"Its amazing what god can do"
Ed
First that chubby black woman says "that's what god can do" when she
accepted her oscar, now US Masters golf champion Zach Johnson claims
that "its amazing what god can do" when interviewed.
Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
What is wrong with people?
michael adams
"Ed" <eabo...@onetel.com> wrote in message
news:1176072189....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Nothing much wrong with those two, by the looks of things.
They're winning Oscars and Masters Golf Tournaments and making loads
of dosh, whereas you're posting on Usenet for nothing.
So what is wrong with you ?
michael adams
...
>
Ed
> "Ed" <eabow...@onetel.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I imagine he spends his every waking hour on the practice fairway.
That's what won it, not some nonsense figment of his imagination
Edward Cowling London UK
<eabo...@onetel.com> writes
>
>Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
>more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
>
>What is wrong with people?
>
We'll only really advance as human beings when we can out stare our
mortality and accept it, without the need to invent omnipresent
invisible friends.
Can you see that happening in under a couple of millennia ? Because
sadly I can't.
--
Edward Cowling London UK
W. Wots
"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WpVt2X03...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1176072189....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed
> <eabo...@onetel.com> writes
>>
>>Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
>>more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
>>
>>What is wrong with people?
>>
>
> We'll only really advance as human beings when we can out stare our
> mortality and accept it, without the need to invent omnipresent invisible
> friends.
The strange thing is that if it's Jesus or God whose presence you
acknowledge that's ok, but you win an Oscar or the Masters and say that you
owe it to the presence of the Little Blue Fairy that accompanies you
everywhere you go and see how long you're taken seriously, yet who can
prove/disprove the existence of either?
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk
> Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
> more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
So which church is he giving the prize money to then?
--
Geoff Lane, Airstrip One
If you really want to know, you won't ask me.
Norman Wells
winners of golf competitions.
If nothing else, it helps to put the allegations of micro-management by
Gordon Brown in perspective.
--
Norman Wells
NG
Edward Cowling London UK
<Wots...@anywhere.com> writes
>>
>> We'll only really advance as human beings when we can out stare our
>> mortality and accept it, without the need to invent omnipresent invisible
>> friends.
>
>The strange thing is that if it's Jesus or God whose presence you
>acknowledge that's ok, but you win an Oscar or the Masters and say that you
>owe it to the presence of the Little Blue Fairy that accompanies you
>everywhere you go and see how long you're taken seriously, yet who can
>prove/disprove the existence of either?
>
>
It is the ultimate used car salesman scam...
"This is the best car you will ever buy, but you can't see it. In fact
no one has ever seen it, but you must have faith the car is the best you
will ever buy, or the car is nothing."
How many of us would buy a car like that ?
Halmyre
nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk says...
> In message <1176072189....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed
> <eabo...@onetel.com> writes
> >Oh for fucks sake.
> >
> >First that chubby black woman says "that's what god can do" when she
> >accepted her oscar, now US Masters golf champion Zach Johnson claims
> >that "its amazing what god can do" when interviewed.
> >
> >Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
> >more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
> >
> >What is wrong with people?
> >
> Actually, I think it's quite touching to discover that god decrees the
> winners of golf competitions.
>
Damn, so as an atheist I'm never going to win the Open?
--
Halmyre
johannes
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk wrote:
>
> Ed <eabo...@onetel.com> wrote:
> > Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
> > more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
>
> So which church is he giving the prize money to then?
And if god helped him to win, isn't that cheating?
Enzo Matrix
LOL
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
The Cardboard Voord
Ed said:
It's mental illness, pure and simple.
Edward Cowling London UK
Voord <notmy...@address.com> writes
It is. On TV they showed a room full of Islamic kids all rocking back
and fourth, learning prayers by heart. Any psychologist prepared to be
honest will tell you that is disturbed behaviour.
Not that I'm singling out Islam. Most organised religions seem just as
nasty and dangerous.
Bion
People have always believed in bullshit Astrology, to wacky conspiracy
theories, to obviously religion. Possibly some are naive, a bit stupid
and easily led, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're mentally ill -
in the clinical sense. That's just absurd.
I remember a stat saying that half the women in this country believed in
astrology, fortune telling and a higher power.. Are they all genuine
nutters? Or does it just mean that 50% are gullible and will believe any
old crap. Sure astology is on a lesser scale to religion, but it's
bullshit nonetheless - having blind faith in a god is only an extension
of this.
Erich
"Bion" <a...@xx.com> wrote in message news:1hwb6eh.a88gnrl7hui6N%a...@xx.com...
> Edward Cowling London UK <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <4qek13pdo77it34ct...@4ax.com>, The Cardboard
>> Voord <notmy...@address.com> writes
>> >Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:
>> >
>> >Ed said:
>> >
>> >>Oh for fucks sake.
>> >>
>> >>First that chubby black woman says "that's what god can do" when she
>> >>accepted her oscar, now US Masters golf champion Zach Johnson claims
>> >>that "its amazing what god can do" when interviewed.
>> >>
>> >>Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
>> >>more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
>> >>
>> >>What is wrong with people?
>> >
>> >It's mental illness, pure and simple.
>> >
>>
>> It is. On TV they showed a room full of Islamic kids all rocking back
>> and fourth, learning prayers by heart. Any psychologist prepared to be
>> honest will tell you that is disturbed behaviour.
>>
>> Not that I'm singling out Islam. Most organised religions seem just as
>> nasty and dangerous.
>
> People have always believed in bullshit Astrology, to wacky conspiracy
> theories, to obviously religion. Possibly some are naive, a bit stupid
> and easily led, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're mentally ill -
> in the clinical sense. That's just absurd.
Exactly. It's more a combination of brain-washing and wilful ignorance.
Edward Cowling London UK
>
>People have always believed in bullshit Astrology, to wacky conspiracy
>theories, to obviously religion. Possibly some are naive, a bit stupid
>and easily led, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're mentally ill -
>in the clinical sense. That's just absurd.
Is it ? Or are we just not willing to think the unthinkable ?
Perhaps in a few millennia all religions will be viewed in much the way
as we view the insanity of the witch trials in Essex.
>
>I remember a stat saying that half the women in this country believed in
>astrology, fortune telling and a higher power.. Are they all genuine
>nutters? Or does it just mean that 50% are gullible and will believe any
>old crap.
It's the old one about having an open mind, but not so open that the
wind blows through it. Have I an open mind that one of the umpteen dozen
theories on the meaning of life might be right ? Yes, of course I have.
Do I believe I can talk to a guy in a white beard and win Golf matches ?
Time to visit the rubber room guys :-)
Alan Hope
Hmm ... Can I get it in metallic green?
--
Alan Hope
http://sour-grapes.tumblr.com/
michael adams
"Edward Cowling London UK" <edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WpVt2X03...@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1176072189....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Ed
> <eabo...@onetel.com> writes
> >
> >Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
> >more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
> >
> >What is wrong with people?
> >
>
> We'll only really advance as human beings
Oh dear!
"Advance" according to who's standards exactly ?
It would seem you're just as ready as the God botherers to
tell other people what's good for them.
> when we can out stare our
> mortality and accept it, without the need to invent omnipresent
> invisible friends.
>
According to who exactly ?
Did you think that one up all by yourself Edward, or is it the work
of one of your own "invisible friends". Seeing as you didn't
leave a citation.
michael adams
...
aquachimp
<edw...@genghis0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1hwb6eh.a88gnrl7hui6N...@xx.com>, Bion <a...@xx.com> writes
>
>
>
> >People have always believed in bullshit Astrology, to wacky conspiracy
> >theories, to obviously religion. Possibly some are naive, a bit stupid
> >and easily led, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're mentally ill -
> >in the clinical sense. That's just absurd.
>
> Is it ? Or are we just not willing to think the unthinkable ?
Hmm, and what might "the unthinkable" be?
I'm guessing here that you don't believe God exists. In which case I
feel I should step in and help you out.
I believe that God does exist, but my belief is not the common form.
I believe that God exists in a form akin to a biological trick... a
pscycho-evolutionary trait, if you will. Emotions are possibly one
such form.
In a previous thread, I mentioned the National Geographies Channel.
Mad Labs to be precise. Apparently women want two things in a man;
genetic strength and husbandry leanings with bags of cash.. So, for a
few days during ovulation, they fancy the more hard-nut looking blokes
more and then the return to a preference for the ever so slightly more
effeminate looks.
It's just my own pet theory, but I suspect that at one time, prior to
when we developed the human brain, we shared the same sort of social
existence many animals orchestrate today. These being mainly where
there's an alpha male / female and where herd / group status is
determine through genetic make-up, strength and individual health.
On developing the cerebral advancements, our higher thoughts became
influence by that social past. And we started to intellectualise /
civilise our currency of social and personal Status, combining this
instinct to create the ultimate alpha (male) leader; God, through
which we would belong to the alpha group, whilst our body language
give-a-ways became intellectually upgraded to psychological
revelations.
*If* through the process of evolution we can be programmed to have
emotions and sexual leanings, then perhaps we can also have been
similarly programmed towards spiritualism and superstition.
And if so, just as common animal body language can tell us a certain
amount about what is happening within an animal, so to I would
suggest, how we are directed by our superstitious nature can reveal
what is going on within us.
So, to summarise, God exists just like, say, a hormone, A hormone
being a sort of
messenger, in this case to display what is going on within a person.
Obviously, not an analogy to favour belivers who would retort that
god
can not be like a hormone... a messenger, but the sender / creator of
the message. They would be missing the message, and who can say it's
not from God? (-:
Just think, if knowing Love is a biological trick, helps one prepare
for when the rush of that experience is over, so too it might be that
knowing that God is a similar trait help one know oneself better and
be better prepared for how such faith directs.
If more people knew that, then you wont have to wait so long for what
you wish. (the millennia you've mentioned)
Ps I've no idea when I might be able to respond to any response. It
might even be not for a couple of weeks.. or just a day or so.
AC
"Ed" <eabo...@onetel.com> wrote in message
news:1176072189....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
If these muppets want to credit god rather then thier own hard work
and the support of other mere mortals around them, then so be it.
