This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by digofthedump

Go to: What's the Place of Faith in Schools?

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 14 by digofthedump

Professor Richard Dawkins [author of The God Delusion], responding, said education about religion has value, but no child should ever be labelled by the faith of her parents.

Yet RD himself is happy to call himself a 'Cultural Anglican'. If a convinced atheist can be labelled with a religion representative of his background then why not label children for similar reasons. I for one never think that the term 'Christian child' or 'Muslim child' means anything other than 'a child from a Christian or Muslim community background. Are not children entitled to a community or cultural identity like Richard?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:04:16 UTC | #921592

Go to: Will your kid be taught that climate change is a hoax?

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by digofthedump

RE. Comment 2 by EvilConservative..."Last but not least, don't tell me that because I haven't posted any links myself, that I'm making this up."

Mate....I guarantee you'll receive at least one reply which simply says "Evidence?!! I didn't think so!!."

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:35:17 UTC | #921230

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 89 by digofthedump

Comment 88

If its not a limited company then it should be the equivalent of going round to someones house for tea and a case of buyer beware. People can always look for food hygiene certificates.

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:26:04 UTC | #918616

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by digofthedump

For the record...I happen to think that we must encourage a social atmosphere of tolerance and respect to all individuals. I find bullying abhorrent and I would like to see folk be understanding to those who are different from the norm. But I don't think the state should errode basic freedoms to achieve this.

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:13:28 UTC | #918600

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 84 by digofthedump

You may think that society would be better off if a proprietor of a gas station or eatery was allowed to tell a black person, or a Jew, or a homosexual to fuck off and try their luck with the next place 3 hours down the road, but most people don't.

No actually I don't either for the gas (petrol) station but then people don't usually store gasoline in their living room (limited companies and monopoly utilites requiring license should follow civic codes)...as for the eatery....if it was in someones kitchen then yes I do....why? because I think that protection from the state to tell you what you can do with your own private home (include earn a living from it...one of the most fundamental freedoms) trumps someones right not to be inconvenienced because someone doesn't want them in their house.

I know, more totalitarian bullshit.

Yes it is....but hey...it's for the gays....it wears a rainbow flag....what could possibly go wrong?!!

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:05:34 UTC | #918598

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 82 by digofthedump

Comment 79 by Ignorant Amos...What age are you?

Old enough not to take seriously someone who uses the terms..."Pwned" and "Spoooiiiiinnnng",

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:36:55 UTC | #918591

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 81 by digofthedump

Comment 78 by Schrodinger's Cat...Thus your objection to the claim that liberals, not Christians, brought about the end of slavery is itself ridiculous.

No No!!! My objection is to people who have the same mentality as the French Terror or the Bolsheviks claiming credit for the enlightenment.

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:33:58 UTC | #918589

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 77 by digofthedump

No, they are not being punished or singled out. They are being asked to adhere to the same laws that everyone else has to. That silly law is - if you are providing a public service, you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, religion.

Or put another way, society has deemed it a rational law to require providers of public services to not discriminate of the basis of race, religion, etc.

Oh well!! Forgive me....of course it does....but then that's how totalitarianism operates doesn't it....abolish the distinction between public and private. Since when has a private bed and breakfast been a 'public service'? What is the difference between private business or contract between citizens (specifically a non-limited livelihood in a persons home) and a 'public service'? Economic transactions themselves are not automatically defined as 'public services'...at least not in a free society they aren't.

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:13:19 UTC | #918582

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by digofthedump

Case in point...Secularists in olden days were standing up to genuine

tyranny...as in being burnt alive for translating the bible sort of thing.

If you want to play hard done by get your facts right...

Could anyone really regard my statement, including the words "[that]....sort of thing", as intended to be taken as factual? Hardly....It's called rhetoric mate...I was contrasting the real struggle against combined church & state tyranny with the pathetic non-issues of todays "freedom-fighters". Most reasonable people would regard the fight against execution for religious conscience an early example of secularism even if it wasn't called so by name.

again check your facts before making an idiot of yourself...oops too late!

Oh dear oh dear....you should really check your comments before posting. I actually stated up-front that I made my example up as an illustration.

They broke the law...they displayed xian bigotry and gross homophobia and got their sorry 'souls' into strife...quite right.

