SatNav's are replacing mankinds (natural) ability to navigagte using only a map and compass.
By removing another thought process / instinct we are unevolving / being downgraded.

Dear god, hope you get the letter and...
I pray you can make it better down here
I don't mean a big reduction in the price of beer
But all the people that you made in your image
See them starving in the street
'Cause they don't get enough to eat from god
I can't believe in you

Dear god, sorry to disturb you but...
I feel that I should be heard loud and clear
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears
And all the people that you made in your image
See them fighting in the street
'Cause they can't make opinions meet about god
I can't believe in you

Did you make disease and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!

Dear god don't know if you noticed but...
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
And us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look
And all the people that you made in your image
still believing that junk is true
Well I know it ain't, and so do you
Dear god
I can't believe in
I don't believe

I won't believe in heaven or hell
No saints, no sinners, no devil as well
No pearly gates, no thorny crown
You're always letting us humans down
The wars you bring, the babes you drown
Those lost at sea and never found
And it's the same the whole world 'round
The hurt I see helps to compound
That father, son and holy ghost
Is just somebody's unholy hoax
And if you're up there you'll perceive
That my heart's here upon my sleeve
If there's one thing I don't believe in

It's you
Dear god

Oh, oh, oh, my turn...

There's a man on the corner
Coming on like Moses
Flogging new religion
like a bunch of plastic roses
He's found his path
To the bleeding heart of jesus
You tell him
You've found yours

Heir to a future
You never made
There is nothing less amusing
Then the amusement arcade
In a city without a soul
Newspaper boys selling you the hard truth
Lucifer employs idle hands by night and day

Stuck at the dog-end of a day gone by, boy
Stuck at the dog-end of a day gone by
Stuck at the dog-end of a day gone by, boy
Don't let the smoke get in your eyes

Well the drunk outside the Wendy's
Is becoming less than friendly
A dog is barking at the moon
The drunk outside the windy
Is becoming less than friendly
A dog is barking at the moon

You want to get away
From the city of light
Then when you've gone
You want to get back
It is some strange addiction
When you need to put yourself
Back in your eye

Stuck at the dog-end of a day gone by, boy
Stuck at the dog-end of a day gone by
Stuck at the dog-end of a day gone by, boy
Don't let the smoke get in your eye

Actually, that's not true. There are many documented cases of shared delusions.



Incidentally I am a great supporter of the Tibetan cause. I have been to Tibet. I have been fortunate enough to see the Dalai Lama speak in person. I am also an atheist. There is no contradiction there, as far as I'm concerned.

Indeed there are, but in psychiatric terms it's usually confined to two individuals or a small group at most, it is exceptionally rare, and it tends to occur in a relationship in which one member is dominant.
Situations in which one individual 'leads' a large group in a particular course are not usually, as far as I'm aware, seen as examples of psychiatric delusion.




Of course there isn't; I don't think that the Chinese regime typifies atheism any more Al Q'Aeda typifies Islam.

Does rarity make it any less real? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

No, but I think that to confuse religious belief and practice with psychiatric disfunction is a mistake on several levels.
Although this is a bit tangential.

Well, if you hadn't been so ''screechy'' Joe, I might have said that in a following post, without all the need for the dramatics. What you said above is more or less how it was.
As for this quote that you ask about: ''The new atheists are screechy and intolerant; they see religion merely as an expression of mass ignorance and delusion. Their aim seems to be, not only to bring God crashing back down to earth, but also to downgrade mankind itself.''

I think what is meant by that is (by looking at the last few posts on here by barmyrob Zippy and Jon) - that anyone who has a religion is a moron. India (therefore) is full of morons. The people who I live with and who say their prayers are morons. The Hindu woman has a little statue of Ganesh on the dashboard of her car

(That's really dumb I take it barmyrob?)


Now I know this might not even be sixth form debating society quality (hence barmyrob and Zippy's mocking posts etc), but I thought ''downgrading mankind'' was a recognition that for good or ill, mankind has been tied up in religious belief since the Australian Aboriginies first started beliveing in things, and every subsequnt culture followed on this tradition. From Inca's to ancient Africans.
''New athiests?'' - well you kind of know what he means don't you? I suppose he 's talking about you Joe, and Christopher Hitchen's etc.

And your last question is a bit too cryptic (or clever) for me.

Maria, is the Dalai Lama a hinderence to his people? (And I think that ''yes'' is a perfectly reasonable answer). I too see that in one way he is. And that those Thai's who put up little tiny temple/shrines in their homes and businesses, where they put out little bits of food and drink, and burn incense for the gods (or whatever) are just deluding themselves. But I see spiritualism in it too.