AC
Bion
> In message <1hwb6eh.a88gnrl7hui6N%a...@xx.com>, Bion <a...@xx.com> writes
> >
> >People have always believed in bullshit Astrology, to wacky conspiracy
> >theories, to obviously religion. Possibly some are naive, a bit stupid
> >and easily led, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're mentally ill -
> >in the clinical sense. That's just absurd.
>
> Is it ? Or are we just not willing to think the unthinkable ?
>
> Perhaps in a few millennia all religions will be viewed in much the way
> as we view the insanity of the witch trials in Essex.
> '
It would be nice, but if I had to bet, I can't see religion ever coming
to an end. Today's gods will be replaced with something new - just like
all past gods were.
But if believing in bollocks means you're mentally ill, then god save
the human race!
It's what the majority of humans have done, throughout history.
Some people are misguided, some lack education, some get emotional
strength from such beliefs. Religion can also be part of someone's
culture and tradition - some people like to 'belong'. I don't think it's
as straightforward as sweeping it all up as a mental illness.
aquachimp
> "Ed" <eabow...@onetel.com> wrote in message
And what if these muppets want to credit junk food rather than their
own hard work and the support of other mere mortals around them?
The Cardboard Voord
Bion said:
>I remember a stat saying that half the women in this country believed in
>astrology, fortune telling and a higher power.. Are they all genuine
>nutters?
If they base their lives on the beliefs to the exclusion of all
rationality... then yes.
The Cardboard Voord
Bion said:
>Some people are misguided, some lack education, some get emotional
>strength from such beliefs. Religion can also be part of someone's
>culture and tradition - some people like to 'belong'. I don't think it's
>as straightforward as sweeping it all up as a mental illness.
Depends how widely you define mental illness. Is delusion in the face
of any evidence mental illness? It's not a specific syndrome but it's
a malfunction of the mind.
I take your point about the misguided and the ill educated but there
are plenty of people who are very well educated and are leading these
poor saps into their delusions. If they aren't conmen and genuinely
believe in this shit - what are they?
The Cardboard Voord
michael adams said:
>Did you think that one up all by yourself Edward, or is it the work
>of one of your own "invisible friends". Seeing as you didn't
>leave a citation.
Maybe it's his own opinion? You know, rather than some shit somebody
misinterpreted from an old story.
John Rowland
>
> Perhaps in a few millennia all religions will be viewed in much the
> way as we view the insanity of the witch trials in Essex.
How will that happen, when the religious consistently outbreed the atheists
and agnostics?
Bion
> Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:
>
> Bion said:
>
> >Some people are misguided, some lack education, some get emotional
> >strength from such beliefs. Religion can also be part of someone's
> >culture and tradition - some people like to 'belong'. I don't think it's
> >as straightforward as sweeping it all up as a mental illness.
>
> Depends how widely you define mental illness. Is delusion in the face
> of any evidence mental illness? It's not a specific syndrome but it's
> a malfunction of the mind.
I agree, it does depend on how widely you define mental illness.
Seems everything is a mental illness these days. A kid fidgets in class
-'mental illness'. Someone has a gambling problem - it's 'mental
illness'. Alcohol problem - 'mental illness'.
So if religion is a mental illness, we may as well bung in the rest,
like people who believe in astrology or those who spend money on diet
pills or baldness cures.
Can't we just have 'faults' anymore, without it being a disease or
illness?
At this rate, 10 years years from now, we'll have no ignorant people, no
gullible people, no weak willed people, no poorly educated people, etc.
Because besides the fortunate(and perfect) minority, the rest of us
human beings will be categorised as "mentally ill, plain and simple".
>
> I take your point about the misguided and the ill educated but there
> are plenty of people who are very well educated and are leading these
> poor saps into their delusions. If they aren't conmen and genuinely
> believe in this shit - what are they?
I guess it depends on the individual. Some may be plain gullible, or
going along with tradition and 'values' they've been brought up with.
Some may be intelligent in some areas, but less able in scientific
subjects - not understanding the details of evolution for example, and
it therefore coming across as absurd as your average god does to an
atheist.
I'm not saying mental illness doesn't exist among religious people, (I'm
sure it helps). I'm just saying that it's ridicules to generalise
against all religious people with that conclusion.
michael adams
"The Cardboard Voord" <notmy...@address.com> wrote in message
news:fbhl131dnmun7tufj...@4ax.com...
> Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:
>
> michael adams said:
>
>
> >Did you think that one up all by yourself Edward, or is it the work
> >of one of your own "invisible friends". Seeing as you didn't
> >leave a citation.
>
> Maybe it's his own opinion?
I asked Edward a question.
Why did you snip both my question, and Edwards post ?
Do you think that makes you appear clever or something ?
Because I can assure you it doesn't.
Anyway ,as Edward chose not to answer my question, and you chose
to respond to my post, perhaps you' like to answer in his stead
Edward claimed
> We'll only really advance as human beings
And I asked him
> "Advance" according to who's standards exactly ?
So if its only Edward's opinion - as you say above it might be -
are you saying that everyone should advance according to Edward's
standards or that we're all doomed ?
> You know, rather than some shit somebody
> misinterpreted from an old story.
>
Or if not, and Edward won't explain how he arrives at these
standards, what makes Edward's opinion any better or any more
worth listening to "than some shit somebody misinterpreted
from an old story".
If either Edward or yourself can come up with some standards
by which this "human advance" can be measured, and give good
reasons why everyone should be both happy and willing to accept
those standards, then please feel free to explain them. They'll
certainly be an improvement on "old shit" that's for sure. And
I'm sure I won't be the only one queuing up to congratulate you,
on just how clever you are.
michael adams
...
The Cardboard Voord
michael adams said:
Well I'd count breaking away from groundless superstition as a pretty
important human advance.
Frankly you sound like a full on botherer to me - putting up a huge
wall of indignant claptrap rather than considering the very basic
point that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest there is a
supernatural being reading all of our minds and controlling our lives
(and golf tournaments). Apologies if that's not the case - though if
not I wonder why you've got quite so worked up about this discussion
at all?
michael adams
> Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:
>
> michael adams said:
>
>
> >If either Edward or yourself can come up with some standards
> >by which this "human advance" can be measured, and give good
> >reasons why everyone should be both happy and willing to accept
> >those standards, then please feel free to explain them. They'll
> >certainly be an improvement on "old shit" that's for sure. And
> >I'm sure I won't be the only one queuing up to congratulate you,
> >on just how clever you are.
>
> Well I'd count breaking away from groundless superstition as a pretty
> important human advance.
Why ? How would that make people any happier ?
Or isn't making people happy your objective ?
And supposing some people are a bit on the thick side ? After
all 49% of the population are below average intelligence don't
forget. Supposing they don't want to give up their groundless
superstitions ? How are you going to deal with them ?
Lock them up so as stop them spreading their nonsense ?
>
> Frankly you sound like a full on botherer to me - putting up a huge
> wall of indignant claptrap rather than considering the very basic
> point that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest there is a
> supernatural being reading all of our minds and controlling our lives
> (and golf tournaments).
What controls people's lives is what they choose to believe. It happens
to be a fact that believing they get help from a supernatural being
helps some people to win golf tournaments just as it leads others
to die in wars.
There happens to be mountains of evidence in support of that
fact.
> Apologies if that's not the case - though if
> not I wonder why you've got quite so worked up about this discussion
> at all?
Beacause humanism - which is what Cowling is advocating even if he
didn't know it - the human race can "advance" myth is just as
just as much a load of bullshit and claptrap as is any other religion.
Why should human beings take responsibility for themselves ? And what
are you going to do with people who refuse to conform ?
At least religion offers the ordinary punters the incentive of a carrot
and a stick - Be "good" and you go to heaven. Humanists like you and
Cowling with your standards - lets "advance" the Human Race and do
away with all superstition - offers f*ck all. Its just a case of
be good and that's it.
Humanism is only touted by borgeoise middle class twats like
Dawkins because while he no longer believes in God - he needs
something to tell the great unwashed masses - "be responsible
human beings - advance the human race" to keep them from
trampling on his lawn.
He hasn't got the guts to be a true nihilist who doesn't
give a flying f*ck what other people think.
Instead in his own way he's just as much a control freak as any
Bishop, or you or Cowling who would like to stop harmless
idiots from believing any nonsense they chose to believe
even though it makes them happy.
michael adams
...
>
Norman Wells
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> writes
>
>"The Cardboard Voord" <notmy...@address.com> wrote in message
>news:7e4o13dssdvi6th5k...@4ax.com...
>>
>> important human advance.
>
>Why ? How would that make people any happier ?
>
>to be a fact that believing they get help from a supernatural being
>helps some people to win golf tournaments just as it leads others
>to die in wars.
And dying in wars makes them happier, does it?
--
Norman Wells
NG
michael adams
"Norman Wells" <nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6oBk5bBn...@myard.demon.co.uk...
Yup. A lot of them die with smiles on their faces.
And why wouldn't they?
That's quite possibly one of the main benefits of religion.
Being able to die with a smile on your face.
Lucky bastards.
michael adams
...
>
> --
> Norman Wells
> NG
>
Norman Wells
>
>"Norman Wells" <nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:6oBk5bBn...@myard.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <583m33F...@mid.individual.net>, michael adams
>> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> writes
>> And dying in wars makes them happier, does it?
>
>Yup. A lot of them die with smiles on their faces.
>
>And why wouldn't they?
>
>That's quite possibly one of the main benefits of religion.
>
>Being able to die with a smile on your face.
>
>Lucky bastards.
Is there anywhere I can easily look up the death-in-service benefits of
the various world religions? As I get older, these are obviously going
to become increasingly important when it comes to ensuring my eternal
salvation (assuming that's what I want when I get there, and it's still
on offer).
I mean, 70 virgins sounds quite good, but not if I don't have any youth
left to enjoy them, so I'd need to know for example whether my age at
death continues or is reduced in heaven or wherever.
I'd also like to know what alternative activities are on offer besides
sitting on clouds and playing the lyre, which frankly sound a bit dull.
Is it also compulsory to be reunited with all your old family, because
that might not be wholly pleasurable either.