Good people my case rests. Thankyou strangebrew for quite literally demonstrating the reality of my argument. Whether they broke the law is in fact irrelevent to this argument. Presumably many poor souls actually really did break some law or other associated with heresy before paying the ultimate (legally sanctioned) price. You illustrate nicely the problem...they are to be punished for what they think and feel...xian bigotry, homophobia...your words, interesting choice!!!.....exercising conscience in their own home is what they were doing not that it is any business of anyone elses...I very much doubt it was a limited company they were trading under...not that it greatly matters considering it was their own private space. You want the state to interfere in areas where no true secularist would want it putting its colossal snout.

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:38:58 UTC | #918571

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by digofthedump

The current anti-religion -so-called secular- movement has more in common with the dark side of the enlightenment than the light side. Heirs to Robespierre rather than Jefferson.

Case in point...Secularists in olden days were standing up to genuine tyranny...as in being burnt alive for translating the bible sort of thing....Current secularists are complaining about Songs of Praise on the BBC...that sort of thing (okay I technically made that up but it is a pretty good summary of you guys is it not?). Also, how many enlightenment secularists would have supported a motion to extract a fine of some £3000 from a couple who used their private property to make a living running a bed and breakfast because they refused two men to share a double bed in accordance with their conscience...and demand that noone could earn a living from their private property in such a way unless they enforce the moral values (or rather lack thereof) of the state?

It's time to call bullshit on you people it really is.

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:19:36 UTC | #918540

Go to: Secularism v Religion in national affairs - post-Warsi discussion on BBC Newsnight 14/2/12

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 70 by digofthedump

[Comment 12] I believe that the rediscovery of the classical Greek and Roman world during the Renaissance followed by the Enlightenment gave birth to the society of today.

It's a good job the world of classical Greece and Rome wasn't translated exactly though isn't it?

The modern world is not an automatic product of Christianity....but it did grow from Christian soil. Nor did it grow in opposition to Christianity...the established Church perhaps, but this is true of all vested interests, but not the faith itself. The Enlightenment was preceeded by the Reformation and the Reformation was a product of Christian people inspired by personal devotion to their faith.

[Comment 7] Our liberal values come from the Enlightenment movement. Of course many of its writers were self-described Christians, but it was not Christianity that got rid of slavery, but liberalism. Christianity ignored slavery for over a thousand years, so too did Islam.

There's something almost ridiculous about this comment although I can't quite put my finger on it. If I were to say "Europeans ignored slavery for over four thousand years"...this would be true....as would the statement "Abolitionists abolished slavery". The idea that liberalism abolished slavery is almost true by definition...to the degree that it's virtually a pointless statement....like saying that the winner wins the race.

The current anti-religion -so-called secular- movement has more in common with the dark side of the enlightenment than the light side. Heirs to Robespierre rather than Jefferson.

Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:53:15 UTC | #918534

Go to: Council prayers ruling starts national debate

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 81 by digofthedump

and let tradition dominate the public sphere because it's tradition that brought us to where we are now....

That sounds like reason enough to demand that tradition be damned and exchanged for more rational rituals.

Ha Ha Point Taken.

I Should have chosen my words more carefully.

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:33:04 UTC | #917347

Go to: What is deism? Is it possible?

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by digofthedump

I consider deism to be a mistaken belief, as it requires that some form of mind can exist without substance.

An equally mistaken belief might be whether some form of substance can exist without mind, keeping in mind that everything ever known is ONLY known, by definition, because some mind or other is perceiving it.

I personally regard 'self' as pre-existent....but not pre-existing in the form of complex mind. Mind is increasingly complex perceptions of self...it exists as a continuum. Let's face it SOMETHING has to be the basis of reality. One view, your view, places emphasis on 'out there'...it is an 'outside in' philosophy. I don't entirely disagree with it. But another way of seeing things is to literally turn reality 'inside out'. This is my philosophical basis for theism (I regard deism to be a variety of theism).

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:16:43 UTC | #917340

Go to: Council prayers ruling starts national debate

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by digofthedump

There should be no practices/rituals based on superstion, and tradition is not a valid excuse for its inclusion.

Yes it is....Society is nothing but tradition, we are an historical process, we are the result of our past...reform for a reason not for the sake of it. Society is not teleologically obliged to become neutral or universal (even if such a nonsense were possible).