Oh. Gosh. And think of all those women who have downgraded mankind by overturning the centuries old tradition of misogyny. And to think, I would have been all for women's rights if they hadn't been just so damn rude and offensive about it all. Or what about screechy MLK and his role in downgrading mankind by shouting and flailing against the a hierarchy of races that had existed for as long anyone could remember. Or those bloody gays.*

I believe they call this the "argument from tradition" (or "appeal to age", or even "ad antiquitatem" if you like to be traditional with your fallacies).

The paragraph from O'Neill that you quoted was, essentially, meaningless. A few impressive sounding ideas that when you think about them, aren't ideas at all. Calling "new atheists" screechy is especially interesting, considering the rapid and ill thought out stream of responses things like TGD got. Ask yourself who the screechiest most hyperbolic person in the news this week has been, his role, and the topic that he was discussing.

People get vociferous in arguments about the things that they care about. You wouldn't call somebody "screechy" if they made a passionate speech on a matter of politics. Or against climate change deniers, or alternative medicine purveyors. Isn't O'Neill being "screechy" with his impressively quick fire single-issue posts on environmentalism? Tina Beattie, I found, comes across as especially screechy in her amusingly confused ramblings on the subject of "new atheism", but I have no problem with the screechiness -- it just shows that she cares.

Indeed, the bold text in your quotebox highlights this fact. Such a thing would never arise in an argument about Marxism or ID cards. You and O'Neill are propping up the special status given to the God hypothesis. Amusingly hypocritical for somebody so obsessed with the harm done by shielding ideas behind political correctness and cultural competence.

So anyway. I know what was meant by "new atheists". It's a stupid term, but I know what was meant. But do you know what it means? What have you read of these so-called "new atheists"? What material are you judging them on?

--

* Insert disclaimer about me only comparing fallacious arguments, and not in anyway suggesting that religious groups are misogynistic, racist and homophobic. Oh, wait...

[quote name='Joe' post='244434' date='Mar 23 2008, 03:06 PM']
[quote name='JBoyd' post='244168' date='Mar 21 2008, 06:47 PM']
... it referred to a specific comment (and I am not trying to reopen the debate) which was considered offensive by some because it related to a particular historic crime that caused immense suffering and countless deaths.

Second, I don't think that, in general, the situation is one in which
[quote].... I can be offended by anything I want. .[/quote]

In the Livingstone case, as is true generally, the ultimate arbiter of what is 'offensive' is a legally constituted judicial process. If I was rude about 'Pastafarianism', the chances are that even if you said you were deeply offended, you would have no legal recourse.
[/quote]

But my point is still true here. The law should not be determining what is offensive and what is not. Politeness should still not be something enforced by the police. You're welcome to call on Livingstone to resign, vow never to vote for him, and campaign vociferously for Boris. If everybody feels the same, you'll get your way without force, and if you're on your own, bow out and get over it. But what you appear to be advocating is a law against comparisons to unpleasant historical figures. It's equivalent to me saying that George Galloway should be legally excluded from parliament for being stupid. He shouldn't, but I'll do my best to explain to everybody why he's not worth voting for.

[quote name='JBoyd' post='244168' date='Mar 21 2008, 06:47 PM']
[quote]Some ideas don't deserve respect, and no idea should be out of bounds from questioning or ridicule ...
[/quote]

I entirely agree with that ... but that's not quite the point.

[quote]Freedom of speech is simply not compatible with the idea that
[quote]Those limits should be ... also about protection from offense.[/quote][/quote]

If you are advocating absolute freedom of speech, then of course it can have no limits of any kind; however, I don't think that absolute freedom of speech is compatible with a reasonably harmonious society. For a start, it would imply an end to all legislation against expressions of racism, homophobia and other prejudices.[/quote]

I'm not a fan of trying to make simple rules for complicated situations, so I'm with you to a large extent on liberalism (though I was apathetic about the fox hunting law, so I expect I'd take more convincing than you that the simple rule of liberalism needs to be broken in any particular case). And I'm open to arguments that the simple rule of free speech can be more harmful than helpful (but am yet to be convinced) -- after all, I'm always amused by the argument of certain Americans that "I'm allowed to act like a total asshole because the constitution protects that right." And of course, the cases of incitement to violence, the provision of services and employment, and bullying in the workplace are legitimate special cases. I cut the part about incitement to violence out of the quote because I'm not arguing against that, only against "protection from offense."

