife came to the UK with her parents from India in the 60's, they found jobs in the state education system on very modest wages. She has mostly worked on low public sector wages in council services and community roles. When it came time to send our children to school we decided to send them through the private system as we could trust the education provided by local independent schools, where the state schools were in a mess after a decade of Thatcherism.  Now, very few of my peers (mostly white English) in my workplace took the same option, they, even the managerial ranks, practically all chose the state system. We managed to afford the fees by budgeting carefully and saving where possible - I can't say we suffered or scrimped to afford them. We got to know many of the parents of other children in the private schools we chose, and very few of them could be considered particularly wealthy - just a sort of normal middle class - doctors, business managers, engineers, academics and self-employed small business people.

My industry peers earned around the same or more than me, I could not not understand what on earth they were spending their money on. In the end I have decided that it was on maximising the sizes of their homes and cars - both requiring huge mortgages or loans. They may leave huge estates when they die - or may not depending on the outstanding loans and taxes.

We had a modest house (never moved in fact) and modest cars. Never had any loans apart from an initial mortgage (at high Thatcher era interest rates)- pretty much the same as all the other Asian origin families around here - even those that have now bought themselves huge mansion like (to me) houses.
     
To me what is important is how well you are able to use your brain - not how much stuff you have or leave behind when you die.

[Nearly Sane]

From Dicky Underpants


Well, Sriram, where did you begin in your first steps towards recognising the 'basic Intelligence and purpose behind Life'? I know it didn't just come to you in a flash. Your conclusions were undoubtedly conditioned by the environment you grew up in, with no small input from the classic texts of  Hinduism (and possibly Buddhism), which you probably didn't take at face value, you being an intelligent chap. Well, here's the irony - Schopenhauer was one of the first Europeans to be indebted to oriental philosophy (Buddhism in particular, but Hinduism as well*) and Nietzsche in turn was influenced by Schopenhauer's thought, and reacted against it, whilst fully realising the tragic import of his predecessor's ideas. Zapffe, the subject of this thread, appears to have been deeply influenced by both of them, and the influence of both on European  , indeed world culture has been enormous.
This is no 'empty intellectualism' but massive attempts by human minds to grapple with the universe and life as it actually is. We all have our direct experience of life, but since few of us are entirely original thinkers, then it is often helpful to make use of the labours of previous generations of thought and experience to clarify the warp and weft of our own existence.

*I believe that the last paragraph of Schopenhauer's great work Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung contains a phrase in Sanskrit. There may be others as well.

[Nearly Sane]

From SqueakyVoice on use of food banks



The only people using a food bank are the ones who have to. Most are proud of their jobs and struggle to get through.They be forced to pay much higher fuel costs, rent and any childcare, then contact the CAB, to discuss their costs and get a voucher.
I had to pay for my childcare for six years and everytime my savings went down and down, until they hit nothing. That affected my mental health far more than anything else. (In fact, they weren't even my savings but I'll leave it there.)

He's (yet) another Tory whose happy being ignorant.

[Nearly Sane]

Brutal but effective

Speak for yourself. Making up a pseudo-moral points system to avoid having to actually justify any of the arbitrary 'moral' prohibitions and proscriptions doesn't wash here.

Except when it's god that does it, right? Thou shalt not murder?

If I'm called to repent for being human, by the being that allegedly made me human, I think I have good case for suggesting the system's rigged.

"Hit me with your rhythm stick."

O.

[Enki]

From the 'Felt Presence' thread. Outrider is saying all the things that I would say, but putting his points much more succinctly than I would have done.

Quote from: Sriram on Today at 06:44:26 AM
It is not an unsupported belief. It is not just plucked from nowhere.

It is. I asked you what methodology you had to validate any evidence you had to support it, and you said you didn't have any. It is, by your own description, an unsupported belief - again, that doesn't make it definitively wrong, but it just doesn't give anyone else a reason to accept that it's right.

I have the instances of QM where observation (consciousness) influences wave-particle duality.

And you've had it explained to you that 'observation' does not need to be a conscious observer - again, that's an unfortunate metaphor.

I have Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle.

Which, whilst put forward by a very eminent scientist, was not in any way anything more than unsupported ponderings on his part. He defined it as speculation, and never submitted the idea in a peer-reviewed paper anywhere.

I have instances of documented NDE's.

Which, when investigated, have better supported explanations that don't involve spirits and which, even if you discount the conventional wisdom of science, still aren't supporting your theory, they're just not contradicting it.

Instances of documented reincarnation cases.

As above.

I have Chalmer's new ideas of panpsychism.

For which there is no methodology for testing or investigating, and no conventional demonstrations of validity.

I have ideas of Jung's collective consciousness.

For which there is no supporting evidence.

I have Eagleman's theories of the unconscious mind being larger and more powerful than the conscious mind.

Which is not really in question, but doesn't support your claim, it just doesn't contradict it.

I also have centuries of world philosophies where consciousness (Self) is considered as the real power behind the apparent events in the world.

And there are centuries of folk-wisdom to support ghosts, witches, black-magic, fairies, kelpies, naga, bakemono and who knows what else. Fairy tales are not a reliable source of data for determining the nature of reality.

You have a pyramid scheme, you have the MLM of woo. Your woo claims stand proudly on the shoulders of other woo-peddlers and hijack the idle speculations of people with actual credentials. None of what you've cited here is any better an indication of reality than me suggesting that the magic of Jesus is supported by the fact that Lewis Carrol wrote about Aslan and Tolkien wrote about Gandalf, therefore magic's real.

You need a methodology, you don't have one.

You need some basis for assessing whether that methodology produces valid results, you don't have one.

And then you need those results, and you don't have them.