People are still free to go to a Christian church if they wish, and practice their faith in complete freedom within their own home.

Everyone should be free within their private sphere....but this is about who controls the public sphere....and let tradition dominate the public sphere because it's tradition that brought us to where we are now....only if tradition inhibits freedon should it be reformed. Bolsheviks should go and build their Utopia elsewhere.

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:08:33 UTC | #917316

Go to: Bath Christian group's 'God can heal' adverts banned

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by digofthedump

So this is criminal sanction not just the self regulation that the ASA does.

Well surely this is a matter of interpretation and common sense...unless we want to legally identify prayer and belief as medical "treatment" or "remedy".

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:58:58 UTC | #914524

Go to: Bath Christian group's 'God can heal' adverts banned

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by digofthedump

Comment 2 & 13 by Alan4discussion

Thankyou Alan....Again interesting.

See comment 19 regarding the Bath Christians although if, as the Mail article says, they said that "scores of people have been physically healed" as opposed to "we believe that scores of people have been physically healed"...then yes, technically there is case against them (although it's strange to think that such a claim would need to be qualified in this way but then given their use of medical jargon it is not just a technical requirement but morally necessary).

As for the BBC Wales piece...this is a matter of criminal fraud pure and simple and susceptible people must be protected from such scams.

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:45:36 UTC | #914519

Go to: Bath Christian group's 'God can heal' adverts banned

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by digofthedump

Comment 12. But it seems the ASA thought they weren't presented in this way

Thankyou Michael.....Hmmmmmm!! Interesting. It is, I guess, a matter of the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. If an organization is technically presenting their point of view as art (or belief) yet realistically trying to get people to emotionally relate to it as factual then it is a case of determining whether there is any intention to mislead. I don't think this is the case with the Christian organization here but on the otherhand I do see the ASA's concern...namely the inclusion of a list of medical terms of specific disorders and invoking medical authority as well (albeit in a "don't stop taking your prescriptions" and "contact your GP" sort of way).

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:28:34 UTC | #914513

Go to: Bath Christian group's 'God can heal' adverts banned

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by digofthedump

Comment 6. Making medical claims in this manner [my emphasis] without training or license ought, in my view, to be a matter for the courts.

It's precisely the manner in which it's done why it ought not to be a matter for the courts.

No matter how wild the claims, if they are presented in the context of "we believe this" or "if you have faith that..." then they should be effectively immune from such things as the ASA. They are not falsly making claims for the technical efficacy of a product they are selling.

The difference here is similar in kind to the difference between something presented as art and something presented as factual...in other words the former has 'artistic license' the latter does not.

This isn't even a case of 'Buyer Beware'.

Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:51:46 UTC | #914499

Go to: 30 Renowned Writers Speaking About God

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by digofthedump

Interesting. Thankyou. Could've done without the euthanasia music though.

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:12:11 UTC | #910797

Go to: Tim Minchin song mocking Christ pulled from Jonathan Ross' Christmas special

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 95 by digofthedump

Re Comment 93 by Peter Grant

Thanks for link....a bit braver :-)...now let him go for the big one...a song specifically ridiculing Muhammad.

The song in the link was again very clever..but I didn't find it as funny as Woody Allen Jesus....Thanks anyway.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:08:26 UTC | #903073

Go to: Were you born an atheist?

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by digofthedump

I'm not atheist but I would suppose that atheists are born....or at least the sort of mentality that gives rise to atheism is born. I say this because my theism comes naturally to me. I was not raised in a religious household...in fact my parent never even mentioned God or the supernatural to me as far as I remember (although my mum did knit a nativity scene). But I have never not believed...it's always been with me I think...just sort of comes naturally....I don't see why an atheist shouldn't be the same way.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:29:42 UTC | #903003

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 104 by digofthedump

Thankyou Steve Zara for your last response....I will close my argument on this particular thread with a final reply to a point you made.

If you will excuse a poor analogy, the theology lizard can't escape from the predator that is the complexity argument by dropping the tail of the mind and running away.

Actually I enjoyed this analogy.

The complexity predator is dealt with by invoking gradualism. You will agree with this I trust? We begin with a simple point of origin, let's say..and end with a complex destination via a gradual journey of increasing complexity.

From a materialist point of view, we start with a simple material state...and via a gradual process (natural selection of survivability) there is the accumulation of complex properties.