But still, all expressions of racism, homophobia and prejudices? What happened to "I entirely agree with that"? The BNP are hated and shunned by most people in this country because bad ideas earn such treatment by themselves, not because they're banned. Similarly, there has been a change in the British public's tolerance of homophobia in the past few decades, but it is down to individuals and the media -- and the inherent power of good ideas -- not thought legislation.

And those are the extreme cases of irrational hatred, which actually have potential consequences beyond offending the hysterical professional offended. Some poorly chosen words from Ken? Not really in this league.

[quote name='JBoyd' post='244168' date='Mar 21 2008, 06:47 PM']
the problem is that everyone tends to cite 'freedom of speech' when it suits their own argument. If you are going to talk about 'freedom of speech' as an abstract, then I think you have to keep in mind its relevance to discussion about people such as Bernard Manning and David Irving as much as its application to questions of religion and culture.
If I made a crude and nasty joke about disability in the company of disabled people, I would be castigated
[/quote]
David Irving is a fringe loony who few take seriously because his ideas are bad ideas, not because of anything the Austrian courts have done. I'd castigate you if you made seriously tasteless jokes, but I'd be out in Parliament Square with a placard if they proposed a bill outlawing tasteless jokes. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.
[/quote]

First, we're not talking about 'politeness'; we're talking about what's offensive, and primarily at the more extreme end.
Second, it's not about 'thought legislation'; I don't believe that is either feasible or desirable.
Thirdly, to respond to your question: "But still, all expressions of racism, homophobia and prejudices? What happened to "I entirely agree with that"?".
What I meant was that absolute freedom of speech would be incompatible with any legislation against expressions of such prejudice.
Fourth, and linked to this, I'm not necessarily thinking about attacks on ideas; in fact, I would defend the right of anyone to satirise, ridicule or criticise any philosophy or ideology. It's offence caused by remarks about people - either groups or individuals, and particularly those who are excluded from power, that concern me.
Fifth, I was referring exclusively to people holding public office; that's why I made the point about tasteless jokes. If I make one in private, I don't think that the law should intervene; if someone who is representing the electorate (and is paid from their taxes) makes one whilst 'on duty', I think that there should be sanctions - not necessarily judicial, but certainly official, and independent (as the Standards Board is).
Finally, I think that your comments about the democratic process are a bit disingenuous: I can't actually affect the London elections because I don't live there. But more significantly, whilst I think Ken should have apologised and withdrawn his comments, I still think that he represents my political views better than any other candidate. And for that matter, Boris has also said some offensive things.
Moreover, the problem is that most people are not going to change their political allegiance on the basis of comments about minorities. Most of the cases where the Standards Board have acted have involved Conservatives from Tory strongholds, who have made racist comments, then played the 'I'm a victim of political correctness' card. Do you really believe that campaigns in those sorts of situations would lead them to lose their seats?

Overall, I'd say that I actually believe that Free Speech is enormously important, and should only be curtailed in extreme situations. Generally, I think that the current legislation is about right.


[quote]
[quote name='JBoyd' post='244168' date='Mar 21 2008, 06:47 PM']
Incidentally, I did reply to the personal message you sent me a few weeks ago, but for some reason, I don't think it got through.
[/quote]
Oh, no it did. Sorry, I put it to one side until I had time to actually act on it and compose the BCSE piece, during which time the relevance of it started to fade and I forgot about it![/quote]

Fair enough - I didn't want you to think I'd ignored it, and I really don't understand the system!


[quote]
[quote name='damon' post='244560' date='Mar 24 2008, 05:11 PM']Anyway, so far I haven't been impressed with simple religion bashing. It's so easy. I think I agree with Berndan O'Neill when he said [quote]The new atheists are screechy and intolerant; they see religion merely as an expression of mass ignorance and delusion. Their aim seems to be, not only to bring God crashing back down to earth, but also to downgrade mankind itself.[/quote][/quote]
Marvelous. So you'll be happy to explain to me what the quoted paragraph means. What does it mean to "downgrade mankind"? How do you go about downgrading mankind? What is mankind being downgraded from, and what will mankind be when the downgrade is complete? Where exactly do the "New Atheists™" talk about downgrading mankind, why do they desire to downgrade mankind, and how does this mission fit in with that of bringing God crashing back down to earth? Will society be backwards compatible with the downgraded units?[/quote]


I think that 'Spiked!' dislike the 'new' atheists for suggesting (as they see it) that Homo Sapiens is 'just another animal'. They want to see man as 'made in God's image' without there being any God....
It's all linked to their view on animal rights, environmentalism, and so on.

First step to authoritarianism.