--
Norman Wells
NG
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
> I mean, 70 virgins sounds quite good, but not if I don't have any youth
> left to enjoy them
I'd also check the small print very carefully. Does it say 70 virgins *each*
or do you have to share them? You might also end up with a bunch of Anne
Widdecombe clones.
mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk
From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.
LJM
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:55:24 +0100, Norman Wells <nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk>
> wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
>
>> I mean, 70 virgins sounds quite good, but not if I don't have any youth
>> left to enjoy them
>
> I'd also check the small print very carefully. Does it say 70 virgins *each*
> or do you have to share them? You might also end up with a bunch of Anne
> Widdecombe clones.
*THAT* is who the God Warrior reminds me of. Jeez, it's been bugging me
since I posted the crazy Trading Spouses clip here...and it's so obvious.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM
Anne Widdecombe and that woman -- separated at birth or what?
--
Everything is the same, nothing is worthwhile
the world is senseless, and so is my sigfile.
Daniel Lincoln
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:55:24 +0100, Norman Wells <nor...@myarl.demon.co.uk>
>wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
>
>> I mean, 70 virgins sounds quite good, but not if I don't have any youth
>> left to enjoy them
>
>I'd also check the small print very carefully. Does it say 70 virgins *each*
>or do you have to share them? You might also end up with a bunch of Anne
>Widdecombe clones.
Yes, it always seems to be taken for granted that these 70 virgins are
young and attractive. Maybe they're virgins for a very good reason.
:)
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk
> Yes, it always seems to be taken for granted that these 70 virgins are
> young and attractive. Maybe they're virgins for a very good reason.
> :)
Where does it say that they are female? You might just end up living for
eternity with 70 Richard Bransons...
--
Geoff Lane, Airstrip One
Happiness is a twit filter
LeeJS
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> Oh for fucks sake.
>>
>> First that chubby black woman says "that's what god can do" when she
>> accepted her oscar, now US Masters golf champion Zach Johnson claims
>> that "its amazing what god can do" when interviewed.
>>
>> Then he went on to say how today was "his resurrection which is far
>> more important than my masters win and I give it all to him"
>>
>> What is wrong with people?
>
>Nothing much wrong with those two, by the looks of things.
>
>They're winning Oscars and Masters Golf Tournaments and making loads
>of dosh, whereas you're posting on Usenet for nothing.
>
>So what is wrong with you ?
I think it was more the fact that these people seem unable to take any
pride in their own achievements, instead blaming the adult equivalent
of Father Xmas. I find that quite sad.
LeeJS
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>"The Cardboard Voord" <notmy...@address.com> wrote in message
>news:7e4o13dssdvi6th5k...@4ax.com...
>> >If either Edward or yourself can come up with some standards
>> >by which this "human advance" can be measured, and give good
>> >reasons why everyone should be both happy and willing to accept
>> >those standards, then please feel free to explain them. They'll
>> >certainly be an improvement on "old shit" that's for sure. And
>> >I'm sure I won't be the only one queuing up to congratulate you,
>> >on just how clever you are.
>>
>> Well I'd count breaking away from groundless superstition as a pretty
>> important human advance.
>
>Why ? How would that make people any happier ?
>
>Or isn't making people happy your objective ?
>
>And supposing some people are a bit on the thick side ? After
>all 49% of the population are below average intelligence don't
>forget. Supposing they don't want to give up their groundless
>superstitions ? How are you going to deal with them ?
>Lock them up so as stop them spreading their nonsense ?
>
You're right, of course. I've long contended that religion is little
more than a warm blanket for the mind. Some people are brave enough to
live life in the knowledge that reality is a cold place while others
feel they need the blanket to keep warm.
Who are we atheists to take away someone's blanket?
LJM
Religion as a comfort blanket. Isn't that a Dawkins analogy?
michael adams
"LeeJS" <L...@nospamw2designs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ujnq13huhf47k3998...@4ax.com...
Indeed.
Dawkins terms it a "comfort blanket". But then Dawkins being a
secular humanist clings to his own little comfort blanket as well.
Comprised of the preposterous notions that human beings are possessed
of special dignity which sets them apart from the rest of creation;
that they and they alone are responsible for the fate of the planet;
and most ridiculous of all that they're moral agents possessed of
free will - which underpins any notion of resposnsibility in the
first place.
As with Daniel Dennett, Dawkins always neatly sidesteps the vexed
question of free will. Which is the last thing you might expect from a
self-proclaimed Darwinist, when clearly there can be no such thing.
michael adams
...
>
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.media.tv.misc:
> Daniel Lincoln <subtl...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, it always seems to be taken for granted that these 70 virgins are
>> young and attractive. Maybe they're virgins for a very good reason.
>> :)
>
> Where does it say that they are female? You might just end up living for
> eternity with 70 Richard Bransons...
Strictly speaking the word is "houris" and there's some dispute about what
it actually means. After the 11th September bombings someone suggested it
meant "raisins" but a bit of checking up suggested that was just wishful
thinking
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,631332,00.html).
What is beyond doubt is the fact that the bit about the 72 of them (not 70)
waiting doesn't actually appear in the Koran, but in a hadith, and is not
normally considered canon (in the fanfic sense). In some ways it's a bit
like Christian clergy wearing dog collars. Nothing to do with the Bible; it
just caught on somewhere along the way.
michael adams
Well if they don't put their success down to god it could
be down to their trainer, their family, reading a particular
book. Its the winning attitude that counts, the determination
- how it gets there is largely irellevant IMO.
It's the same as when Denis Taylor won the World Snooker
Championship and put his success down to his father dying the
previous week. It's what it meant to him at the time. It
gave him the deternmination to succeed.
> I find that quite sad.
Presumably because you feel you're in a position to judge other
people.
Which some people in their turn, might find insufferably
arrogant, I suppose.
michael adams
...
Still as long as your
>
Alan Hope
>Presumably because you feel you're in a position to judge other
>people.
>Which some people in their turn, might find insufferably
>arrogant, I suppose.
My Irony Meter just blew a gasket.
--
Alan Hope
http://sour-grapes.tumblr.com/
LeeJS
>>>And supposing some people are a bit on the thick side ? After
>>>all 49% of the population are below average intelligence don't
>>>forget. Supposing they don't want to give up their groundless
>>>superstitions ? How are you going to deal with them ?
>>>Lock them up so as stop them spreading their nonsense ?
>>>
>> You're right, of course. I've long contended that religion is little
>> more than a warm blanket for the mind. Some people are brave enough to
>> live life in the knowledge that reality is a cold place while others
>> feel they need the blanket to keep warm.
>>
>> Who are we atheists to take away someone's blanket?
>
>Religion as a comfort blanket. Isn't that a Dawkins analogy?
As someone else also mentioned it, I guess it must be. I started The
Blind Watchmaker once but to be honest got rather bored after about 50
pages.
michael adams
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:tbas13lehe0ra2tsg...@4ax.com...
> michael adams goes:
>
> >Presumably because you feel you're in a position to judge other
> >people.
>
> >Which some people in their turn, might find insufferably
> >arrogant, I suppose.
>
> My Irony Meter just blew a gasket.
So who exactly is being judged by that remark of mine ?
Where exactly is this "irony" you talk of ?
Come on Hope, here's yet another chance to prove that you're
not really the foulmouthed retard, many people, although not
me necessarily, seem to take you for.
Here's a chance for you to prove them tham all wrong. To prove
you don't actually have the reading and comprehension skills
of a 7 year old with learning difficulties.
So come on big gob, explain who exactly is being judged by that
remark of mine.
Another question you're going to run away from no doubt!
michael adams
...
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:tbas13lehe0ra2tsg...@4ax.com...
>> michael adams goes:
>> >Presumably because you feel you're in a position to judge other
>> >people.
>> >Which some people in their turn, might find insufferably
>> >arrogant, I suppose.
>> My Irony Meter just blew a gasket.
>So who exactly is being judged by that remark of mine ?
No-one.
>Where exactly is this "irony" you talk of ?
You're a very judgemental person.
>Come on Hope, here's yet another chance to prove that you're
>not really the foulmouthed retard, many people, although not
>me necessarily, seem to take you for.
There you go now.
>Here's a chance for you to prove them tham all wrong. To prove
>you don't actually have the reading and comprehension skills
>of a 7 year old with learning difficulties.
And here.
>So come on big gob, explain who exactly is being judged by that
>remark of mine.
Not that remark, perhaps, but your whole persona. If you weren't being
a mouthy cunt trying to drag people down, you'd have fuck-all to say.
>Another question you're going to run away from no doubt!
You mean like the question you keep on asking because you're too thick
to grasp the answer? <--- that's me judging you, but then I don't go
on about not judging people like a poxy hypocrite, do I?
You probably think you have the right to judge me because your name is
longer than mine! BwaH! What a ninny you are, Michael! Changing one's
name to make it longer! That'll make them fuggin respect me!
michael adams
> michael adams goes:
>
> >"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tbas13lehe0ra2tsg...@4ax.com...
> >> michael adams goes:
>
> >> >Presumably because you feel you're in a position to judge other
> >> >people.
>
> >> >Which some people in their turn, might find insufferably
> >> >arrogant, I suppose.
>
> >> My Irony Meter just blew a gasket.
>
> >So who exactly is being judged by that remark of mine ?
>
> No-one.
>
> >Where exactly is this "irony" you talk of ?
>
> You're a very judgemental person.
>
> >Come on Hope, here's yet another chance to prove that you're
> >not really the foulmouthed retard, many people, although not
> >me necessarily, seem to take you for.
>
> There you go now.
There I'm stating that while many people may consider you to
be a foulmouthed retard, I don't necessarily agree with them.
So what point are you trying to make exactly, Alan ?
>
> >Here's a chance for you to prove them tham all wrong. To prove
> >you don't actually have the reading and comprehension skills
> >of a 7 year old with learning difficulties.
>
> And here.
What has you proving to other people that you don't actually
have the reading and comprehension skills of a 7 year old with
learning difficulties, got to do with me Alan ?
What point are you trying to make ?
> >So come on big gob, explain who exactly is being judged by that
> >remark of mine.
>
> Not that remark, perhaps, but your whole persona. If you weren't being
> a mouthy cunt trying to drag people down, you'd have fuck-all to say.