You can suggest that these are possibilities, and no-one can argue strongly against that, but you're over-reaching the validity of your claims when you suggest that you've definitively identified a limit to the capability of conventional science to investigate a phenomenon or when you claim that your failure to accept the capabilities of the mechanisms that science has evidenced is therefore sufficient grounds to presume that some unrelated claim is valid.

[Nearly Sane]

From The Accountant Formerly Known As Gabriella

Hi AB - I am not sure what you mean when you assert that we are consciously aware of prior inputs and manipulate our thoughts - do you mean we are aware of some inputs and not others?

I also don't really understand why you think the freedom to manipulate some of our thoughts is not a function of the mind produced by the brain, which is why thoughts including morality and religious belief can be affected when the brain is damaged. Of course it is possible that something other than the brain is involved in thoughts and you are of course free to think that manipulating our thoughts is not related to the workings of the brain, but as there is a lack of evidence for your assertion I personally don't see much to be gained by me adopting your view. So I lost interest in your free will theories.

Regarding being aware of prior inputs, I am aware of some inputs but my experience is that there are lots of prior inputs that I am not consciously aware of but that do influence my decisions. I haven't tried but if I ever try therapy or psychoanalysis, I suspect it is possible that some of those unconscious inputs that influence my thoughts, behaviour and decisions may be identified / discovered. So not really sure how you describe my will as free if I act on those unconscious thoughts.

And I think some people will have thoughts and inputs that I will never have or experience because my nature/ nurture is different from them and their thoughts and experiences will be unique to them. So I will never be able to manipulate my thoughts to have the same thoughts they have. I am limited to the thoughts that occur because of my unique past experiences and genetics.

My experience is that I also have thoughts and reactions I don't want to have and when I consciously become aware of the thoughts, I cannot not think them even though I want to. Based on my past experiences I can envisage why thinking about them and acting on them might not be in the best interests of me/ others but as I have not devoted the time to learning meditation techniques to control my thoughts better I may still act on those thoughts. Again this does not seem like the idea of free will that you assert.

[Nearly Sane]

From Jeremyp as regards people burning the Quran


I think valuing constructions made of wood pulp and printers' ink more than human life marks you out as a prick.

No, actually, it marks you out as evil.

[jeremyp]

We haven't had one for a while, but I think this from Ad_O is good in reply to Spud's Ukraine peace plan that requires Ukraine to surrender.

That's not peace. You're not in favour of peace. All you want is for Russia to be able to commit genocide in peace.

[Nearly Sane]

From Gabriella AKA The Accountant

 I would agree with you - my experience is that seeking the truth about religious beliefs doesn't get you very far, given that the substance of the belief is not testable.

The beliefs themselves and acts of worship have been useful to me so engaging with religion in the way that I have has been a more productive exercise for me than my previous atheism when I was younger. For example I have found the concept of a higher power useful for psychological, cultural and social reasons e.g. to humble myself, change my perspective, change my reaction to events, interact with others, regulate my emotions, make decisions.

But given the psychological component of human behaviour, religious concepts or any other abstract ideas are likely to have a different effect on different people - as the mind is unique to the individual's nature / nurture. So my reactions to specific religious ideas were different when I was younger to now and no doubt will change as I get older. While my reaction to some beliefs about a supernatural entity have changed, what doesn't seem to have changed much is my lack of interest in the Christian message of crucifixion and resurrection.

[Aruntraveller]

NS's observations on Cameron and much more. Very entertaining in a "bit of a downer" way:

Thinking about my opinion of Cameron, perhaps Prof D and I are not that far apart but are hung up on the effect of words.
Incompetence to me seems to reflect a pattern of behaviour. Johnson to me is the most consistently incompetent PM of my time. His reverse Midas touch being 100% effective but he did win an election with an unfortunately fecund majority.

I am not sure of the right word for Truss, as a distilled intense month of crap, perhaps to paraphrase Percy from the 2nd series of Blackadder, she 'had discovered purest shite'.

Cameron, on the other hand, had won 2 elections, an unusual enough achievement, his second victory an indication of some success in his first term, given a majority. He managed being PM through a period of coalition, and his first term was not the serial farce of Johnson.

He had used referendums to first pacify his coalition partners, and then 'rebellious Scots to crush.' And therein lay the decision which I think there might be more agreement on was the most costly to the UK of PMs of my lifetime.

The third referendum happened, not I would suggest, because of incompetence, but rather a hubris similar to that which befell Thatcher and Blair as they won elections. The chance to forever heal the generations long divide in the Tory Party. The chance to remove the wailing chancre that was Farage, and by using his favourite sword of democracy the referendum.

And he would choose the battlefield of the bumpier electoral roll, not out of complacency brought on by his upbringing, but that very hubris that his success in power had brought about. He would do it for what were to him the purest of reasons as it would silence any doubters, if they seemed to choose the field, not him. The dragon would be slain, and none could cavil that the fight was unfair.

Even as the skirmishes started, he didn't want any accusation that it wasn't a fair fight so the Remain campaign happened with him cheerleading more than vanquishing. As the battle heightened, he saw the need to get more involved but found it had shifted away, yet still the entrails examined by the haruspices of William Hill and Bet Fair seemed to side with him.

But, as so often, the gods used the fool to betray him. His thrice democratic campaign fell from the first in the vadts of Sunderland in a land now sundered, where Nigel blew(his own trumpet) and UKIP chundered. Despite his once doughty foes, the Scots sacrificing themselves in numbers that seemed already mythical, the heat of the sun god melted the wings of the man who would be the son king of both the Blessed Margaret and the Titan Tony.

He fell, he fell through air and time, holding once onto a passing green sill but somehow believing, knowing that like another lost general he would return, like another sacrificed son king, his demise was not permanent.