My response to this is not very nuanced. It's more like "tough shit. We are just another animal. We have the capacity of more complex action and thought than most other animals, but so what? "

The Dalai Llama is extremely important to the Tibetan people. Without him their culture would have been even more damaged by the occupation than it has. I think he's been a remarkable leader in a very, very difficult time. He supports a secular, democratic government in Tibet.

Considering current events in Tibet I have been thinking about starting a Tibet thread. Time is very limited for me at the moment, but it seems more appropriate to do that than continue discussing Tibet here.

A Tibet thread would be great.
But I do wonder what the point would be.

My opinion is that humans are very speciaL
Say that, and it seeems you get Sarah lady and Zippy crap.

Negative uglyness: for what reason I can't tell

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: damon.

Barmyrob is the bigest intelectual on the forum.
Well maybe Joe and LeftintheUS are up there too, but barrmyrob is the most forceful.
I also think he has become a bully. (Along with Sarah lady).
Personally I think it was outrageoius for barnyrob to call Arturo a cunt.
I dont know what you thought of that Keri and LeftintheUS.
Maybe best to pretend it wasn't said.
Personally I think that smacks of cowardice somewhat.
I think that you can't let things like that just pass.
But WTF - who's paying attention?

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: damon.

Sorry folks but this won't do any good folks.... Damon already answers himself if no one else does

I know, I know but its satisfying and just reminds me not to bite to when the drunken moron decides to free form type what's in his seriously disturbed head.

Read that.
Yuk she's ugly.

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: drunks.

edited

you have chosen to edit all your posts (because you are a drunk): Damon

"Barny Rob"... I'll have to remember that one.

What, so the Race Relations Act is the first step on the road to fascism????

To the best of my knowledge there are no restrictions on free speech in the Race Relations Act.

The 1965 Act introduced the prohibition on 'incitement to racial hatred' though it has been amended since.
As amended, it makes it an offence to 'use words' liable to 'stir up' racial hatred.

Then I'd say yes. In fact - it's so dangerously vague that it could be easily abused.

Bad, dangerous legislation.

Well, I haven't quoted it exactly or fully.
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree; I don't think it's done any harm, and I can't see how it could given the checks and balances in the legal system. I also think that it's made for a more harmonious and safer society.
And the principle is over forty years old, so I think there's been time to judge it.

Sorry. What I meant was that I think the amendment is bad. Not the thrust of the legislation.

[quote name='damon' date='Mar 25 2008, 03:30 PM' post='244648']
[quote name='Joe' post='244561' date='Mar 24 2008, 05:35 PM']
[quote name='damon' post='244560' date='Mar 24 2008, 05:11 PM']
It wasn't sarcasm, (saying to locals in Tunisia and Eqypt that I was a Christian, - sometimes when asked.)
In the West Bank town of Hebron, a Jewish American woman I was with, denied both her religion and nationality. You do get asked by (friendly ) locals.[/quote]
Yes, but you wouldn't tell a Millwall supporter that you're a fan of Chelsea either. That's not about avoiding causing offense, it's about not deliberately putting yourself in an awkward or dangerous situation.
[/quote]



Every Millwall fan I've met I told I was a West Ham fan, except the one who called me a c*nt at the old Den he knew already!

Damon I appreciate you saying what you did in that post. - but dont worry - what BR said didnt really bother me that much.

Ive said what I think of his position on this issue - and he's done likewise to me - and that's the end of it as far as Im concerned.
//////

Re Billy Bragg supporting Ken Livingstone. I understand that. If its to be a straight fight between Ken and Boris - we cant let the tories in. -
But KL beware! Isnt it still true that every time Bragg's campaigned in an election - he's been on the losing side!?

I'm pretty sure Labour won in 1997 and Billy backed them.

Actually no - Labour didn't win in 1997 - a bunch of Tory wankers dressed up as Labour won

But Bill still acked them, Twice.

So did I

But regretted it after the second time.

Even Bill has been heard to be quite critical lately

I exercised my democratic right not to bother voting the second time.
(I fell off the electoral register for a while.)

I started voting Green; actually I'd been doing it on and off in European and Local Elections. Just added Generals.

And if I had a vote in the London elections I'd vote for Sian Berry.

She’s certainly the best looking candidate (ducks) but from what I have seen of her on the box (Newsnight and Question Time) she comes across as pretty weak.

If I had a vote in London it would be for Ken purely to stop the Tory twat.

But you get an alternative vote - so you could put ken second - it won't help the Tory Twat.

