Conversation:

OK then

The flying ostrich Clive
Is apparently, though contradictory, alive;
Accuse him not of folly
Even if his maths are poly.

Well since we're doing pomes:
http://bonoboworld.blogspot.com/2009/10/enfer-cest-les-auteurs.html

L'enfer, c'est les auteurs (touché)

Embarrassing to recall...I once used that as a chat up line. Forgive me - I was young. And, hey, it was a Quebecoise bookseller I was chatting up.

Plus - now I recall - it wasn't entirely unsuccessful.

A59687266

Gif

Every vote counts...

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2009/11/bad-faith-awards-2009-polls-are-open.html




h/t @ pharyngula

Already voted last night for Harun Yahya

A59851263

Gif

Here's something

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8635624/Pastafarian-wins-religious-freedom-right-to-wear-pasta-strainer-for-driving-licence.html

A possible riposte just struck me:

Theology (or religion, or faith) is also a theory.

I'll have to send that to Ed personally as he's

I thought a theory was an explanation that best fit the observed events, and implicit in any theory is that it must be conditional, and therefore subject to invalidation

Theology is the study of religious belief.

Although historically this term has also been used to designate the study of the nature of God, the two are quite different meanings, as the former could be deemed a subset of anthropolgy, and the latter seems to presume such a being as God exists.

Theology, in the anthropolgical sense, does not require religious belief, or indeed, faith.

Religion is basically a systemized set of beliefs, most usually associated with religious faith, which may be defined as a dogmatic assertion of validity of the existence of one or more supreme intelligent agencies

Belief in a God, AKA 'supreme, all-powerful, intelligent agent or being', is not a coherent, testable hypothesis, let alone a theory subject to validation

In short, the difference is between finding out about how things work, and making up stuff.

I had a similar exchange with Edward by email over the last few days. I conceded.

As Wittgenstein said of predestination: 'It isn't even a theory; it's more like a cry, or a sigh.'

Or more generally, "Of what we cannot speak, we should thereof keep silent."

Noggin

His remark on predestination, though, was more sympathetic than critical.

Not back. Just lurking. gmail edwardthebonobo

It would be a shame to let the only interesting God(less) thread drop.

Posted elsewhere but....

Jesus H Christ

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may/17/texas-war-on-history

FB

Wow. "Noah's Ark had a unique, multi-level construction" to allow it to house all the species -- a multi-storey carp ark?

FB

The Irish Times printed a new version of my letter (cited above I believe) that I sent them last week:

Sir, – Séamus de Barra (October 30th) highlights a major problem with mystery religions such as Christianity.

If an afterlife is supposed to be eternal, then, however shadowy such a life may be, its value must outweigh all of earthly life. No doubt when the notion was first proposed it was intended to improve moral arguments, but it has only succeeded in skewing them. For instance, from an eternal standpoint the only party requiring attention, sympathy and protection is the perpetrator of abuse, since the victim’s soul is in no danger. Understandably this argument gets no public airing, but it follows inescapably from the doctrine of an eternal afterlife moderated by a just and punitive judge.

Mr de Barra writes “if there is no God and no afterlife, one’s deeds in this life are not going to have any longterm consequences” – as though the only consequences one might consider are the first-person consequences.

When I was baptised as an infant I undertook to renounce the world, the flesh and the devil. I have since come to respect the first two of those, and regard them not as enemies, but vulnerable wonders. To value their renunciation is, to some degree, to consent to the neglect of our clear duties, for instance in limiting climate change. – Yours, etc,