>
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> >Another question you're going to run away from no doubt!
>
> You mean like the question you keep on asking because you're too thick
> to grasp the answer? <--- that's me judging you, but then I don't go
> on about not judging people like a poxy hypocrite, do I?
>
> You probably think you have the right to judge me because your name is
> longer than mine! BwaH! What a ninny you are, Michael! Changing one's
> name to make it longer! That'll make them fuggin respect me!
I thought you said you didn't want to talk about Mohamed Fayed*
any more Alan ? Anyway as you seemed to have changed your mind.
But just a while back you posted this -
Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> But as you've explained, grieving relatives never make it into the
>> papers, because the papers all want to protect the House of Saud. So
>> I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed. Clearly the
>> conspiracy is not as watertight as it ought to be.
Now would you please explain the connection between the House of Saud
and Al Fayed ? As you clearly thought they were connected as you've
linked the two together ?
michael adams
...
*"Fugging" is how Fayed is reputed to pronounce "fucking". Which
he uses as frequently as does Hope. Allegedly.
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:n7jt13darbts4qndm...@4ax.com...
>> michael adams goes:
> >"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:tbas13lehe0ra2tsg...@4ax.com...
>> >> michael adams goes:
>> >> >Presumably because you feel you're in a position to judge other
>> >> >people.
>> >> >Which some people in their turn, might find insufferably
>> >> >arrogant, I suppose.
>> >> My Irony Meter just blew a gasket.
>> >So who exactly is being judged by that remark of mine ?
>> No-one.
>> >Where exactly is this "irony" you talk of ?
>> You're a very judgemental person.
>> >Come on Hope, here's yet another chance to prove that you're
>> >not really the foulmouthed retard, many people, although not
>> >me necessarily, seem to take you for.
>> There you go now.
>There I'm stating that while many people may consider you to
>be a foulmouthed retard, I don't necessarily agree with them.
I know what you're doing. Unlike you, Mr. Never Heard of the
Conditional, I am fluent in English.
>So what point are you trying to make exactly, Alan ?
You're the last one to go on about being judgemental, you hypocrite.
>> >Here's a chance for you to prove them tham all wrong. To prove
>> >you don't actually have the reading and comprehension skills
>> >of a 7 year old with learning difficulties.
>> And here.
>What has you proving to other people that you don't actually
>have the reading and comprehension skills of a 7 year old with
>learning difficulties, got to do with me Alan ?
Judgements, you cretin.
>What point are you trying to make ?
You're the last one to go on etc.
>> >So come on big gob, explain who exactly is being judged by that
>> >remark of mine.
>> Not that remark, perhaps, but your whole persona. If you weren't being
>> a mouthy cunt trying to drag people down, you'd have fuck-all to say.
>Pot. Kettle. Black.
What sort of rebuttal is that?
>> >Another question you're going to run away from no doubt!
>> You mean like the question you keep on asking because you're too thick
>> to grasp the answer? <--- that's me judging you, but then I don't go
>> on about not judging people like a poxy hypocrite, do I?
>> You probably think you have the right to judge me because your name is
>> longer than mine! BwaH! What a ninny you are, Michael! Changing one's
>> name to make it longer! That'll make them fuggin respect me!
>I thought you said you didn't want to talk about Mohamed Fayed*
>any more Alan ? Anyway as you seemed to have changed your mind.
Sorry, that's not considered a valid sentence in English, Michael.
English is the language we speak in the UK, in case the word's not
familiar to you.
The Cardboard Voord
michael adams said:
>Dawkins terms it a "comfort blanket". But then Dawkins being a
>secular humanist clings to his own little comfort blanket as well.
>
>Comprised of the preposterous notions that human beings are possessed
>of special dignity which sets them apart from the rest of creation;
>that they and they alone are responsible for the fate of the planet;
>and most ridiculous of all that they're moral agents possessed of
>free will - which underpins any notion of resposnsibility in the
>first place.
>
>As with Daniel Dennett, Dawkins always neatly sidesteps the vexed
>question of free will. Which is the last thing you might expect from a
>self-proclaimed Darwinist, when clearly there can be no such thing.
You really are a prize twat.
So if humans aren't responsible for the fate of the planet, who is?
Dolphins? Giant Lizards? Mice? Or that bearded fairy.
Yes we all have free will and most of us choose to use that free will
to be, you know, decent people. By our own choice.
Could you confirm, because with all your assaults on Dawkins and
highly strung affrontery, I can't work out if you are a believer or
just some kind of crazy nihilist.
Either way, the rosette of enormous twattery is yours.
The Cardboard Voord
Alan Hope said:
>michael adams goes:
>>I thought you said you didn't want to talk about Mohamed Fayed*
>>any more Alan ? Anyway as you seemed to have changed your mind.
>
>Sorry, that's not considered a valid sentence in English, Michael.
>English is the language we speak in the UK, in case the word's not
>familiar to you.
I am genuinely impressed that this Adams tosser is able to continue an
argument at such length without, apparently, having any actual point
or opinion to express.
aquachimp
> "The Cardboard Voord" <notmyem...@address.com> wrote in messagenews:7e4o13dssdvi6th5k...@4ax.com...
>
> > Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:
>
> > michael adams said:
>
> > >If either Edward or yourself can come up with some standards
> > >by which this "human advance" can be measured, and give good
> > >reasons why everyone should be both happy and willing to accept
> > >those standards, then please feel free to explain them. They'll
> > >certainly be an improvement on "old shit" that's for sure. And
> > >I'm sure I won't be the only one queuing up to congratulate you,
> > >on just how clever you are.
>
> > Well I'd count breaking away from groundless superstition as a pretty
> > important human advance.
>
> Why ? How would that make people any happier ?
I find that is a fair question.
I may happen to think of God as an inherited instinct similar to say
an emotion (but I could well be wrong).
And so I wonder if 'knowing' such a thing can help someone to better
understand their own religious leanings and even benefit from them
through that approach.
I would consider that to be an advance and in it's own way a comfort
blanket too.
It doesn't mean that there was/is no God that put such evolution on
course, but more of a deist angle.
But; I also happen to know that no matter how well one might have
studied the chemistry of love, it does not inoculate one from falling
in love. Equally, when an expected death occurs, no matter how certain
the event, or how long awaited, it can still be an enormous shock.
>
> Or isn't making people happy your objective ?
>
> And supposing some people are a bit on the thick side ? After
> all 49% of the population are below average intelligence don't
> forget. Supposing they don't want to give up their groundless
> superstitions ? How are you going to deal with them ?
> Lock them up so as stop them spreading their nonsense ?
>
>
>
> > Frankly you sound like a full on botherer to me - putting up a huge
> > wall of indignant claptrap rather than considering the very basic
> > point that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest there is a
> > supernatural being reading all of our minds and controlling our lives
> > (and golf tournaments).
Just one other point on sport.
Having seen the underbelly of sport I am aware of the kind of thing
that goes on and therefore why thanking God can be a fairly clever
ruse.
Sport is often plagued by kudos chasers. They can't bitch when they've
been overlooked in favour of God (-;
>
> What controls people's lives is what they choose to believe. It happens
> to be a fact that believing they get help from a supernatural being
> helps some people to win golf tournaments just as it leads others
> to die in wars.
>
> There happens to be mountains of evidence in support of that
> fact.
>
> > Apologies if that's not the case - though if
> > not I wonder why you've got quite so worked up about this discussion
> > at all?
>
> Beacause humanism - which is what Cowling is advocating even if he
> didn't know it - the human race can "advance" myth is just as
> just as much a load of bullshit and claptrap as is any other religion.
>
> Why should human beings take responsibility for themselves ? And what
> are you going to do with people who refuse to conform ?
>
> At least religion offers the ordinary punters the incentive of a carrot
> and a stick - Be "good" and you go to heaven. Humanists like you and
> Cowling with your standards - lets "advance" the Human Race and do
> away with all superstition - offers f*ck all. Its just a case of
> be good and that's it.
It interests me that you've chosen to zoom in on rewards, the being
'good' and you go to heaven bit. As opposed to the 'bad' going to the
other place.
It suggests that you see 'good' first. What it doesn't tell me is
whether you believe people are essentially good, but gain some
encouragement from that carrot to behave good Or, do you believe
people are only good against their nature in the hope of profiting
from it?
To me the carrot/stick approach is limited... sort of how like
ordinary human legislation often fails to educate the mind or help
people improve themselves.
>
> Humanism is only touted by borgeoise middle class twats like
> Dawkins because while he no longer believes in God - he needs
> something to tell the great unwashed masses - "be responsible
> human beings - advance the human race" to keep them from
> trampling on his lawn.
>
> He hasn't got the guts to be a true nihilist who doesn't
> give a flying f*ck what other people think.
>
> Instead in his own way he's just as much a control freak as any
> Bishop, or you or Cowling who would like to stop harmless
> idiots from believing any nonsense they chose to believe
> even though it makes them happy.
>
> michael adams
>
> ...
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
michael adams
> Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:
>
> michael adams said:
>
>
> >Dawkins terms it a "comfort blanket". But then Dawkins being a
> >secular humanist clings to his own little comfort blanket as well.
> >
> >Comprised of the preposterous notions that human beings are possessed
> >of special dignity which sets them apart from the rest of creation;
> >that they and they alone are responsible for the fate of the planet;
> >and most ridiculous of all that they're moral agents possessed of
> >free will - which underpins any notion of resposnsibility in the
> >first place.
> >
> >As with Daniel Dennett, Dawkins always neatly sidesteps the vexed
> >question of free will. Which is the last thing you might expect from a
> >self-proclaimed Darwinist, when clearly there can be no such thing.
>
> You really are a prize twat.
See below.
>
> So if humans aren't responsible for the fate of the planet, who is?
> Dolphins? Giant Lizards? Mice? Or that bearded fairy.
Complex organisms first evolved on Earth around 500 million years ago.
Humans first arrived on the scene around 2-3 million years ago.
So who exactly are you suggesting was responsible for the fate
of the planet during the first 498 million years of its existence ?
Dolphins, giant lizards, mice, or that bearded fairy ?
Why should anyone need to take responsibility ? It really does looks
as though Darwin was wasting his time with the likes of you,
doesn't it ?
