El Pibe

I reckon HB would have us lean toward the musical, go on, give him soneone from a mott the hoople album, at a pich jethro tull?..... OP: "The Who Am I Game? Posted by HonaloochieB 07 June, 2009 16:57 You think of a character from literature, a song or a film. Give a brief two or three sentence clue of the character and the rest of us have to guess who it is. The person who guesses correctly sets the next clue. And so it goes. "

Having said that, my instinctive antipathy towards catholicism comes from a funeral when I was 18 and my mate died in a car accident. The priest said pretty much word for word "well he never came to me for confession so he might be in a good place or he might not" It wasn't especially comforting; his mother's reaction alone kind of rippled out. The priest could have obeyed pibe's rule 1. don't be an arse, but he decided to obey rule 1. of the jobsworth handbook 1.be an arse.

we're all delusional (just look at your knowledge of greek history for starters) uncleglen. I've no problem with delusion per se (none of us could function without it, ambition is a delusion, weighing up a decision is an exercise in hypothetical delusion) it really boils down to whether that delusion threatens anyones else's reality (they might of course not realise thanks to, say an optimistic (delusional) outlook. For the most part religion doesn't fall into this category but it most assuredly can. But then so can lots of other stuff. But yeah, I'm there with the tax squids thing.

more quotesage that might be appropriate. in this case Neal Stephenson from his book wot i just read. "What he wasn't so good at was manipulating the internal states of other humans, getting them to see things his way, do things for him. His baseline attitude toward other humans was that they could all just go fuck themselves and that he was not going to expend any effort whatsoever getting them to change the way they thought. This was probably rooted in a belief that had been inculcated to him from the get-go: that there was an objective reality, which all people worth talking to could observe and understand, and that there was no point in arguing about anything that could be so observed and so understood." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That, as far as she could tell, was the purpose of the religion she had been brought up in: it made people feel better when really horrible things happened, and it offered a repertoire of ceremonies that were used to add a touch of class to such goings-on as shacking up with someone and throwing dirt on a corpse. None of which especially bothered Zula or made her doubt its worthwhileness. Making sad people feel better was a fine thing to do."

.

Are you irish by the way? I used to be in the cubs and swear alleigance to both god AND the queen!!!!! And look at me now, gawd bless her maj.

Good girl Stephanie!!!!

SO your goal is to defeat religion or just stop tax money headed there in any way shape or from? You have to remember that belief in a sky fairy isn't necessarily harmful and sky fairy advocates do enourmous amounts of 'good'* in the world. Those people so inclined may well have done so anyway, ... or not. *using graeco-christian-elite-enlightenment moral code ISO666

steveo, the answer is right up your street i reckon. And no i can't be bothered with the latter either.

ok quick clue. this is a song

He finally confronts the dirty dog in a bar thanks to identifying features and an old photo and threatens to kill him. More violence ensues.

Darn, switched off before that. Gove definitely had upper hand until I did so. Self did look like he'd have preferred to have been elsewhere, maybe he should take a break from the show. UKIP guy was annoying mainly because he just shoehorned in his preplanned speeches without ever addressing a question, but I guess grandstanding is what they're all about. I bet he won them a few more votes though. Didn't like the journo at all.

This legacy drew much amusement fro, others, leading to shame with the ladies and violence with the chaps. *sorry not specifically doing an AQ, just forgot, busy at work and waxed philosophically to no end in my spare moments, well that and went to the pub at lunch*

Thinking about it, we had that conversation a while ago. Time...so fast....now......

I just translated them, never said I fucking live by them. "what never" actually I always live by them.

I'm afraid you seem to be caught in the simulation conundrum RG. The point dawkins is making is that a propensity to spirituality may be advantageous as an extra layer of bonding to the social animals we are genetically deisgned to be. As indeed is society. We're not hive or solitary, and that's governed by genes, our programming. We can't work out wether we're in a simulation or not because that's the programming we have. Morals therefore are part of that programming made manifest in terms of our interactions. We're too big to base it upon grooming, so we worked out other ways to make it function. Religious ideas are a meme that helps to fulfil the yearning that the religious gene imparts and, as we created sophisticated societies, became entrenched, institutionalised if you will. You have a problem with those memes, because they're based on an irational concept, but you want to replace those memes with a new set based upon (and i waver before using the term) rational, or secular principles. But actually all you are doing is subtly changing the flavour to fulfil the genetic dispositional yearning that Dawkins describes. You're trying to express it with new language but there's nothing new about it. Now if you can make anarchism work in a world of big numbers or persuade us towards hive mind, then I'llbe intrigued by your fumbling.