From the spiritualist point of view, we start with a simple spiritual state...(remember I define spiritual as reality in subjective terms so a simple spiritual state would be let's say 'being prior to mind' so rather like the subjective state prior to mental development or a subjective state of practical non awareness in deep-sleep)...and via a gradual process (self realization of 'I AM' by means of 'mental' symbolic representation) we accumulate complex perceptions of being.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:56:43 UTC | #902992

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 101 by digofthedump

Alan4discussion. Thanks yet again for your reply...I feel this is still going round in circles...we are plainly poles apart here but you have kindly responded to my posts even though you must be getting quite frustrated with the apparent lack of progress. But I think perhaps we should just agree that we differ. Rather than respond point by point to your last post...I'll just present here a summary of our discussion as I percieve it...you may or may not agree and please respond with your own version that I will respectfully read but might not necessarily respond to.

Your view is that..although I have provided an internally consistant model of a supposed reality, I have not connected it to anything in the real world and so this invalidates my claim that my position has equal validity with the materialist position.

My view is that...although you have made a superb defence of a rational reality, revealed by science and empirical evidence....this is not the same as a proof for materialism (that the self is essentially a mental phenomenon and mind is essentially a physical phenomenon...As opposed to sense experience as essentially a mental phenomenon and mental phenomenon as essentially a shadow of the self).

Your view is that I am invoking something 'magical' for which there is no evidence.

My view is that a spiritual view of reality invokes nothing that we are unfamiliar with already...and that it merely interprets what we actually know (the fact of perception) in terms of 'that which percieves (subject)' instead of 'that which is percieved (object)'.

Thanks again for your patience and detailed responses.

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 17:34:00 UTC | #902783

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 99 by digofthedump

Thanks Alan4discussion

You are once again confusing the validity of the reasoning process with the material validity of conclusions.

No I am not!! You are though (although I would rephrase the ending as '...with the actual definitive truth of conclusions'). You are confusing the content of perception (the way reality appears to us) with the origin of perception itself. You're assuming that because of the fact that reality can be revealed as rational...it naturally follows that the subject is simply a passive observer of a fundamentally object-based reality....this despite the fact that reality only ever consists of subject and object. If you want to call reality 'material' fine go ahead...but the same thing can equally be called 'spiritual'...not because there's evidence of anything external beyond what we already know....but because the subject HAS ALWAYS AND WILL ALWAYS BE PART OF WHAT WE KNOW....by definition.

Reasoning works like arithmetic. It is possible to follow a correct process (formula) of calculation, but unless the initial numbers are correct the conclusion is false.

I couldn't agree more....!!!....(you can fill in the rest of the sentance I trust).

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 13:34:43 UTC | #902764

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by digofthedump

Thankyou Alan4discussion

Your argument only shows rational self-consistency, not validity.

The validity of my position is derived from its acknowlegement that reality can be understood equally in terms of object and subject. Your unfounded assumption is that the rational object corresponding as it does with a rational subject must be interpreted to mean that the rational subject is a product of the rational object rather than the other way around. I don't know how I can make my position any more simple. The rational self consistency IS the validity in this argument...unless I was trying to prove one position over the other which I am not...you are though...and this fact makes your position a "Castle in the air".

All the evidence shows the "mind" to simply be the electro-chemical properties of the brain.

Not so. This assumes materialism. Let's agree however that brain and mind are synonymous...this is rational. The assumption lies in asserting that the object (in this case electro-chemical processes) is the basis for the subject (the cognitive processes) rather than the other way around.

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:01:08 UTC | #902754

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 95 by digofthedump

Thanks Steve Zara

Something can exist and be as simple as you like but it can't have a mind and be simple.

Oh but it can!! Something can BE simple and HAVE a complex mind (or even a simple mind)...it can't BE simple and BE a complex mind...by definition. You equate self or being with mind itself...because any sort of awareness requires mind. But the spiritual world-view does not ultimately equate self or being with mind...mind is a reflection of self (self here refers to the singular 'universal self' rather than a personal self that is distinct from other 'selves'). An illustration. Imagine having the most powerful torch in the universe and shining it into empty space...you wouldn't see the light, no matter how bright it was. Only if the light shines on to something will you be able to see the light reflected back at you. Supposing a speck of dust is in the way of the torch beam. The speck of dust would appear to be the source of light itself...whereas it would only be reflecting the light coming from your torch.