...
>
> Yes we all have free will and most of us choose to use that free will
> to be, you know, decent people. By our own choice.
...
So that Charles Darwin and every single scientist who's ever
studied human beings and human societies over the past 150 years,
biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists,
economists, chemists, have been totally wasting their time
have they ? When they claim that in principle they can account
for all human behaviour - each and every decision ever made
by a human being - they're simply lying then, are they ?
That's interesting. So what are you suggesting ? That all these
scientists can only account for 95% of human behaviour and
there's a magic 5% that's always going to remain totally
inaccessible to science ? The bit that's governed by er'
"free will"?
Oh and the very fact that you as a person believe you have
fee-will, is neither here nor there. You also seem to be
labouring under the illusion that you actually have a clue
as to what you're talking about.
Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid.
...
>
> Could you confirm, because with all your assaults on Dawkins and
> highly strung affrontery, I can't work out if you are a believer or
> just some kind of crazy nihilist.
Hoot!
I don't need to confirm anything.
If you weren't totally clueless, you'd already realise that the only
people who desperately cling onto the notion of free-will, this magic notion
which totally eludes all attempts at scientific explanation, are
religious believers. Because without free will, there's no possibility
of moral agency, and so no scope for notions of sin or redemption.
Given that they're religious means that they're not actually bothered
by the fact that the notion of "free will" is totally contrary to science.
It's no less contrary to science in fact, than is the notion of an
old man with a beard in the clouds.
Secular humanists would like to believe in free-will, but for different
reasons. One, because it would enable to them to feel superior to the
rest of creation. To feel "responsible".
And yet strangely enough you still believe in it. You don't just
want to believe in it - like humanists - but you actually do. Despite
all the scientific evidence to the contrary which has emerged
over the past 150 years. Just as you cling to the idea that humans
are somehow uniquely responsible for the fate of the planet.
It's as if Charles Darwin had never lived.
Idiots like you are two a penny. You're among the first to point the
finger at others with their ridiculous ideas about men in the clouds
and invisible friends. Just so to be in with the crowd as it were. When
the notions which you still cling on to like limpets - "responsibility"
- hoot - "free will" - hoot, are just as "stupid" and contrary to science.
The really hilarious part being you're just too damned stupid to
realise the fact. Donkeys led by even more donkeys.
>
> Either way, the rosette of enormous twattery is yours.
>
When your IQ finally matches the size of your mouth you'll maybe be in a
position to start handing out the prizes. Until that time I'd slide
back under that stone of yours if I were you, and keep it firmly shut.
As you're far less likely to embarrass yourself that way.
michael adams
...
michael adams
"aquachimp" <aqua...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1176493702....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 10:41 am, "michael adams" <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> > "The Cardboard Voord" <notmyem...@address.com> wrote in
messagenews:7e4o13dssdvi6th5k...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > Previously, in uk.media.tv.misc:
> >
> > > michael adams said:
> >
> > > >If either Edward or yourself can come up with some standards
> > > >by which this "human advance" can be measured, and give good
> > > >reasons why everyone should be both happy and willing to accept
> > > >those standards, then please feel free to explain them. They'll
> > > >certainly be an improvement on "old shit" that's for sure. And
> > > >I'm sure I won't be the only one queuing up to congratulate you,
> > > >on just how clever you are.
> >
> > > Well I'd count breaking away from groundless superstition as a pretty
> > > important human advance.
> >
> > Why ? How would that make people any happier ?
>
> I find that is a fair question.
> I may happen to think of God as an inherited instinct similar to say
> an emotion (but I could well be wrong).
> And so I wonder if 'knowing' such a thing can help someone to better
> understand their own religious leanings and even benefit from them
> through that approach.
Only if they necessarily want to understand them.
Presumably that would only be of benefit, if being religious
was doing positive harm or making them unhappy. And was that
much worse than the alternative.
If someone is suffering from a serious psychiatric illness only
as a result of their unhappy childhood, then clearly they
might benefit from that knowledge.
However if someone is blissfully happy all their lives solely as a result
of being spoiled as a child, then its doubtful whether such knowledge
would be of that much use to them.
...
I don't believe in "good" and "evil". "Good" and "evil" are simply
cultural labels put on things for the convenience of particular
societies. In war time, killing certain strangers is good. In peace time
it's evil. Man evolved to his present state as result of inheriting
certain behavioural traits from the apes from which he's descended.
Although all the ape species have different traits themselves.
The traits - living in groups of different sizes etc. are all moulded
by the particular circumstances in which a species finds itself.
Orang utans are more solitary, gorillas live in smaller groups
than chimps. Chimps are more aggressive than bonobos etc.
In man, acting in the interests of the group, ( although totally
unwittingly - an impossible point to explain ) something he has
in common with ants, bees, lionesses, and other apes etc. etc. is
usually described as being "good".
However if man hadn't acted in that way, then presumably the species
wouldn't have survived. It's a bit more complicated than that though.
At present socio- biologists are trying to replicate and model all the
various strategies which all the social species, ants, bees,
- all the way up to homo sapiens etc. must have adopted to survive as
species for millions of years. All transmitted genetically of
course. Its interesting. Clearly they have survived. And clearly
there must be fairy simple strategies which allowed them to do it.
But notions of "good" and "evil" and "free will" simply don't
get a look in, I'm afraid.
>
> To me the carrot/stick approach is limited... sort of how like
> ordinary human legislation often fails to educate the mind or help
> people improve themselves.
> >
All the zoological evidence - plus computer modelling - would probably
suggest that its not in the long term interests of any large social
grouping that all its members should want to improve themselves. Rigid
hierarchies with everyone knowing their place - but maybe with a small
measure of mobility to prevent ossification tend to survive longer
michael adams
...
LeeJS
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> >Dawkins terms it a "comfort blanket". But then Dawkins being a
>> >secular humanist clings to his own little comfort blanket as well.
>> >
>> >Comprised of the preposterous notions that human beings are possessed
>> >of special dignity which sets them apart from the rest of creation;
>> >that they and they alone are responsible for the fate of the planet;
>> >and most ridiculous of all that they're moral agents possessed of
>> >free will - which underpins any notion of resposnsibility in the
>> >first place.
>> >
>> >As with Daniel Dennett, Dawkins always neatly sidesteps the vexed
>> >question of free will. Which is the last thing you might expect from a
>> >self-proclaimed Darwinist, when clearly there can be no such thing.
>>
>> You really are a prize twat.
>
>See below. [actually you can't because I snipped it]
>
Does *anyone* have a clue what this raging fuckwit is even talking
about now?
No free will? Whose will is there then, if it's not mine?
Alan Hope
>So that Charles Darwin and every single scientist who's ever
>studied human beings and human societies over the past 150 years,
>biologists, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists,
>economists, chemists, have been totally wasting their time
>have they ? When they claim that in principle they can account
>for all human behaviour - each and every decision ever made
>by a human being - they're simply lying then, are they ?
They don't claim any such thing.
michael adams
Yes they do. Science now lays claim to having theories to explain
everything in principle, in principle being the operative term,
which has occurred in the Universe ever since the singularity of
the Big Bang. There are no gaping holes in this whole deterministic
Universe, which would offer any scope for anything as nebulous as
the concept of "free-will".
Free-will is a quasi religious and metaphysical concept, and like all
such concepts was immediately rendered irrelevant for explanatatory
purposes, with the publication of "On the Origin of Species".
I don't actually think you've got any idea of the broad scope of
the claims of science, have you ? Or the actual implications of
Darwinism, which like a lot of others no doubt, you will laughingly
claim to understand, and to support.
michael adams
...
michael adams
...
Well you obviously don't, because you're clearly a loud mouthed
uneducated half-wit.
Others can speak for themselves, I assume.
...
>
> No free will? Whose will is there then, if it's not mine?
>
...
Er, how can I put this ?
You're most definitely a loud mouthed uneducated half-wit, as I said
Your particular half-wittedness is most definitely yours, and no one
else's. Of that there is no question.
The question lardbrain, is whether you actually chose to be a half-wit,
whether your being a half-wit is the result of your own free will as
you claim - or if as seems more likely according to current scientific
orthodoxy, you were actually born a half-wit, and had no actual say in
the matter. Possibly just like your parents before you.
michael adams
...
Alan Hope
Why don't you be a dear and point me to where a respected scientist is
saying, as you claim above, that they "can account for all human
behaviour - each and every decision ever made by a human being"?
That's what you claimed, that's all you need to prove. All the rest of
your weaselly bullshit (the "actual implications" of Darwinism,
whatever that is) you can keep to yourself. Try answering one simple
question, simply, and then we'll move on to the next, all right?
Here's the question again, so you can't claim to have forgotten:
Why don't you be a dear and point me to where a respected scientist is
saying, as you claim above, that they "can account for all human
behaviour - each and every decision ever made by a human being"?
I'll wait with bated breath.
The Cardboard Voord
LeeJS said:
>Does *anyone* have a clue what this raging fuckwit is even talking
>about now?
>
>No free will? Whose will is there then, if it's not mine?
From what I can decipher from his waffle, he's suggesting that unless
"God" is controlling everything then I have to tell him who else is.
Obviously he's missing the fairly straightforward point that *nobody*
is controlling anything at all. Life in the universe is "in progress"
as Martin Blank put it. There is no fate, there is no plan, there is
no rulebook other than physics.
I don't claim to be a scholar of Darwin but my understanding of
natural selection is that the strongest species survive. Man is the
strongest species but we have also matured to have awareness of our
own impact on the world and each other.
Free will, therefore, is when I choose to do or not do something
because I consider it morally and ethically the correct thing to do
with a secondary consideration of my own welfare and personal gain.
Not because the bearded fairy is going to punish me for all eternity
when I die.
What we're getting by way of an "argument" from this twatpot is a
stream of cod philosophical shite with which he hopes to confuse us
before recruiting us to his cult and having us take turns to suck his
cock on the hour.
IMHO there is no God, there is no need for God and the planet would be
better off if we forgot about God. This may never happen.
Doesn't stop it being something for us to aspire to.
michael adams
You've clearly never heard of Pavlov, Skinner, or behavioural
psychology either then, have you eh lard brain ?