My old school mate might also be part of the problem. I get to see him once a year when he comes over and hires the cream of the crop to be coaches out in the US for his 'soccer' training company that does both youth level and professional coaching. He's (ex pro himself, cruelly cut short at incipeince by injury in our local pub game) pretty convinced USA will be better than England in international footie within 20 years.

They're really just two sides of the same coin though aren't they. Given the pressures and resultant short termism, noone is tempted to fix things the hard way if you can do it by getting hceaper imports who are nearly the finished product. ANd as long as johnny foreigner is the goto fix, the coaching standards won't improve and the english kids don't get the breaks and end up hoofing it in league 1. So they may be the symptom, but that doesn't mean its not part of the problem.

Actually just read a lovely passage in Banks' latest final Culture novel, musing about how simulations become so sophisticated that the variables can have a pretty good basis for calling themelves life, and what responsibility the simulation programmers have to their creations both in maintaining their lives and whether or not to inform them of the nature of their reality. Then of course the angst that they might themselves be part of a simulation. Enough experimentation has been done to be reasonably certain that one's reality is the ultimate physical one so to speak, but then of course that could simply be part of the programming of the simulation. A lack of evidence of a creator certainly isn't proof gainst their existence, but neither is it a reason to pursue slightly bizarre dogma in a bid to please someone who ultimately doesn't care what you do, just what the wider outcome is, and whether or not to switch you off afterwards!!

Interesting stuff Burbage. Although I think you first point is more the powers that be appropriating religion for its own ends rather than religion appropriating morality as such, but I quibble. I've occasionally pondedred on the whole morality thing at the usual times, in the shower, having a pooh, that sort of thing. I guess I subscribe to the idea that there isn't any as such. It's a useful collective framework by which we hope bad shit doesn't happen to us, that we have to police using more coercive mechanisms for those less inclined to buy into it, or at least more inclined to buy into their own desires above those of others to a degree deemed unreasonable by the collective framework, like the metaphysical carrots and sticks that involve your flavour of perpetuity, and more mundane ones such as punishment, physical freedom and a good old fashioned snuffing out. The details of that framework are down to individual societies, hence why your universal charter is indeed ultimately balderdash, it's an elite western christian liberal one. Which again boils down to my first 3 rules, the first two, thinking about it, noone can do anything about, so we can whittle it down to 1.Don't be an arse* *as defined by a societal collective illusion based on tradition but subtly altered over time given socio-economic shifts blah de blah de blah de yawn

Im not sure hipster means 'middle class'. I think it's more 'trendy' with added derogatory undertones.

thankfully not, you have permission to shoot me if ever is!!

From 3 years old onwards he grew up in a broken home and was sullenly resentful of the legacy from his absent daddy

"The problem is that us secular thinkers need to pursuade people that it isn't just "not religion"" This smacks of the polarised debate over the pond. I don't think anyone needs to persuade anything of anything, just get on with your life. Who are you trying to persuade that you can be moral without religion, why bother, just be moral. I don't think religion appropriated morality for its own ends, I think religion was something that built up over time and was both a way of explaining a tough and mysterious world as well as a manifest expression of those societal norms and exigencies required in order to survive. We can get along without it now, but the majority (globally) choose not to. But why should that bother you, I sense a chip on your shoulder or inferiority complex as if you're protesting too much that you have some sort of spiritual structure and purpose despite a lack of religiosity. Stop protesting and persuading and just be happy in yourself. And i still don't really get the point of spirituality without religion.

The 10 thingies weren't such a terrible starting point, and i may paraphrase a bit: 1) If you're going to believe in a god, just be nice about it, don't make it an excuse to hate 'the other'. 2) Look up to positive influences in your life (don't by Heat for goodness sake). 3) Try to avoid being a sweary mary, except when you hit your thumb with a hammer, because then it helps. 4) Have fun at the weekend, take the time to be with those you love. 5) Be nice to your mum and dad, they earned it (mum and dad, don't screw up your kids, earn it). 6) Don't kill. 7) Don't cheat on yours or anyone else's partner 8) Don't steal. 9) Don't Lie. 10) Don't be Jealous, be content.