This is simply an illustration of course...here the light represents the self, and the speck of dust represents mind, through which the self is percieved. Since the mind is not actually the self, but only the lense through which we 'see' the self...the self does not depend on some pre-existing mental structure capable of manifesting human self-awareness....mind exists as a continuum of complexity, mind grows but the self is unchanging and eternal.

Incidentally...I'm describing self and mind as distinct from one another here for the purpose of describing the nature of life but ultimately they are closely related to the extent that they are different aspects of the same thing...this is what is meant by life being a process of becoming or self realization.

God is necessarily of vast complexity, no matter what you believe about mind, being, naturalism and so on. This is inescapable, and it is one of the reasons why the belief that God is simple is logically false. It's impossible.

Certain notions about God are not logical...this I grant you...but this is ultimately a theological debate. The spiritual notion that places life or being at the beginning of our enquiry so to speak is perfectly logical.

What is 'higher' or 'real' meaning supposed to be?

This was a discussion concerning our attitude to human values, experience and culture. I was simply pointing out that human celebrations will naturally have more significance to people who believe that life is the basis of reality...much in the same way that particle physics will be regarded differently by those who think that reality is based on fundamental particles....but we weren't discussing particles, we were discussing Christmas.

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 11:13:52 UTC | #902748

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 90 by digofthedump

Steve Zara thanks for your comment

That's impossible. Even if reality was subjective, it doesn't make logic any less false, and it is logically impossible for a being to be simple, because complexity is independent of subjective opinion - it's a logical statement. A being has to be complex because of what a being has to do to be a being, such as to think, and have knowledge. Those are logically complex, no matter what labels you use for reality (natural, supernatural, objective, subjective).

This I would have to disagree with. The attributes of being you mention...thinking...knowledge etc are of course complex...but these are manifestations of being rather than the basis of being itself (the subject or I AM). Similarly...atoms, molecules and other increasingly complex material phenomenon are all based on a simple reality we are happy to call material and come about by evolutionary means (according to materialism). Or alternatively...complex subjective phenomenon (mind)...manifestations of a simple spiritual (forgive my use of this term) reality...come about by means of what might be compared to self discovery...(I AM THAT WHICH BECOMES ITSELF)

The crucial religious idea here is that life is pre-existent...even if all material sensation, memory and thoughts were to cease...the I AM would still exist to be reborn another 'day'....life to a religious mind being like waking from sleep....the state of deep sleep is as simple as it gets from a subjective point of view...it is still 'being' though.

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 23:22:00 UTC | #902694

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 88 by digofthedump

Alan4discussion. Thanks for your response...

I hope you are finding this discussion interesting.

Yes I am. As you said in an earlier post though I'm not sure we're going to agree...As I've said...some of my earlier posts were confusing due to my use of terms...I'm not sure I can make my terms clearer. Now I think our disagreement stems from fundamentally different world-views which requires an unfeasible amount of discussion to overcome.

You have only produced claims and contradictions, too vague to be tested or falsified and no evidence whatever to support them.

This sums up our difference I think....you are a dyed in the wool empiracist...you require empirical evidence to support a claim. The argument I'm presenting is a rational argument...by which I mean it derives its validity (you may think I'm flattering myself here but you take my point I trust) from rational axioms...first principles if you will. I am playing the part of the ancient greek philosopher whereas you are the enlightenment scientist...to use a historical analogy.

My position cannot provide empirical evidence for anything...by definition...it's an argument which addresses the nature of perception itself.

It's a bit like Descartes and his question concerning the nature of what can be known....how do we KNOW that this isn't all just a dream? We can't use empirical evidence since anything we percieve might just be part of the dream itself...what's required is a rational analysis. Basically this is the sort of thing my position addresses...it's not one that makes use of (or can make use of) empirical evidence.

I hope we can simply agree that we differ on this subject.

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:30:45 UTC | #902673

Go to: Tim Minchin song mocking Christ pulled from Jonathan Ross' Christmas special

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by digofthedump

This song is genius...very clever and funny...wrong to prohibit its broadcast after the watershed.

Jonathan Ross tells him he is brave to sing this song on a Christmas show!!....No No Mr Ross!! He would be brave to sing a similar song about Muhammad at any time of year at any point in his career.