Now why isn't that a surprise?
<quote>
Behaviorism is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that all things which organisms do-including acting, thinking and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
feeling-can and should be regarded as behaviors, and as such can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
be explained scientifically without recourse either to internal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
physiological events in the brain or to non-physiological events
in the mind. Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories
should have observational correlates but that there are no
philosophical differences between publicly observable processes
(such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as
thinking and feeling).
The behaviorist school of thought ran concurrently with the
psychoanalytic and Gestalt movements in psychology in the 20th
century. Its main influences were Ivan Pavlov, who investigated
classical conditioning, Edward Lee Thorndike, John B. Watson who
rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology
to experimental methods, and B.F. Skinner who conducted research
on operant conditioning.
Methodological behaviorism remains the position of most experimental
psychologists today, including the vast majority of those who work
in cognitive psychology - so long as behavior is defined as including
speech, at least non-introspective speech. With the rise of interest
in animal cognition since the 1980s, and the more unorthodox views
of Donald Griffin among others, mentalistic language including
discussion of consciousness is increasingly used even in discussion
of animal psychology, in both comparative psychology and ethology;
however this is in no way inconsistent with the position of
methodological behaviorism...
<quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
Now what is it in the above phrases - "all things which organisms
do" and "can be explained scientifically" - that you're having
such a problem with ? Eh lunk-head ?
Anyway I've answered your pathetic little question for you.
Now it's your turn to answer mine.
Here's the question again -
>Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> But as you've explained, grieving relatives never make it into the
> papers, because the papers all want to protect the House of Saud. So
> I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed. Clearly the
> conspiracy is not as watertight as it ought to be.
So what posssible relevance has "the papers all want to protect
the House of Saud" got with my ever having heard of "Al Fayed",
Alan ?
If as you now claim, you never thought there was any connection
between Fayed and the House of Saud ?
Unlike you however I won't wait with bated breath Alan, or Ian or
whatever your real name is. Because being the snivelling little
coward and proven liar that you really are, you simply won't
answer, will you ? You'll simply run off as usual.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> There is no fate, there is no plan, there is
> no rulebook other than physics.
> Free will, therefore, is when I choose to do or not do something
> because I consider it morally and ethically the correct thing to do
...
In accordance with the Laws of Physics, presumably.
Given that "there is no rulebook other than physics".
I see. Carry on
...
>
> What we're getting by way of an "argument" from this twatpot is a
> stream of cod philosophical shite
...
Whereas you consider things morally and ethically the correct
thing to do, presumably depending on whether or not they accord
with the Laws of Physics.
Because as you say, that's all there is.
Yup, that certainly makes a change from "cod philosophical shite".
I'll give you that.
...
> IMHO there is no God, there is no need for God and the planet would be
> better off if we forgot about God. This may never happen.
>
> Doesn't stop it being something for us to aspire to.
...
Don't tell me.
This will need to be in accordance with the Laws of Physics as well
presumably ?
Hoot!
michael adams
...
Bion
> >> You really are a prize twat.
> >
> >See below. [actually you can't because I snipped it]
> >
> Does *anyone* have a clue what this raging fuckwit is even talking
> about now?
>
> No free will? Whose will is there then, if it's not mine?
I think what he's saying is that while our actions may seem like 'free
will', they are actually governed by scientific laws - With an infinite
number of (theoretically measurable) variables involved, And with, for
example, a fast enough, infinitely powerful super computer, our actions
can be predicted. You could, I suppose, get a ballpark estimate of
potential behaviour with less information.
Much like chaos theory and the weather.
An infinite number of variables and events(large and microscopic) go to
create the weather we know. These variables studied, can lead us to
understand and predict the weather *perfectly*(for all time). Again,
you'll need an infinitely powerful computer to do so.
I could be talking crap though.
Alan Hope
That's it? Your case hangs on Skinner and the behaviourists? And now
science knows all there is to know about human behaviour?
Skinner was active from about the 1930s, Pavlov was long before that.
So you're saying they solved it all and all the questions have been
answered?
Dear God, man, I never realised it was going to be so easy to make you
demonstrate what a wanker you are on this subject as on every other.
Put up a fucking fight, at least.
>Now why isn't that a surprise?
><quote>
>Behaviorism is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that all things which organisms do-including acting, thinking and
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>feeling-can and should be regarded as behaviors, and as such can
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>be explained scientifically without recourse either to internal
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>physiological events in the brain or to non-physiological events
>in the mind. Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories
>should have observational correlates but that there are no
>philosophical differences between publicly observable processes
>(such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as
>thinking and feeling).
And you think a proposition is something that's been proved and is now
accepted as truth. You did after all say "every single scientist" was
in agreement. Is every single scientist a behaviourist in your odd
little world, Michael?
>The behaviorist school of thought ran concurrently with the
>psychoanalytic and Gestalt movements in psychology in the 20th
>century. Its main influences were Ivan Pavlov, who investigated
>classical conditioning, Edward Lee Thorndike, John B. Watson who
>rejected introspective methods and sought to restrict psychology
>to experimental methods, and B.F. Skinner who conducted research
>on operant conditioning.
>Methodological behaviorism remains the position of most experimental
>psychologists today, including the vast majority of those who work
>in cognitive psychology - so long as behavior is defined as including
>speech, at least non-introspective speech. With the rise of interest
>in animal cognition since the 1980s, and the more unorthodox views
>of Donald Griffin among others, mentalistic language including
>discussion of consciousness is increasingly used even in discussion
>of animal psychology, in both comparative psychology and ethology;
>however this is in no way inconsistent with the position of
>methodological behaviorism...
><quote>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
How clever of you to find it and copy and paste it. Well done.
>Now what is it in the above phrases - "all things which organisms
>do" and "can be explained scientifically" - that you're having
>such a problem with ? Eh lunk-head ?
The problem is that you claimed "every single scientist" was behind
the idea you were touting. Behaviourism isn't even supported by every
single psychologist.
So you lose. Gosh, that was easy.
michael adams
> michael adams goes:
>
>
> >> Why don't you be a dear and point me to where a respected scientist is
> >> saying, as you claim above, that they "can account for all human
> >> behaviour - each and every decision ever made by a human being"?
>
> >> I'll wait with bated breath.
>
> >You've clearly never heard of Pavlov, Skinner, or behavioural
> >psychology either then, have you eh lard brain ?
>
> That's it? Your case hangs on Skinner and the behaviourists?
< remainder of typical Hope garbage and evasion snipped >
You asked for the name of one respected scientist, and I've
supplied you with one.
Now what is it in the above phrases - "all things which organisms
do" and "can be explained scientifically" - or "Methodological
behaviorism remains the position of most experimental psychologists
today" - I repeat "today" that you're having such a problem with ?
Eh lunk-head ?
>
> The problem is that you claimed "every single scientist" was behind
> the idea you were touting. Behaviourism isn't even supported by every
> single psychologist.
No lard brain the problem is that you asked me for the name of
"a respected scientist" who claims he can "can account for all
human behaviour" - and I supplied you with one. B.F.Skinner,
and his modern day followers - or maybe you're unfamiliar with
the meaning of the word "today" as in -
> >Methodological behaviorism remains the position of most experimental
> >psychologists today, including the vast majority of those who work
> >in cognitive psychology
So I've answered your question, as anybody can see.
Now it's your turn to answer mine.
Here's the question again -
>Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> But as you've explained, grieving relatives never make it into the
> papers, because the papers all want to protect the House of Saud. So
> I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed. Clearly the
> conspiracy is not as watertight as it ought to be.
So what posssible relevance has "the papers all want to protect
the House of Saud" got with my ever having heard of "Al Fayed",
Alan ?
If as you now claim, you never thought there was any connection
between Fayed and the House of Saud ?
michael adams
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:mtg223hd2950aca57...@4ax.com...
>> michael adams goes:
>> >> Why don't you be a dear and point me to where a respected scientist is
>> >> saying, as you claim above, that they "can account for all human
>> >> behaviour - each and every decision ever made by a human being"?
>> >> I'll wait with bated breath.
>> >You've clearly never heard of Pavlov, Skinner, or behavioural
>> >psychology either then, have you eh lard brain ?
>> That's it? Your case hangs on Skinner and the behaviourists?
> < remainder of typical Hope garbage and evasion snipped >
>You asked for the name of one respected scientist, and I've
>supplied you with one.
None of whom pretend to do as you say. Next!
>> ><quote>
Erm, they're not claiming to "account for all human behaviour - each
and every decision ever made by a human being". That's what.
>> The problem is that you claimed "every single scientist" was behind
>> the idea you were touting. Behaviourism isn't even supported by every
>> single psychologist.
>No lard brain the problem is that you asked me for the name of
>"a respected scientist" who claims he can "can account for all
>human behaviour" - and I supplied you with one. B.F.Skinner,
>and his modern day followers - or maybe you're unfamiliar with
>the meaning of the word "today" as in -
>> >Methodological behaviorism remains the position of most experimental
>> >psychologists today, including the vast majority of those who work
>> >in cognitive psychology
>So I've answered your question, as anybody can see.
No, you haven't.
>Now it's your turn to answer mine.
>Here's the question again -
>>Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> But as you've explained, grieving relatives never make it into the
>> papers, because the papers all want to protect the House of Saud. So
>> I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed. Clearly the
>> conspiracy is not as watertight as it ought to be.
>So what posssible relevance has "the papers all want to protect
>the House of Saud" got with my ever having heard of "Al Fayed",
>Alan ?
I explained it already, but you're too fick to understand.
>If as you now claim, you never thought there was any connection
>between Fayed and the House of Saud ?
There is no connection. Why would I imagine such a thing? You know, I
call you fick just to tease you, but in the back of my mind there's a
tiny suspicion it might be true. Look how you're unable to understand
what you've quoted wholesale from Halfwitipedia above. The article
says one thing, and you think it says another.
michael adams
> michael adams goes:
>
> >"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >news:mtg223hd2950aca57...@4ax.com...
> >> michael adams goes:
>
> >> >> Why don't you be a dear and point me to where a respected scientist
is
> >> >> saying, as you claim above, that they "can account for all human
> >> >> behaviour - each and every decision ever made by a human being"?