Yes - the Greens are always weak - they're far too wooly minded for UK politics - they need a bloody leader for a start.... idiots.

But she's a darn site better than Brian Paddick! Bloody Tory he's turned out to be.

I haven't been keeping up like I used to, Rob (gee, wonder why that would be?)

Can you tell me more about Brian Paddick? I used to think quite highly of him but I'm not up to speed at all now.

Well you can't vote in our election local yokel. I can, and will be voting for Paddick.
But Maria there's not much else to tell. It's a two horse race. So you might as well ask about Dennis Kucinichs' opinions these days.
Paddick is into the policing aspect, as you might expect. And I respect him in that area.
But he comes across somewhat nervous and an ''also ran'' in the wider debates.

I agree with Dickie about Sian Berry.


Is it something to do with Claire Fox?

Paddick reckons he going to bring back some kind of Routemaster bus.

It's not going to happen. So when I hear him, I think of Kucinich.

Um, no, that would be because I have a job, a home to maintain, and a very, very, very active and busy 17 month old. And I don't live in the UK anymore.

I still think the police were idiots to let Paddick go. No surprise there.
But I haven't kept up with his career--or views--much since that happened.

Well he wants to privatise the tube. Have it all run by a single private company.

Tory

Paddick cropped up in the free bus paper this morning - I'm not a Londoner so he's off my radar, but looking at his stance of Canabis use over Heroin possesion he seemed reasonible. Seems he also took an unpopular stance over the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.

You'd hope the tubes don't get managed by First if the plan goes ahead - it'll bring new meaning to Going Down The Tube

Oh dear. That is bad. And sounds like the start of a very ugly slippery slope.

(Because all that privatization has worked SO well for the railways, and so many other industries, right? Just like with medical care in the US....)

That's a pitty, as it gets quite lively, and the subject of the show concerns all people. (A world wide food crisis).
I have tried for dozens (and dozens)) of hours to get on to the forum a few of the simple points that Claire Fox raises. And taken some serious flack for it
Actually I think the bloke who comes on come on between 4 and 14 minutes, might be barmyrob.
On this programme he is called Benedict Southworth of the world development movement.
At nine minutes into the programme she is ''cross examinining'' him, and he says that he advocates the peasant lifestyle, while she is championing unltra modernity for all the worlds people.
He asks are we really any happier with all our western consumption. She thinks that's a dreadful thing to say.
I know your a busy person Maria, but you watch a bit of rubbish TV now and again don't you? This would be a far better way to spend 40 minutes. Especially if you are near your computor anyway. It's on 'listen again' till wednesday evening.
Even if you really hate what Fox says, and agree with Southworth.

You have chosen to ignore all posts about: claire fox

Maria, can you not see barmyrob has become smug, and is actually now, a forum bore?
Benedict Southworth is barmyrob.
Ignore her (Claire Fox) if you please. But barmyrob and Benedict Southworth are shallow in the way that they advocate this return to the simple life.
I blame Tom and Barbara Good for turning his head when he was young.
Africa needs modernity and science, not a peasant renaissance.
And this kind of reply, shows the forum in a bad light (IMO)
It shows a certain fundamentalism. I think.
That, and the unpleasantness, which was always gong to happen with me and barmyrob.
I even PM'd him nearly two years ago and asked him if he thought I was coming across as racist on the forum, because of what I had said in the multi-ethnic London thread.
He said 'no' back then, but now I just presume he agrees with geoff and Jon (you know, 'KKK' and all that bile).
It's just funny to some people.

*COUGH*

So Joe, did you think your first major exchange with me was ''honorable?''
Two year I was on the forum and we hardly spoke. I sent hunreds of posts, and apart from some brany replys on scientific matters, I just presumed we were forum members that didn't have much in common.
Fair enough. And as you said, you were busy working, and studying.
And then - almost as bad as that McGillicuddy bloke, you just come out of the blue and lay into me.
geoff and Jon call me a racist (I think for fun, but they may just be thicker than I thought).
Do you back them up there too Joe?
If I thought someone who was not racist, had been smeered as such by some little forum mug, (just to be mischievous), I would say so loudly.

I know know it's the forum way. Most of the regulars and long term members have now done it.
I think it's perfectly OK to have a go at someone. Though to me, the manner is very important.
And doing a ''Joe'' or a Tanya (and then pathetically saying: ''stop mentioning my name on the forum'')
Well, I just find it outside my comprehension. (Maybe I'm just getting old and the world has changed).
Maybe it's this internet thing. I only got into it a couple of years ago.
Maybe people are just ruder online.

damon, I got involved because you have problems. Seek help.