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 20:08:29 UTC | #902669

Go to: A very atheist Christmas

digofthedump's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by digofthedump

Alan4discussion. Thanks for your responses... ...It's good to practice the dialectic method...talking to you has made me aware of the short-comings in my use of terms...it happens I suppose when one develops ideas in ones own head that one uses terms which are meaningful to the self but confuse the issue for others who relate the terms to something else.

The word subjective I have used in it's basic sense to mean relating to the capacity to percieve...the 'I' as opposed to 'objective' which I have used to mean the object of perception...the thing which the 'I' percieves....'I see the world'...'I' is subjective...the world is 'objective'. I realise these terms are not perfect...'subjective' and 'objective' have alternate meanings which probably suit the words better....'subjective' can refer to something relating to a person that might not have anything to do with anyone else...'objective' can refer to something that is not dependant on a particular point of view...something that anyone can percieve. Hence forth I'll use the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' in accordance with this latter definition. The basic quality of perception relating to 'that which percieves' I will now refer to as 'the subject' and the quality of perception relating to 'that which is percieved' I will now refer to as 'the object'.

Subjective views and dreams have been repeatedly proved to be unreliable and regularly wrong in relation to material existence. Mental images detached from objectivity are clearly dreamy delusions.

Yes I agree. As per above I've redefined my terms for clarity..the misunderstanding is my fault. I wish to affirm that I'm not suggesting that each individual persons subjective experience (in that it differs from his/her neighbours) has equal claim to 'truth' in an objective sense. There IS such a thing as reality that unites individual subjective perceptions...although I would say this is relative...what we call objective reality could also perhaps be refered to as 'collective subjective reality'. My claim is that ultimately, subject and object are mutually dependant and neither defines reality more than the other.

This is unclear as to if you have shifted the meaning of "subjective" to mean a god, of if you are suggesting the cosmos is a figments of imagination.

The term 'God' I am taking to mean the ultimate subject, the basis of all life and individual subjective experience. It is the impersonal subject upon which the personal subjective experience has it's being. The phrase 'figment of the imagination' is not an unreasonable interpretation but it is not entirely correct for the following reason...It pre-supposes an imagination that creates reality according to its desire. This poses a problem of course...it shifts the problem of complexity back one.

No! rather it would be more accurate to say that the cosmos IS the imagination. The subject and object are mutually dependant remember...it's not logical to consider them seperately.

Please bare in mind that I am not advocating a view of reality that is psychotic...I am not saying that the world outside is a product of the mind...the mind is just as much a product of the world outside...how could it be otherwise? rather, I am saying that the subject and object are ultimately two aspects of the same thing... and that they quite logically mirror one another.

This is simply a confused misunderstanding. No such argument about gods being 747s was ever made by RD. The "whirlwind in a scrapyard creating a 747 by chance", argument, was a creationist argument illustrating their lack of understanding of evolution, which he quoted in his books.

Dawkins did challange the creationist argument about evolution being the equivalent of a whirlwind in a junkyard...but if memory serves he then turned the argument against creationists by claiming that God must be 'the ultimate boeing 747'...his point being that the idea of God doesn't explain anything as God would have to be at least as complex and the thing he was creating. My point is that God is not complex...he is simple...yet still qualifies as the Supreme Being...because reality is subjectively based....and any complexity (be it apparent external sensation or intelligence) is not the basis of life...but the means through which life manifests.

There is no evidence whatever of any supernatural properties or intrusions in the material universe, but there is abundant evidence of spiritual feelings and subjective imagery arising in brains.

According to the argument I have outlined...you are looking in the wrong place for "supernatural...intrusions in the material universe". The point being that the universe ITSELF is 'supernatural' (defined I guess as meaning that the material world is a reflection of the spirit or 'ultimate subject' to use my above terminology). One way of looking at the brain is that it is the symbol used to represent 'mind' to the subject...in other words...brain doesn't produce mind...mind produces brain (actually my view is that, as spoken of above, they are mutually dependant).

There are therefore two ways of viewing reality...one which empasizes the subjective (most religion proceeds from this view) and one which emphasizes the objective (philosophy and materialism proceeds from this view).

Thankyou for saying have a good mid-winter celebration...you too.

Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:43:56 UTC | #902657