>
> >> >> I'll wait with bated breath.
>
> >> >You've clearly never heard of Pavlov, Skinner, or behavioural
> >> >psychology either then, have you eh lard brain ?
>
> >> That's it? Your case hangs on Skinner and the behaviourists?
>
> > < remainder of typical Hope garbage and evasion snipped >
>
> >You asked for the name of one respected scientist, and I've
> >supplied you with one.
>
>
> >> ><quote>
>
> >> >Behaviorism is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >that all things which organisms do-including acting, thinking and
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >feeling-can and should be regarded as behaviors, and as such can
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >be explained scientifically without recourse either to internal
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >physiological events in the brain or to non-physiological events
> >> >in the mind. Behaviorism comprises the position that all theories
> >> >should have observational correlates but that there are no
> >> >philosophical differences between publicly observable processes
> >> >(such as actions) and privately observable processes (such as
> >> >thinking and feeling).
> >>
So "all human behaviour" isn't covered by "all things which organisms
do-including acting, thinking and feeling" then, is it ?
>
> >So I've answered your question, as anybody can see.
>
> No, you haven't.
I most certainly have.
"All human behaviour" is most definitely covered by "all things
which organisms do-including acting, thinking and feeling".
>
> >Now it's your turn to answer mine.
>
> >Here's the question again -
>
> >>Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> But as you've explained, grieving relatives never make it into the
> >> papers, because the papers all want to protect the House of Saud. So
> >> I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed. Clearly the
> >> conspiracy is not as watertight as it ought to be.
>
> >So what posssible relevance has "the papers all want to protect
> >the House of Saud" got with my ever having heard of "Al Fayed",
> >Alan ?
>
> I explained it already, but you're too fick to understand.
No you haven't. You're lying again.
>
> >If as you now claim, you never thought there was any connection
> >between Fayed and the House of Saud ?
>
> There is no connection. Why would I imagine such a thing?
Because you just wrote - "[...] because the papers all want to protect
the House of Saud. So I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed.
You're amazed I've ever heard of Al Fayed, because the papers all
want to protect the House of Saud.
So I ask you again, what's the connection ?
What has the papers all wanting to protect the House of Saud got to
do with whether I've ever heard of Al Fayed or not ?
Why won't you answer ?
And what's the betting this last lot is all snipped again? Airbushed
out of history, brushed under the carpet ?
michael adams
...
LeeJS
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> >> ><quote>
>> >>
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
>>
>> >Now what is it in the above phrases - "all things which organisms
>> >do" and "can be explained scientifically" - or "Methodological
>> >behaviorism remains the position of most experimental psychologists
>> >today" - I repeat "today" that you're having such a problem with ?
>> >Eh lunk-head ?
>>
>> Erm, they're not claiming to "account for all human behaviour - each
>> and every decision ever made by a human being". That's what.
>
>
>So "all human behaviour" isn't covered by "all things which organisms
>do-including acting, thinking and feeling" then, is it ?
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/pizzurro.html
[Objections to the "Black Box" Theory
It has been argued by most of the psychological community that
behavioral theories are not truly explanatory. It is stated that, at
best, the "black box" theories provide input-output laws, but do not
explain said laws. Only by reference to events inside the "black box"
can behavior be explained. Also, the general behavioral laws used in
"black box" deductive explanations are simply descriptive of observed
regularities. Behaviorists state them as givens rather than as the
results of the internal or mental events propitiating them.
Behaviorally oriented psychologists, in their attempt to ignore the
"black box" of a mind, seem to dehumanize the person by ignoring his
or her potential for freedom. In this sense behaviorists negate the
entire concept of free will. For, as Boulding (1984) states, "In the
case of humans we have a key to opening the black box of our minds in
our capacity for reflection and communication. It seems the height of
absurdity to dismiss this as 'operant control' of 'vocal musculature'"
(p. 483).]
So, it would seem that most psychologists do not agree with you and
that 'most of the psychological community' believes in free will.
So, you haven't clearly demonstrated your point, have you? You've
merely voiced an opinion that the minority of a small group of people
believe.
Lee.
--
lee at w2designs dot co dot uk
If I have one flaw, it's that I'm a perfectoinist.
michael adams
"LeeJS" <l...@nospamw2designs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7of623lfaj1rsdlfk...@4ax.com...
I'd stick with what you're best at if I were you -
"LeeJS" <L...@nospamw2designs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aqe123dc8pvf7pla6...@4ax.com...
> Does *anyone* have a clue what this raging fuckwit is even talking
> about now?
I was answering Alan Hope's request -
" Why don't you be a dear and point me to where a respected scientist
is saying, as you claim above, that they "can account for all human
behaviour - each and every decision ever made by a human being"?
Which I've done. By citing Skinner and latter day adherents of
behaviourial psychology. Who happen to form the dominant school
among experimental psychologists even today.
Neurobiology, which actually attempts to model what occurs inside
the brain - has nothing whatsoever to do with psychology. The two
disciplines use entirely different concepts and methodologies. What
behaviourial psychologists are rightly pointing out, is that it's a
total waste of time trying to describe overt behaviour in terms of
electrical events occuring inside the brain. Which is the realm
of neurobiology.
Furthermore what you've quoted has no relevance to the question
Free-Will in any case. Even if an event is unique and without
precendent, and not subject to the regularities decribed in
the extract, that in no way implies that it's "free" in any sense,
whatever that's supposed to mean. That's simply clutching at straws
as is the quantum uncertainty nonsense.
Its all one way traffic I'm afraid. The course of science ever since
the Rennaiassence has gradually been chipping away at all such religious
concepts including that of "free will". The ratchet has only ever been
turning in the one direction - as ratchets are inclined to do. With
Darwin representing the final nail in the coffin.
That anyone could seriously imagine that an absurd notion such
"free-will" could possibly survive Darwinism is quite frankly
laughable.
Dawkins is an intellectual fraud precisely because he won't admit
as much publicly. Quite possibly for fear of the sort of reception
with which such views are chacteristicly met, by yahoos and
ignoramusses such as yourself and the cardboard buffoon. Basically
there are no best sellers in telling people they're all just
automatons.
You can rest assured that I've no intention of wasting any
more of my time on an idiot like you, for fear of being characterised
as a "fuckwit" whenever a topic is touched on, which is clearly beyond
your limited comprehension. You can wallow in your own ignorance, for
just as long as you like, and thats just fine by me.
michael adams
...
LeeJS
You know, people like you should be really scared at the moment. I
understand there's a bill going through parliament to lock up your
sort in case you're a danger to normal people.
LeeJS
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>That anyone could seriously imagine that an absurd notion such
>"free-will" could possibly survive Darwinism is quite frankly
>laughable.
>
>Dawkins is an intellectual fraud precisely because he won't admit
>as much publicly. Quite possibly for fear of the sort of reception
>with which such views are chacteristicly met, by yahoos and
>ignoramusses such as yourself and the cardboard buffoon. Basically
>there are no best sellers in telling people they're all just
>automatons.
>
Skinner, of course, was a naturalistic determinist, rather than a
theistic determinist, which is what prompted this whole argument in
the first place. Skinner did not attribute his belief in a lack of
free will as being anything to do with a god, merely that we are
products of our surroundings. I fail to see how you square this
argument against Darwinism and/or Dawkins.
michael adams
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:37:18 +0100, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >That anyone could seriously imagine that an absurd notion such
> >"free-will" could possibly survive Darwinism is quite frankly
> >laughable.
> >
> >Dawkins is an intellectual fraud precisely because he won't admit
> >as much publicly. Quite possibly for fear of the sort of reception
> >with which such views are chacteristicly met, by yahoos and
> >ignoramusses such as yourself and the cardboard buffoon. Basically
> >there are no best sellers in telling people they're all just
> >automatons.
> >
>
> Skinner, of course, was a naturalistic determinist, rather than a
> theistic determinist,
"Of course" he was lard-brain. Got it in one !
Because Skinner was a s...c...i...e...n...t...i...s...t.
> which is what prompted this whole argument in
> the first place.
I doubt it.
> Skinner did not attribute his belief in a lack of
> free will as being anything to do with a god, merely that we are
> products of our surroundings.
That's right lunkhead. That just what you just said. As a scientist he
studies natural phenomena which can be shown to exist rather than er'
supernatural phenomena whose very existence is open to question..
Thats what "naturalism" means in this context
> I fail to see how you square this
> argument against Darwinism and/or Dawkins.
>
Because guess what -
Dawkins is a s...c...i...e...n...t...i...s...t, too!
hth
michael adams
...
LeeJS
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>> which is what prompted this whole argument in
>> the first place.
>
>I doubt it.
>
You can doubt it all you want, fuckwit, that doesn't make it untrue.
Look at the subject heading of this thread. It was a thread about god,
which led to Dawkins and then you brought up Darwin and free will.
>> Skinner did not attribute his belief in a lack of
>> free will as being anything to do with a god, merely that we are
>> products of our surroundings.
>
>That's right lunkhead. That just what you just said. As a scientist he
>studies natural phenomena which can be shown to exist rather than er'
>supernatural phenomena whose very existence is open to question..
>
Hmm..I'm noticing a pattern here. I say something that's true and then
you imply that that in some way makes me look foolish. Let's see if it
works for you too:
>Thats what "naturalism" means in this context
>
That's right, idiot. God you're thick.
>> I fail to see how you square this
>> argument against Darwinism and/or Dawkins.
>>
>
>Because guess what -
>
>Dawkins is a s...c...i...e...n...t...i...s...t, too!
>
Well, duh! Of course he is you fucking chutney chomping moron. You
really a prize dick with all your knowing stuff and everything. Idiot.
>hth
Well of course it helps, you sputum filled bag of donkey jizz. How
could it not help? That's what we're here for. Jesus, don't you know
anything?
Alan Hope
>> >> ><quote>
>> >> ><quote>
>> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
"Should be able to explain" is not the same as "is able to account
for".
>> >So I've answered your question, as anybody can see.
>> No, you haven't.
>I most certainly have.
>"All human behaviour" is most definitely covered by "all things
>which organisms do-including acting, thinking and feeling".
You overstated your case at the outset, and now instead of seeing some
sense, you'll argue white is black. It's your way.
>> >Now it's your turn to answer mine.
>> >Here's the question again -
>> >>Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> >> But as you've explained, grieving relatives never make it into the
>> >> papers, because the papers all want to protect the House of Saud. So
>> >> I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed. Clearly the
>> >> conspiracy is not as watertight as it ought to be.
>> >So what posssible relevance has "the papers all want to protect
>> >the House of Saud" got with my ever having heard of "Al Fayed",
>> >Alan ?
>> I explained it already, but you're too fick to understand.
>No you haven't. You're lying again.
>> >If as you now claim, you never thought there was any connection
>> >between Fayed and the House of Saud ?
>> There is no connection. Why would I imagine such a thing?
>Because you just wrote - "[...] because the papers all want to protect
>the House of Saud. So I'm a bit amazed you've even heard of Al Fayed.
So? There's no connection. Why are you claiming there is one?
>You're amazed I've ever heard of Al Fayed, because the papers all
>want to protect the House of Saud.
How would they be protecting the House of Saud by covering up Al
Fayed? That's insane. Your argument doesn't even make sense within
your own loopy terms.
>So I ask you again, what's the connection ?
There's no connection at all, idiot. I've told you a hundred times.
Why are you suddenly calling him Al Fayed? Do you want people to think
he's a Saudi? Bwah! What an idiot theory that was!
>What has the papers all wanting to protect the House of Saud got to
>do with whether I've ever heard of Al Fayed or not ?
Because if the British papers were in league with each other to
protect the Saudi royals, they'd surely be expected to do at least as
much to protect the British royals. Which as you can see from the
publicity Al Fayed has received, they haven't done.
>Why won't you answer ?
Do you still not get it?
>And what's the betting this last lot is all snipped again? Airbushed
>out of history, brushed under the carpet ?
How much?
Ed
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:45:41 +0100, "michael adams"
>
> >> which is what prompted this whole argument in
> >> the first place.
>
> >I doubt it.
>
> You can doubt it all you want, fuckwit, that doesn't make it untrue.
> Look at the subject heading of this thread. It was a thread about god,
> which led to Dawkins and then you brought up Darwin and free will.
The thread isnt about god, it isa about people who think there is
one.
I started it, with the predictably provocative title, in order to show
my exasperation that someone as talented as Zach Johnson would say
that his US Masters win was because of some imaginary friend he has,
rather than the fact that he has spent most of his life hitting golf
balls on a practive range!
michael adams
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:45:41 +0100, "michael adams"
> <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> >> which is what prompted this whole argument in
> >> the first place.
> >
> >I doubt it.
> >
> You can doubt it all you want, fuckwit, that doesn't make it untrue.
> Look at the subject heading of this thread. It was a thread about god,
> which led to Dawkins and then you brought up Darwin and free will.
>
> >> Skinner did not attribute his belief in a lack of
> >> free will as being anything to do with a god, merely that we are
> >> products of our surroundings.
> >
> >That's right lunkhead. That just what you just said. As a scientist he
> >studies natural phenomena which can be shown to exist rather than er'
> >supernatural phenomena whose very existence is open to question..
> >
> Hmm..I'm noticing a pattern here. I say something that's true and then
> you imply that that in some way makes me look foolish.
...
No. You repeat something that's blindingly obvious in a manner
which suggests you regard it as a startling new insight which
has only just ocurred to you at that very moment.
Such as saying that a particular scientist is a naturalitic
determinist. Well get away - who'd have thought!
...
> Let's see if it
> works for you too:
>
> >Thats what "naturalism" means in this context
> >
> That's right, idiot. God you're thick.
...
Not very convincing at all, I'm afraid.
But not really surprising, given that blindly following others
seems to be a bit of a habit with you.
...
>
> >> I fail to see how you square this
> >> argument against Darwinism and/or Dawkins.
> >>
> >
> >Because guess what -
> >
> >Dawkins is a s...c...i...e...n...t...i...s...t, too!
> >
> Well, duh! Of course he is you fucking chutney chomping moron. You
> really a prize dick with all your knowing stuff and everything. Idiot.
...
So seeing he's a scientist, with at least a passing interest in human
behaviour, do you think Dawkins really believes in the concept of "free
will" then ? Just like you do ?
And if so, which particular scientific theory or field would it come
under, do you think ?
...
>
> >hth
>
> Well of course it helps, you sputum filled bag of donkey jizz. How
> could it not help? That's what we're here for. Jesus, don't you know
> anything?
You can froth and foam all you like oh dribbling one, but the
fact remains that you still believe in the concept of "free-will".
Despite its being directly contrary to all known science. Past
present, and future.
Religious believers at least have the excuse that by believing in
free will and by being good they think they're all going to go heaven.
And so they might also want to disregard other inconvenient scientific
truths as well. Whereas the like you - and the Cardboard idiot -
just follow the crowd. Without really having a clue about what
you believe, or even think you believe.
michael adams
...
michael adams
> michael adams goes:
>
> How would they be protecting the House of Saud by covering up Al
> Fayed? That's insane. Your argument doesn't even make sense within
> your own loopy terms.
>
> >So I ask you again, what's the connection ?
>
> There's no connection at all, idiot. I've told you a hundred times.
> Why are you suddenly calling him Al Fayed? Do you want people to think
> he's a Saudi? Bwah! What an idiot theory that was!
>
> >What has the papers all wanting to protect the House of Saud got to
> >do with whether I've ever heard of Al Fayed or not ?
>
> Because if the British papers were in league with each other to
> protect the Saudi royals, they'd surely be expected to do at least as
> much to protect the British royals.
An answer at last.
So that, some people at least would claim that the British papers
are in league to protect the House of Saud, because Saudi Arabia
is sitting on one quarter of the World's proven oil reserves.
While according to you a least, the British papers are similarly
in league to protect the House of Windsor because... er, is it
anything to do with Windsor Great Park and the Garden at Buckingham
Palace by any chance ?
>
> Do you still not get it?
Well it can't be because of Scottish Oil, because that's nearly
all finished now
michael adams
...
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:kp27231uueidqk76r...@4ax.com...
>> michael adams goes:
>> How would they be protecting the House of Saud by covering up Al
>> Fayed? That's insane. Your argument doesn't even make sense within
>> your own loopy terms.
>> >So I ask you again, what's the connection ?
>> There's no connection at all, idiot. I've told you a hundred times.
>> Why are you suddenly calling him Al Fayed? Do you want people to think
>> he's a Saudi? Bwah! What an idiot theory that was!
>> >What has the papers all wanting to protect the House of Saud got to
>> >do with whether I've ever heard of Al Fayed or not ?
>> Because if the British papers were in league with each other to
>> protect the Saudi royals, they'd surely be expected to do at least as
>> much to protect the British royals.
>An answer at last.
The same answer I gave at the outset. Too bad you're so slow-witted.
>So that, some people at least would claim that the British papers
>are in league to protect the House of Saud, because Saudi Arabia
>is sitting on one quarter of the World's proven oil reserves.
You claim that. I don't know of anyone else who does. The people on
your ward, maybe?
>While according to you a least, the British papers are similarly
>in league to protect the House of Windsor because... er, is it
>anything to do with Windsor Great Park and the Garden at Buckingham
>Palace by any chance ?
No, I claim no such thing. But it's easier to believe they're
defensive of the British establishment than that they're in cahoots
with the fucking Saudis, you lunatic.
>> Do you still not get it?
>Well it can't be because of Scottish Oil, because that's nearly
>all finished now
Witter witter.
michael adams
> michael adams goes:
>
> >"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >news:kp27231uueidqk76r...@4ax.com...
> >> michael adams goes:
>
> >> How would they be protecting the House of Saud by covering up Al
> >> Fayed? That's insane. Your argument doesn't even make sense within
> >> your own loopy terms.
>
> >> >So I ask you again, what's the connection ?
>
> >> There's no connection at all, idiot. I've told you a hundred times.
> >> Why are you suddenly calling him Al Fayed? Do you want people to think
> >> he's a Saudi? Bwah! What an idiot theory that was!
>
> >> >What has the papers all wanting to protect the House of Saud got to
> >> >do with whether I've ever heard of Al Fayed or not ?
>
> >> Because if the British papers were in league with each other to
> >> protect the Saudi royals, they'd surely be expected to do at least as
> >> much to protect the British royals.
>
> >An answer at last.
>
> The same answer I gave at the outset. Too bad you're so slow-witted.
>
> >So that, some people at least would claim that the British papers
> >are in league to protect the House of Saud, because Saudi Arabia
> >is sitting on one quarter of the World's proven oil reserves.
>
> You claim that. I don't know of anyone else who does. The people on
> your ward, maybe?
...
LOL ! I've never heard that one before Alan, sorry Ian.
You're wasted on Usenet do you know that ?
So presumably just like everybody else, the UK just likes the camels
and the sand. And everybody knows that Saudi camels and sand are the
best. In addition to them having a quarter of the world's known
reserves.
...
>
> >While according to you a least, the British papers are similarly
> >in league to protect the House of Windsor because... er, is it
> >anything to do with Windsor Great Park and the Garden at Buckingham
> >Palace by any chance ?
>
> No, I claim no such thing. But it's easier to believe they're
> defensive of the British establishment than that they're in cahoots
> with the fucking Saudis, you lunatic.
...
Ah right ! So that explains why we never get any details of all
these rumoured public executions in Wembley Stadium, or the mass
floggings of drunks in Hampden Park then, is it?
michael adams
Alan Hope
>> >An answer at last.
>...
Er, WTF?
>...
>> >While according to you a least, the British papers are similarly
>> >in league to protect the House of Windsor because... er, is it
>> >anything to do with Windsor Great Park and the Garden at Buckingham
>> >Palace by any chance ?
>> No, I claim no such thing. But it's easier to believe they're
>> defensive of the British establishment than that they're in cahoots
>> with the fucking Saudis, you lunatic.
>...
>Ah right ! So that explains why we never get any details of all
>these rumoured public executions in Wembley Stadium, or the mass
>floggings of drunks in Hampden Park then, is it?
Riiiight.